TheRPGSite

It surprises me sometimes that there hasn't been more of this.

Have you ever run a game set in the Roman Empire or a fantasy equivalent?

I find the Republic much more interesting than the Principate, but even then the Hellenistic era that precedes the Roman rise to power is even more interesting still. Straight history appeals much more than fantasy pastiche of history, which is lazy and shallow for the most part. The real thing is much deeper and more evocative, and you're actually learning real things when you do your research.

I wrote a hack for ACKS to set it in 300BC (Tyche's Favourites (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche's_Favourites)), just after one of the biggest battles of the era when a new even keel was being sought between the powers of the day. Ran a game of it too, the PCs were a group of mercenaries hired to sort out Massalia's militia who then found themselves enmeshed in the local politics.

I've run a couple of games set in Republican Rome using Mythic Rome. It was a political game with the players being friends and allies of a contender for Aedile. Ran it at Seven Hills last March and again for UK Games Expo in June. Well received on both occasions.

I'm about to start (later this year) a short campaign set in the period after Alexander (4th/3rd C BCE) with the players being Greeks in the service of one of his Successors.

Many of my games are historically based. Last year I ran a weekend long game set in 1944 where the players were agents going after V2 rocket sites and happened to come across Mythos-y stuff as well. I've run several games set in the early part of WW2 with a similar premise (something non-Mythos-y to start then things go bad). A couple of years back I did a game based on Guns of Navarone, that classic of Saturday TV viewing of my youth.

I've just finished running 10 weeks of a semi-historical game using every trope from the fantasy films of Ray Harryhausen, great fun.

Mythic Rome (for Mythras/RuneQuest 6 as it was) is one of the best individual supplements I own. I've only ran it with a handful of one-shots though - but I'd like to do a sustained campaign sometime.

There are fantasy elements in there, but it's got a excellently researched historical grounding too. And now I've just picked up Mythic Constantinople too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rQDtjaCY8A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rQDtjaCY8A)

I've done both. I hope to return to it soon when I have a spare moment because it is one of my favorite types of settings (whether it is directly historically or a Roman-inspired analog). I find it is different enough but still familiar enough that most players fall into it pretty easily (and the bits that need to be explained are pretty easy to understand). The last time I ran this kind of campaign was probably back in 2014 so I would need to shake off some rust and refresh my knowledge a bit on the finer details. Personally I like the early empire period. That is partly due to greater familiarity but also I just find that time more appealing.

I, Claudius remains a great model for politicised role-play campaigns, regardless of the era.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1014678I, Claudius remains a great model for politicised role-play campaigns, regardless of the era.

It is definitely one of my favorites.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1014678I, Claudius remains a great model for politicised role-play campaigns, regardless of the era.

Plus you get to imagine playing as Derek Jacobi, John Hurt, Brian Blessed, Patrick Stewart, John Rhys-Davies, etc. (or Siân Phillips, Fiona Walker, Patricia Quinn, Margaret Tyzack, etc., depending).

Mythic Greece seems like it would be a more fertile ground for fantasy gaming than Rome.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1014688Mythic Greece seems like it would be a more fertile ground for fantasy gaming than Rome.

If you want to go mythic have a lot of similar legends and stories. The Aenid has a lot of cool things that could be drawn in. Pomponius Mela also has a lot of material to draw on. Especially if you are doing a fantasy analog, you can take as many of the legendary and mythic elements and crank them up as much as you want.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1014678I, Claudius remains a great model for politicised role-play campaigns, regardless of the era.

Meh, politics of the Principate are boring. It's standard dynastic stuff you see in any regular fantasy game.

In the Republic, you had elections; men bankrupting themselves for the chance to pillage a province and restore their fortunes. Offices only lasted a year, so these were regular occurrences and lots of posts to fight for.

I don't think the Roman era will make it high enough on the priority list before I croak.  Before I do that game, I want to run a quasi-historical fantasy game set between the fall of Rome and the emergence of Charlemagne.

There are two excellent supplements for Rome: the BRP one (I think Mythic Rome (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/194489/) is the current version, the one I have is Rome: Life and Death in the Republic) covering the Republic, and GURPS Imperial Rome (http://www.warehouse23.com/products/gurps-classic-imperial-rome), focusing on the Empire.  I'm a GURPS partisan, but both books are good and I'd recommend them both.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014650It surprises me sometimes that there hasn't been more of this.

Have you ever run a game set in the Roman Empire or a fantasy equivalent?

Yes the first TFT game I played in was set in a fantasy Rome, pretty cool.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014650It surprises me sometimes that there hasn't been more of this.

Have you ever run a game set in the Roman Empire or a fantasy equivalent?

Zenobia, 43 AD, Mercator and Mythic Rome for Mythras are enough for me:).
Though looking at this list, I detect a definite Paul Elliott vibe;).

I'm running a Roman campaign right now. It's set during the republic period just before the Third Samnite War. I made the Etruscans ruled by Evil Vampire Lords who are about to swallow Rome and usher in an era of demonic darkness. The PCs are the remnants of a defeated Latin army, going on a quest to wake a dragon (they don't know that last part). So, they are currently traveling to Delphi in order to discover some of their fate.

It's not closely historical, but it's fun so far.  We're using Castles and Crusades.

Quote from: AsenRG;1014758Zenobia, 43 AD, Mercator and Mythic Rome for Mythras are enough for me:).
Though looking at this list, I detect a definite Paul Elliott vibe;).

He also wrote Warlords of Alexander, which is perfect for the Hellenistic era.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014650Have you ever run a game set in the Roman Empire or a fantasy equivalent?

I playtested Phillip McGregor's (never published) Roman version of Chivalry & Sorcery (SPQR - Pax Romana) back in 1983-1984. My players enjoyed the campaign but not being huge C&S fans (with one exception), they were not huge fans of the rules. That probably helped with playtesting as they probably found more rules issues that way than if they had been real C&S fans. I still have the three books of dot-matrix printed rules and occasionally think of running another campaign of it, but I just don't have the time to due that complex of rules justice any more.

I don't know if I'd ever run a Roman Empire game unless it was something like Asterix.

I would actually argue that most D&D games are more or less Roman fantasy. Higher tech level. But you have the polytheistic churches, you have frontier walled towns beset by barbarians (albeit orcs and monsters, not Germans/French/Picts/Parthians/etc), roadways with inns, people who actually own farms and aren't serfs. But much more freedom than you'd have in a medieval setting where everyone is basically a slave tied to the land or oppressed by the Church.

But ACKS in particular, at least the module I have of theirs, The Sinister Stone of Sakkara is more explicitly so.  It's basically Keep on the Borderlands where the Keep is a Roman style fort in a Mesopotamian region. It's still mostly D&D critters, but it feels very Roman and the dungeon itself looks very much like a real world temple complex. (Really nice module, only drawback it is uses ACKS which I am not a fan of)

Quote from: JeremyR;1014863But much more freedom than you'd have in a medieval setting where everyone is basically a slave tied to the land or oppressed by the Church.

You think that the Roman Empire was some egalitarian state without slaves or rigid social classes?

Quote from: Kiero;1014842He also wrote Warlords of Alexander, which is perfect for the Hellenistic era.

I know, but that's off topic in a Roman thread, IMO:).

Quote from: AsenRG;1014976I know, but that's off topic in a Roman thread, IMO:).

Depends on Roman-when. The Hellenistic era bleeds into the Roman era some time in the 2nd century BC when the Romans start interfering in Greece and Anatolia after the Second Punic War.

Quote from: Kiero;1014977Depends on Roman-when. The Hellenistic era bleeds into the Roman era some time in the 2nd century BC when the Romans start interfering in Greece and Anatolia after the Second Punic War.

By that line of thought, you may as well justify discussing The Celestial Empire;). Because of the Ghost Legion and Li Jian.

I had one campaign, will have to look up my old documents on it to be able to tell what it was about. I remember I put a lot of work into it but one of the players messed it up.

If one was to make a "Roman Era D&D 5e", what kind of changes would one make to the rules? No heavy armor? What weapons would be in vogue for the era and what wouldn't make sense? Probably need lots of shields.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015098If one was to make a "Roman Era D&D 5e", what kind of changes would one make to the rules? No heavy armor? What weapons would be in vogue for the era and what wouldn't make sense? Probably need lots of shields.

Wouldn't some Hellenic, Samnite, and Roman armor still be considered heavy armor, or would it be medium?

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1014883You think that the Roman Empire was some egalitarian state without slaves or rigid social classes?

Pagan Rome had slavery and rigid social classes, but it was nowhere near as rigid and oppressive as Christian Medieval Europe. The fact that the Roman Empire was more urbanized and cosmopolitan than the largely rural society of Medieval Europe alone guaranteed somewhat more social equality and mobility. Not to mention, a Roman setting would be more conducive to adventuring and travel due to improved infrastructure compared to Early Medieval and High Medieval Europe.

Plus religion and culture played a big role as well. Christianity at that time (especially Medieval Catholicism) was a lot more strict, hierarchical, and generally more socially repressive than Greco-Roman Paganism historically was.

Doc Sammy, I am enjoying the new avatar. Give my regards to Aunt Bee.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015104Wouldn't some Hellenic, Samnite, and Roman armor still be considered heavy armor, or would it be medium?

I am not sure. I assumed the armor got better in the middle ages with a knight's full plate.

Quote from: Dumarest;1015139Doc Sammy, I am enjoying the new avatar. Give my regards to Aunt Bee.

I definitely will. The Andy Griffith Show is a classic!

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1015123Pagan Rome had slavery and rigid social classes, but it was nowhere near as rigid and oppressive as Christian Medieval Europe. The fact that the Roman Empire was more urbanized and cosmopolitan than the largely rural society of Medieval Europe alone guaranteed somewhat more social equality and mobility. Not to mention, a Roman setting would be more conducive to adventuring and travel due to improved infrastructure compared to Early Medieval and High Medieval Europe.

Plus religion and culture played a big role as well. Christianity at that time (especially Medieval Catholicism) was a lot more strict, hierarchical, and generally more socially repressive than Greco-Roman Paganism historically was.

Why does everybody believe that there was zero social mobility, travel, or variation in medieval European society? The Roman government had much firmer control over society than the Roman Church ever had over the far flung realms of Christendom.  Feudalism was not some unchanging inflexible monolithic structure. It changed over time, never completely came to fruition, and was vastly different from place to place.  Too many history teachers have been drawing nice simple pyramids so they could cover a vastly complex world with a few simple images in a single lecture.  Medieval society in Europe was a chaotic mess of tribal Germanic, Roman, and Christian elements with the most ubiquitous theme being fragmentation and decentralization.

All that said, I agree with your main point that the Roman world is an equally valid setting for an RPG, just not for the reasons you have given.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015144I am not sure. I assumed the armor got better in the middle ages with a knight's full plate.

Better is likely true, but not lighter. I don't have the data but I believe bronze armor was heavier or about the same weight as a Knight's plate, despite that hellenic-type armor doesn't protect legs and arms. I have more problem with what various Roman armor might be, probably due to various types some would be in all light/medium/heavy categories. I assume if we look though how they got categorized in dozens of RPGs we get a better idea, but that doesn't mean it would be a realistic result (see leather armor & gambeson inaccuracy in RPG)

Quote from: joriandrake;1015191Better is likely true, but not lighter. I don't have the data but I believe bronze armor was heavier or about the same weight as a Knight's plate, despite that hellenic-type armor doesn't protect legs and arms. I have more problem with what various Roman armor might be, probably due to various types some would be in all light/medium/heavy categories. I assume if we look though how they got categorized in dozens of RPGs we get a better idea, but that doesn't mean it would be a realistic result (see leather armor & gambeson inaccuracy in RPG)

A full hoplite's panoply did protect the legs and arms; greaves cover the shins (and some wore plates over the top of the feet as well), there were plates for the front of the thighs, tassets covered the groin; vambraces covered the forearms and again you could add plates for the upper arms. However most of the arm-armour was semi-redundant given the size of the aspis, at least for the left arm.

More pertinently, from about the Greco-Persian Wars onwards, a hoplite's panoply tended to lighten, since mobility was deemed more useful in overall defense, and many hoplites served as marines where all that bronze would be more of a liability. Thus you get this compromise:

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/9c/6a/c49c6acfb0b87bca46e43f1fc9359bfc--greek-mythology-ancient-greek.jpg)

As to bronze itself, it's about 10% heavier than the same volume of steel.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1015123Pagan Rome had slavery and rigid social classes, but it was nowhere near as rigid and oppressive as Christian Medieval Europe. The fact that the Roman Empire was more urbanized and cosmopolitan than the largely rural society of Medieval Europe alone guaranteed somewhat more social equality and mobility. Not to mention, a Roman setting would be more conducive to adventuring and travel due to improved infrastructure compared to Early Medieval and High Medieval Europe.

Plus religion and culture played a big role as well. Christianity at that time (especially Medieval Catholicism) was a lot more strict, hierarchical, and generally more socially repressive than Greco-Roman Paganism historically was.

The Christian church was created by the Roman empire, don't forget, and one's personal freedom may also be a factor whether you had been conquered or not. There may be some evidence of a degree of social mobility in Rome (freed slave status for example) but the social classes were pretty strict and democracy was not really a factor. It was more a question of somebody in a higher station giving you a higher status if they wanted to (as a reward for service). You could argue that this makes a good mechanism for rewarding adventurers in a game, via a patron, but really is it any different to a Medieval King choosing to knight someone?

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015201The Christian church was created by the Roman empire, don't forget, and one's personal freedom may also be a factor whether you had been conquered or not. There may be some evidence of a degree of social mobility in Rome (freed slave status for example) but the social classes were pretty strict and democracy was not really a factor. It was more a question of somebody in a higher station giving you a higher status if they wanted to (as a reward for service). You could argue that this makes a good mechanism for rewarding adventurers in a game, via a patron, but really is it any different to a Medieval King choosing to knight someone?

That is true. While society was still strict and rigid in Rome, the historical record does indicate that being rewarded with a higher social status was more common in Pagan Rome than in the later Christian Roman Empire or the Medieval era (especially the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages) due to both a higher urbanized population and (more likely) the fact that literacy and record-keeping was better in Classical Rome than in early Medieval Europe.  

Part of the reasons why anyone still uses the term "Dark Ages" for the Early Middle Ages is because written records are so sparse that it keeps us "in the dark" on a lot of how society worked when compared to the more well-documented Classical Roman Era or the later parts of the Medieval Era and Renaissance.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015162Why does everybody believe that there was zero social mobility, travel, or variation in medieval European society? The Roman government had much firmer control over society than the Roman Church ever had over the far flung realms of Christendom.  Feudalism was not some unchanging inflexible monolithic structure. It changed over time, never completely came to fruition, and was vastly different from place to place.  Too many history teachers have been drawing nice simple pyramids so they could cover a vastly complex world with a few simple images in a single lecture.  Medieval society in Europe was a chaotic mess of tribal Germanic, Roman, and Christian elements with the most ubiquitous theme being fragmentation and decentralization.

All that said, I agree with your main point that the Roman world is an equally valid setting for an RPG, just not for the reasons you have given.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1015203That is true. While society was still strict and rigid in Rome, the historical record does indicate that being rewarded with a higher social status was more common in Pagan Rome than in the later Christian Roman Empire or the Medieval era (especially the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages) due to both a higher urbanized population and (more likely) the fact that literacy and record-keeping was better in Classical Rome than in early Medieval Europe.  

Part of the reasons why anyone still uses the term "Dark Ages" for the Early Middle Ages is because written records are so sparse that it keeps us "in the dark" on a lot of how society worked when compared to the more well-documented Classical Roman Era or the later parts of the Medieval Era and Renaissance.

Guys, you're comparing different flavours of totalitarian oppressive regimes with predominant role of the religious institutions, and arguing which one is the worst. Seriously?
They sucked differently, but life sucked both in the insulas, and in the servant's quarters of the manor:).

Also, let's not forget the mandatory "Your Favourite Ages Suck!" And it's equally true for both of you:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1015212Guys, you're comparing different flavours of totalitarian oppressive regimes with predominant role of the religious institutions, and arguing which one is the worst. Seriously?
They sucked differently, but life sucked both in the insulas, and in the servant's quarters of the manor:).

Also, let's not forget the mandatory "Your Favourite Ages Suck!" And it's equally true for both of you:D!

I have learned to appreciate your humor, Asen, but it took me a while:D  But nah, I'm not comparing flavors.  I like all kinds.  There just seems to be a rash of misconceptions about medieval society going around right now and it is stuck in my craw.  In fact, it's bugging the shit out of me and my knee-jerk reaction is to correct such errors.  However, I am wrong to jump on Sammy like that as he only stated some basic generalizations that are commonly assumed.

Also, I am surprised you are not pimping 43 AD and Zenobia harder in this thread. Even though the minimalist mechanics are not to my taste, these are treasured games in my collection.  IMO, 43 AD does a better job of transforming a historical period into a RPG setting then any game I know of.  Anyone who wants an example of how to run a historical RPG should read it cover to cover. I thank you for pointing it out to me.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015221I have learned to appreciate your humor, Asen, but it took me a while:D  But nah, I'm not comparing flavors.  I like all kinds.  There just seems to be a rash of misconceptions about medieval society going around right now and it is stuck in my craw.  In fact, it's bugging the shit out of me and my knee-jerk reaction is to correct such errors.  However, I am wrong to jump on Sammy like that as he only stated some basic generalizations that are commonly assumed.

Also, I am surprised you are not pimping 43 AD and Zenobia harder in this thread. Even though the minimalist mechanics are not to my taste, these are treasured games in my collection.  IMO, 43 AD does a better job of transforming a historical period into a RPG setting then any game I know of.  Anyone who wants an example of how to run a historical RPG should read it cover to cover. I thank you for pointing it out to me.

Well, glad you like 43AD:)! But after your recommendation, I can only say "yes, people, 43 AD is as good as Madprofessor says"!

All I want to know is what in the name of Zeus happened to that Spartan's right arm?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014650It surprises me sometimes that there hasn't been more of this.

Have you ever run a game set in the Roman Empire or a fantasy equivalent?

I have, actually. I used 5e and some house rules (Namely Armour as Damage Reduction and the Proficiency for AC for any class that was either a Fighter-Rogue type or Clerics with Heavy Armour or Martial Weapon prof.)

I set it in a fantasy Egypt, with Fantasy Rome having fallen to Barbarians.  All the PC's were former Legionnaires, had a Fighter, Rogue and a Cleric of Bellona on the run.  Lasted about 3 months.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1014676I've done both. I hope to return to it soon when I have a spare moment because it is one of my favorite types of settings (whether it is directly historically or a Roman-inspired analog). I find it is different enough but still familiar enough that most players fall into it pretty easily (and the bits that need to be explained are pretty easy to understand). The last time I ran this kind of campaign was probably back in 2014 so I would need to shake off some rust and refresh my knowledge a bit on the finer details. Personally I like the early empire period. That is partly due to greater familiarity but also I just find that time more appealing.

You'd like Age of Decadence (https://www.gog.com/game/the_age_of_decadence).

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015201The Christian church was created by the Roman empire, don't forget, and one's personal freedom may also be a factor whether you had been conquered or not.

The Christian Church was created in the Roman Empire, but not necessarily by the Roman Empire.

Sure, from Constantine onwards, the Roman Empire took over many aspects of Christianity and made it a state-sponsored and controlled Church, but there were many sects and churches that existed outside of the Roman Empire, or that did not follow the state-Christianity. The First Council of Nicaea was called because there were many different sects at the time, both within and without the Roman Empire. Some sects refused to follow the resulting Nicean Creed.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015162Why does everybody believe that there was zero social mobility, travel, or variation in medieval European society?

Because in the medieval period there were a lot of peasants and most people never traveled more than a few kilometers from their home.

Of course, in the Roman period there were a lot of peasants and most people never traveled more than a few kilometers from their home.

In 18th Century Europe there were a lot of peasants and most people never traveled more than a few kilometers from their home.


That's how it was for all of human history except the very recent advancements of Western Civilization.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1015935Because in the medieval period there were a lot of peasants and most people never traveled more than a few kilometers from their home.

Of course, in the Roman period there were a lot of peasants and most people never traveled more than a few kilometers from their home.

In 18th Century Europe there were a lot of peasants and most people never traveled more than a few kilometers from their home.


That's how it was for all of human history except the very recent advancements of Western Civilization.

You know what, that's the issue with historical settings, which includes more modern ones.  The average person, even now, isn't really different from how people were for the past thousand years.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015936You know what, that's the issue with historical settings, which includes more modern ones.  The average person, even now, isn't really different from how people were for the past thousand years.

But, PCs are not average people, otherwise they wouldn't go adventuring.

NPCs are, by and large, average people, except for adventuring NPCs.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015162Why does everybody believe that there was zero social mobility, travel, or variation in medieval European society?

That one's easy. Blame serfdom.  Sure there were slaves, villeins, cottars, free peasants, etc, but the not-completely-free-half-slave-tied-to-the-land "serf" is what everyone knows, and even then they don't know a tenth of how complex the system of obligations, rights, and restrictions were.

Sure the reality is, some places never really had serfs (like most of Scandinavia) and Normandy gave up serfdom like 200 some years before England did, but the reality also is, for much, if not most of Europe, serfdom existed for centuries during the "Middle Ages", and most people were serfs.

Quote from: soltakss;1015938But, PCs are not average people, otherwise they wouldn't go adventuring.

NPCs are, by and large, average people, except for adventuring NPCs.

As Robin Williams once put it about something else, "Ever hear of General Custer?"  The issue is that in 'real life' or a historical fantasy, there would be a lot of societal pushback and in a historical sense, the 'PC' would lose in that aspect.  There's just too many people who wouldn't accept the individualism that Adventurers.  And I'm not talking about the nobility, or people in charge, only.  It's often the same social class that helps keep people down.

Bear in mind, it's a cultural thing.  In Europe, the Caste system is very strong, even today.  You have your role, and you tend to stick to it.  In America and Canada, 'freedom' was the major motivation for just about every notable historically action in North American.

Quote from: soltakss;1015588The Christian Church was created in the Roman Empire, but not necessarily by the Roman Empire.

Sure, from Constantine onwards, the Roman Empire took over many aspects of Christianity and made it a state-sponsored and controlled Church, but there were many sects and churches that existed outside of the Roman Empire, or that did not follow the state-Christianity. The First Council of Nicaea was called because there were many different sects at the time, both within and without the Roman Empire. Some sects refused to follow the resulting Nicean Creed.

Wasn't it the essential drive of the Roman Empire/Catholic Church to eradicate all the heretics?

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015949Wasn't it the essential drive of the Roman Empire/Catholic Church to eradicate all the heretics?

Eventually, but they tended to leave the Copts and a lot of the eastern sects alone, mainly because they were out of their juridstiction for most of the Christian Roman Empire. I am sure that if they had been part of the Empire, they would have been set upon.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015943Bear in mind, it's a cultural thing.  In Europe, the Caste system is very strong, even today.  You have your role, and you tend to stick to it.  In America and Canada, 'freedom' was the major motivation for just about every notable historically action in North American.

I don't know, I'd need to see some pretty convincing citations to accept that claim. Sure, poor people's children will likely stay poor, rich people's children will likely stay rich, and the Old Boys' Club is in full swing, but it's not like America is any better.

In fact, if we accept for argument's sake that income inequality is a good indicator of a lack of social movement, which seems reasonable to me for general spitballing purposes, the U.S. seems to be actually worse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality) than any European country except Moldova and Macedonia.

Quote from: Premier;1015988I don't know, I'd need to see some pretty convincing citations to accept that claim. Sure, poor people's children will likely stay poor, rich people's children will likely stay rich, and the Old Boys' Club is in full swing, but it's not like America is any better.

I said motivation, not successful.  In Europe, it's accepted, in North America, people have hope to break the cycle.  It's reflective of the cultural mindset, you can see the difference in their media.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016002I said motivation, not successful.  In Europe, it's accepted, in North America, people have hope to break the cycle.  It's reflective of the cultural mindset, you can see the difference in their media.

I suspect that hope, where it exists, is in itself very much a product of class position and identity.

Quote from: TJS;1016027I suspect that hope, where it exists, is in itself very much a product of class position and identity.

No, it's just Cupcake showing he knows nothing about Europe, and making us European posters laugh:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1016083No, it's just Cupcake showing he knows nothing about Europe, and making us European posters laugh:D!

I know, right.

The one thing I've not yet understood about people who mention Europe as this amazing place is that they seem to forget that we live in the Old World. Like, the specific thing is that they don't understand that Class is a thing here. We still fairly rigidly adhere to the whole five-class spectrum (seven if you want to be even more divisive): Lower, Lower-Middle, Middle, Upper-Middle and Upper.

And Middle here means that your father is a barrister, your mother's a doctor etc... (you can add in programmer these days). Essentially, you get to live in St John's Wood or Battersea or Chiswick or even Camden Town but the main breadwinner/s of your house still have to work for a living.

I know that here in London that unless you come from the right family, went to the right schools and university, are going into the right professions, that you will never, ever make it into the higher echelons of society. Like the glass ceiling is a real thing here, even if you're a White male, you will be put down from emerging from "the common stock". Now, you can avert that (to an extent dependent on your mix of the following) with ambition, intelligence, education, work ethic and no small amount of intuition/cunning and people skills but mannn does this city demand from you...

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1016092I know, right.

The one thing I've not yet understood about people who mention Europe as this amazing place is that they seem to forget that we live in the Old World. Like, the specific thing is that they don't understand that Class is a thing here. We still fairly rigidly adhere to the whole five-class spectrum (seven if you want to be even more divisive): Lower, Lower-Middle, Middle, Upper-Middle and Upper.

I'd say that those same class distinctions are prevalent in the US as well though, while less so in other European countries other than the UK.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1016095I'd say that those same class distinctions are prevalent in the US as well though, while less so in other European countries other than the UK.

..and in my experience you'd be wrong.  In the US the socio-economic background you come from endows you with certain cultural behaviors, ones that can be changed, that can make it harder to fit in, but what you were born into has little bearing if you are accepted once you have money.  The divide between have and have-nots grows, and the haves have many more opportunities, and an easier time succeeding to be sure, but in the US,  humble birth is a big positive once you make it big (especially if you support the cultural views and mores of wealthy).  The closest thing we may have in the US to the view of Class in Europe is the distinction there was among the rich with regards to old money versus new money.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1016092I know, right.

The one thing I've not yet understood about people who mention Europe as this amazing place is that they seem to forget that we live in the Old World. Like, the specific thing is that they don't understand that Class is a thing here. We still fairly rigidly adhere to the whole five-class spectrum (seven if you want to be even more divisive): Lower, Lower-Middle, Middle, Upper-Middle and Upper.

And Middle here means that your father is a barrister, your mother's a doctor etc... (you can add in programmer these days). Essentially, you get to live in St John's Wood or Battersea or Chiswick or even Camden Town but the main breadwinner/s of your house still have to work for a living.

I know that here in London that unless you come from the right family, went to the right schools and university, are going into the right professions, that you will never, ever make it into the higher echelons of society. Like the glass ceiling is a real thing here, even if you're a White male, you will be put down from emerging from "the common stock". Now, you can avert that (to an extent dependent on your mix of the following) with ambition, intelligence, education, work ethic and no small amount of intuition/cunning and people skills but mannn does this city demand from you...

Well, you're obviously from a different part of Europe than me:). But here, "class" is pretty much determined by how much you make and who you know, not who your parents are.
Now, your parents sure would provide you with more opportunities and introduce you to the right people. But it's not at all unknown that one changes one's "class", for better or for worse, due to one's own actions;)!
Your lineage is more important in smaller communities, I've found.

Quote from: Xanther;1016100..and in my experience you'd be wrong.  In the US the socio-economic background you come from endows you with certain cultural behaviors, ones that can be changed, that can make it harder to fit in, but what you were born into has little bearing if you are accepted once you have money.  The divide between have and have-nots grows, and the haves have many more opportunities, and an easier time succeeding to be sure, but in the US,  humble birth is a big positive once you make it big (especially if you support the cultural views and mores of wealthy).  The closest thing we may have in the US to the view of Class in Europe is the distinction there was among the rich with regards to old money versus new money.

So going to an Ivy League College doesn't mean anything? People don't get protective of their family name or the area they live in? There aren't exclusive clubs that people are part of, or family guided career paths that are largely down to who-your-parents-know rather than what-you-know? People of the US often delude themselves that they don't have class distinctions, but they do. Moreover, the gap between rich and poor, have's and have-nots is wider in the US than it is in Europe - that's just a statistical fact - while European countries on the whole have a larger proportion of the population identifying among the middle classes also.

Your experience is not a universal thing, you realise, and the perception from the States is often influenced by their own attitudes. Calling Europe the 'Old World' being one of them. Quite a lot has happened in Europe since US Independence!

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1016247So going to an Ivy League College doesn't mean anything? People don't get protective of their family name or the area they live in? There aren't exclusive clubs that people are part of, or family guided career paths that are largely down to who-your-parents-know rather than what-you-know? People of the US often delude themselves that they don't have class distinctions, but they do. Moreover, the gap between rich and poor, have's and have-nots is wider in the US than it is in Europe - that's just a statistical fact - while European countries on the whole have a larger proportion of the population identifying among the middle classes also.

Your experience is not a universal thing, you realise, and the perception from the States is often influenced by their own attitudes. Calling Europe the 'Old World' being one of them. Quite a lot has happened in Europe since US Independence!

Guys this discussion is getting very political. I haven't seen talk of Rome and gaming in a while now.

I and my friends have run & played in some, not usually historical Rome but some fantasy variant.

But more than that, many of our homebrew fantasy worlds are in some places closer to ancient Rome (or Greece, Egypt, Carthage, Gaul, Persia, etc) than medieval Europe, particularly in the variety of gods, religions, cultures, independent city states, nations, empires, etc., compared to historical Europe.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015936You know what, that's the issue with historical settings, which includes more modern ones.  The average person, even now, isn't really different from how people were for the past thousand years.

Well yes, but it is true that after industrialization, overall human mobility increased greatly. With specific jumps after the invention of the railroad, steamships, cars, and airplanes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016536Well yes, but it is true that after industrialization, overall human mobility increased greatly. With specific jumps after the invention of the railroad, steamships, cars, and airplanes.

And paved roads with halfway decent law enforcement, as the first of these steps.

Pagan Rome was awesome, all things considered.

To reply to the original post, I did run a Call of Cthulhu/Cthulhu Invictus game set in the time of Antoninus Pius which ran for about a year and a half.  I think it was some of the best gaming I ever ran.  I shall therefore take the liberty of adding a question to the original post about the enjoyment of the players and the game master--for those who have run gaming set in ancient, pre-medieval settings, was it more or less satisfying than other genres that you have run or played in, and why?

Quote from: wombat1;1016686To reply to the original post, I did run a Call of Cthulhu/Cthulhu Invictus game set in the time of Antoninus Pius which ran for about a year and a half.  I think it was some of the best gaming I ever ran.  I shall therefore take the liberty of adding a question to the original post about the enjoyment of the players and the game master--for those who have run gaming set in ancient, pre-medieval settings, was it more or less satisfying than other genres that you have run or played in, and why?

Personally, much more satisfying. I can't stand anything medieval (or faux-medieval), and I find fantasy pales by comparison to any historical setting for depth. I'm not just doing research when I read up on my historical setting, I'm actually learning something, rather than simply filling my head with fictional stuff. Plus no easy "I win" buttons in the form of magic, so the players had to get creative with what they actually had to hand.

I ran a short lived Dark Ages inspired campaign using an article from Dragon on Heroic Britian (#253 AFAIC). Could be a good answer to what Pundit is posting about.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1016092And Middle here means that your father is a barrister, your mother's a doctor etc...

This sounds like probably Upper Middle, especially the barrister father (high street GPs are often just middle class, but hospital consultants tend to be solidly upper middle), but of course even profession isn't the sole indicator of social class. My upper middle class relatives include a retired teacher - but he taught at a public school. A state school teacher will often be lower middle or middle. A University lecturer might be middle or upper middle, only partly depending on where they work.

Class in Britain is generally as much about ancestry and education as current profession. I knew an upper class chap (baronet's son) who lived a middle class lifestyle during the week - but told me the important thing about London was to always get away at the weekend - to a stately home. He didn't seem aware this wasn't an option for everyone.

Edit: The Roman class system is interesting too. :D Like the traditional English system, largely closed but not entirely, and much easier to understand than most pre-modern societies. The Cursus Honorum provides a nice structure to plots if your PCs are focused on ascending the social hierarchy from equites to senatorial.

The Rome book for Mythras is interesting, but I'll always choose ancient Greece over Rome.

I commonly hear people talking about how they like the Republic better than the Empire. I think they're crazy. The Empire is Rome as we mostly imagine it in mainstream culture. And it had the craziest characters.  The Julio-Claudians would give the Amberites or any of the families in Game of Thrones a run for their money in terms of batshit crazy and devious.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1017216I commonly hear people talking about how they like the Republic better than the Empire. I think they're crazy. The Empire is Rome as we mostly imagine it in mainstream culture. And it had the craziest characters.  The Julio-Claudians would give the Amberites or any of the families in Game of Thrones a run for their money in terms of batshit crazy and devious.

No, the Empire is dull and monotone compared to the Republic, "mainstream culture" latched on to the least interesting period of Roman history. You lose all the rich variety of the many families competing for power in a meaningful sense that the Republic had. Instead of dozens of families of varying lineage, each effectively a faction in their own right, we just have a single one who is in ascendancy at a period of time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1017216I commonly hear people talking about how they like the Republic better than the Empire. I think they're crazy. The Empire is Rome as we mostly imagine it in mainstream culture. And it had the craziest characters.  The Julio-Claudians would give the Amberites or any of the families in Game of Thrones a run for their money in terms of batshit crazy and devious.

I like running games in the early Empire from the time of Caesar and Cleopatra to about the time of Caracalla and Egalabalus. The Republic was founded on the Roman Virtues;

Auctoritas--"Spiritual Authority": The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

Comitas--"Humor": Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

Clementia--"Mercy": Mildness and gentleness.

Dignitas--"Dignity": A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

Firmitas--"Tenacity": Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.

Frugalitas--"Frugalness": Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

Gravitas--"Gravity": A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.

Honestas --"Respectibility": The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

Humanitas --"Humanity": Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

Industria--"Industriousness": Hard work.

Pietas --"Dutifulness": More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

Prudentia --"Prudence": Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

Salubritas --"Wholesomeness": Health and cleanliness.

Severitas --"Sternness": Gravity, self-control.

Veritas --"Truthfulness": Honesty in dealing with others.

These are the qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world.

 Caracalla and Egalabalus were both extremely corrupt. Caracalla killed his own brother to keep the throne, massacred what remained of the leadership of Alexandria, and looted Alexander's Tomb. He is remembered as being one of the most tyrannical and evil emperors of Rome. He was stabbed to death by Justin Martialis, one of his own soldiers who held a grudge. The story goes like this;

In the Spring of 217, April 8th to be exact, Caracalla set off with his personal bodyguard from Edessa to meet up with his Legions at Carrhae. He was planning on launching a campaign against the Parthians, Caracalla was actually popular with his Legions, especially his bodyguard. His personal bodyguard unit was called The Lions, and was composed of Scythians, and Germans, for Caracalla (for good reasons) did not trust the Praetorians, or any other Roman soldiers to protect him. These bodyguards were former prisoners who had been slaves before Caracalla had taken them from their Roman master, armed them, given them the same privileges and pay as centurions, and had made them his closest companions.

Some distance along the road, the column came to a halt for a rest break. Caracalla dismounted and stretched his legs, around him, others followed suit. A mature soldier named Julius Justin Martialis now approached the emperor on foot, looking as if he wanted to discuss something with him. Martialis was a retired legionary now serving in the Evocati militia. Apparently, living in the East after leaving his Legion, he had been recalled for service for Caracalla's campaign. Martialis had recently asked the emperor for a promotion to Centurion, but his request had been denied.

Coming up to Caracalla, Martialis leaned close, as if about to confide something to him, and then jabbed him with a small dagger. No one saw the strike, and Martialis hurried away. Only when the Emperor collapsed to the ground was the alarm raised among the bodyguards. Martialis, instead of throwing his weapon away, kept hold on it, and a Scythian of the Lions bodyguard. Seeing the bloodied blade in his hand, launched a javelin at him as he tried to make his escape. The Javelin transfixed the assassin, who fell down dead.

But Caracalla was not dead. As soldiers and staff crowded around the seriously wounded emperor on the roadway, two tribunes of the Praetorian Guard, the brothers Aurelius Nemesianus and Aurelius Apollinaris, pushed through the crowd and huddled over Caracalla. But instead of helping him, the brothers finished the job, killing the Emperor . Like other mad emperors before him, notably Caligula and Commodus, Caracalla died at the hands of his own people.

According to Cassius Dio, who was with the Imperial party in Mesopotamia at the time, all three of Caracalla'a assailants had been put up to the deed by Caracalla's prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Marcus Opellius Macrinus.

Macrinus had already been in secret communications with the troops stationed throughout Mesopotamia, promising to end the unpopular war with the Parthians, which the legions considered 'especially burdensome'. For three days following the assassination of Caracalla, Macrinus kept a low profile. Then on April 11th which happened to be the birthday of the late and well remembered Emperor, Septimius Severus, Macrinus was hailed by the soldiers of the Eastern Legions as their new Emperor.

At 53 years old. Macrinus was a native of Mauretania in North Africa (Berber Cavalry), and even wore an earring as the Moors did. Of Equestrian rank at the time of Caracalla's death, Macrinus became the first man to obtain the Roman throne without having been a senator. To keep his word to the army that he would end the Parthian war, Macrinus immediately sent a message to the Parthian King, Artabanus V, together with freed Parthian prisoners, hoping to bring about a peace treaty between them. In response, Artabanus demaned that Rome rebuild all the cities and fortresses that they had destroyed throughout Parthia, make large financial reparations, and then withdraw entirely from Mesopotamia.

Macrinuis had barely received this haughty proposal when he learned that Artabanus and a large Parthian army of mounted archers and heavy cataphracts, including camel units, was advancing on the Roman headquarters at Nisibis. There the two armies warily camped opposite each other beside a water source. Before long, blows were exchanged were exchanged between the Romans and the Parthians over control of the water. This soon exploded into a full scale battle outside the Roman camp.

Macrinus himself, who was described as 'exceedingly timorous' by Dio apparently panicked when the tide of battle turned against his troops. When it looked as if the Roman camp would fall, Macrinus departed with his Praetorian entourage, leaving his soldiers to their own devices.

The non-combatants in the Roman camp, the armor bearers and the baggage attendants, then rushed out of camp and charged the Parthians who, thinking these men were armed Roman reinforcements, withdrew.

The onset of night saved the Roman army from total defeat, but the flight of Macrinus dejected the troops he had deserted, and they were subsequently 'conquered'  by the Parthians. Macrinus then purchased an end to the war, paying 200 million sesterces in gifts and cash to the Parthian king and the nobles around him. Macrinus also ceased operations against Tiridates, the Armenian King, who had won the support of the Parthians. Macrinus even sent Tiridates a crown recognizing his sovereignty over Armenia. Both sides then withdrew from Mesopotamia, with the Parthians returning to their own territory, and the Romans pulling back to Syria.

Macrinus lasted less than a year as the Roman Emperor, when the Roman Senate learned of his deception and 'negotiated' peace, they divided and a new faction was formed that supported the Severan Elagabalus, also known formerly as Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus, and after being crowned Roman Emperor he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. After his death he was declared an enemy of Roman and was known thereafter as Elagabalus, named after the Syrian God that he had tried to replace the Roman God Jupiter with in the Pantheon.

Elagabalus developed a reputation among his contemporaries for extreme eccentricity, decadence, and zealotry. This tradition has persisted, and with writers of the early modern age he suffers one of the worst reputations among Roman emperors. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote that Elagabalus "abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures and ungoverned fury". According to Barthold Georg Niebuhr, "The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others" because of his "unspeakably disgusting life". His unstable reign has also been marked as a major point leading to the eventual Fall of the Western Roman Empire.

By 221 Elagabalus' eccentricities, particularly his relationship with Hierocles, increasingly provoked the soldiers of the Praetorian Guard. When Elagabalus' grandmother Julia Maesa perceived that popular support for the emperor was waning, she decided that he and his mother, who had encouraged his religious practices, had to be replaced. As alternatives, she turned to her other daughter, Julia Avita Mamaea, and her daughter's son, the thirteen-year-old Severus Alexander.

On the 11th March 222  (...remember, beware the Ides of March!) Elagabalus publicly presented his thirteen year old cousin Alexander Severus, along with his own mother, Julia Soaemias. On their arrival the soldiers started cheering Alexander while ignoring Elagabalus, who ordered the summary arrest and execution of anyone who had taken part in this display of insubordination. In response, members of the Praetorian Guard attacked Elagabalus and his mother:

He made an attempt to flee, and would have got away somewhere by being placed in a chest had he not been discovered and slain, at the age of eighteen. His mother, who embraced him and clung tightly to him, perished with him; their heads were cut off and their bodies, after being stripped naked, were first dragged all over the city, and then the mother's body was cast aside somewhere or other, while his body was thrown into the Tiber. (...Remember that the next time you are in Rome!)
Following his assassination, many associates of Elagabalus were killed or deposed, including his lover Hierocles. His religious edicts were reversed and the stone of Elagabal was sent back to Emesa in Syria. Women were again barred from attending meetings of the Senate. The practice of damnatio memoriae--erasing from the public record a disgraced personage formerly of note--was systematically applied in his case.

All of this I just wrote about happened over the course of just ten years.

There were many in the Senate that wanted to return to the virtues of the Republic, however they were not steadfast in their own virtues. Most of the really good stories (and the best role-playing opportunities) occur in the Era of the Roman Empire where an individual has to decide whether to embrace the corruption of an Empire full of corrupt leaders, or to remain true to the priniciples of the Roman Republic and risk being declared an outlaw and enemy of the state, or even worse.

This corruption, and the Empire that formed because of it, didn't really start with with Augustus Caesar who had ably led his armies, fought great battles, and then bought his way to become Emperor, but instead with his Assassins, composed of the entire Roman Senate who conspired to unlawfully depose their previously elected Emperor. Another words, the virtuous Roman Senate of the Republic, ended the Republic when they went back on their word. Not just some of them. All of them.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1017237This corruption, and the Empire that formed because of it, didn't really start with with Augustus Caesar who had ably led his armies, fought great battles, and then bought his way to become Emperor, but instead with his Assassins, composed of the entire Roman Senate

You mean Julius Caesar, not Augustus?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1017237This corruption, and the Empire that formed because of it, didn't really start with with Augustus Caesar who had ably led his armies, fought great battles, and then bought his way to become Emperor, but instead with his Assassins, composed of the entire Roman Senate who conspired to unlawfully depose their previously elected Emperor. Another words, the virtuous Roman Senate of the Republic, ended the Republic when they went back on their word. Not just some of them. All of them.

Nah, it was begotten with the murder of the Gracchi, grew under Marius and Sulla, and was fully-formed by the Triumvirate.  The paranoia and stupid actions of the Optimates concerning the the Populists sealed the doom of the Republic.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1017276Nah, it was begotten with the murder of the Gracchi, grew under Marius and Sulla, and was fully-formed by the Triumvirate.  The paranoia and stupid actions of the Optimates concerning the the Populists sealed the doom of the Republic.

Indeed, the Gracchi marked the first time debt forgiveness and adjusting the franchise became a viable platform to stand on (not to mention potentially ruling from the Tribunate), and you can't ignore the fundamental breakdown that came with the civil war between Marius and Sulla.

Quote from: S'mon;1017272You mean Julius Caesar, not Augustus?

Julius Caesar wasn't an Emperor. He established himself a a Dictator (that was literally his title), but the Empire wasn't established by him but by his adopted heir, Octavian (who changed his name to Augustus) after he defeated Mark Antony.

Quote from: Dumarest;1017051The Rome book for Mythras is interesting, but I'll always choose ancient Greece over Rome.

You know there is one of hose coming for Mythras as well?

Quote from: Raleel;1017520You know there is one of hose coming for Mythras as well?

I was not aware of that; I had only seen Constantinople was coming out.

There's also Mythic Mesopotamia coming but 'After the Vampire Wars' by John Snead  is the next one up AFAIK (February). It's modern urban fantasy about playing gifted humans, vampires, fey, werewolves. It's a rewrite of the similar work put out by Chaosium but revamped for Mythras.

What I really find great about Design Mechanism is that they put out a scenario/adventure for one of their lines almost every month. Helps enormously in boosting their prescence in a crowded field.

This whole Empire versus the Republic thing is about as stupid as the argument we had over Celtic versus Roman culture a while ago. These folks are thousands of years dead. It doesn't really matter. You can like both, or prefer one over the other. I like the Early Empire, but I understand the appeal of the Republic and it makes sense to read about both if you have any interest in Rome. I certainly wouldn't object to a game set during the Republic (plenty of interesting things going on at that time). Which era you prefer doesn't say anything about you, your character or your expertise on the subject.

Quote from: Dumarest;1017529I was not aware of that; I had only seen Constantinople was coming out.

Pete Nash has been on/off working on Mythic Greece for years. It was one of the annoyances of the whole new Chaosium canning RuneQuest 6 that Mythic Greece had actually been put on the back burner so that Pete could write up the Glorantha book for RQ6. This was eventually done but the license was lost before it could be published - meaning that, in effect Mythic Greece was stymied in development for nothing in the end.

For me, with the emphasis on Cults, Mythras is tailor made for Mythic Greece. Mythic Rome and Mythic Constantinople are pretty excellent settings also however, and if we see titles like Mythic Mesopotamia, etc also mooted down the line we have an awesome set of historical supplements.

After the Vampire Wars is basically True Blood, insofar that it's a dark urban fantasy about playing-the-monsters in a society where they are openly presented to humanity (rather than existing in a masquerade).

Quote from: Kiero;1017222No, the Empire is dull and monotone compared to the Republic, "mainstream culture" latched on to the least interesting period of Roman history. You lose all the rich variety of the many families competing for power in a meaningful sense that the Republic had. Instead of dozens of families of varying lineage, each effectively a faction in their own right, we just have a single one who is in ascendancy at a period of time.

The details and stories of the Imperial dynasties, and the periods of chaos in between, are spectacular.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1017276Nah, it was begotten with the murder of the Gracchi, grew under Marius and Sulla, and was fully-formed by the Triumvirate.  The paranoia and stupid actions of the Optimates concerning the the Populists sealed the doom of the Republic.

I'll definitely agree that the most interesting part of the Republic was how it died. Of course there's all kinds of material and adventure in that.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1017540Pete Nash has been on/off working on Mythic Greece for years. It was one of the annoyances of the whole new Chaosium canning RuneQuest 6 that Mythic Greece had actually been put on the back burner so that Pete could write up the Glorantha book for RQ6. This was eventually done but the license was lost before it could be published - meaning that, in effect Mythic Greece was stymied in development for nothing in the end.

For me, with the emphasis on Cults, Mythras is tailor made for Mythic Greece. Mythic Rome and Mythic Constantinople are pretty excellent settings also however, and if we see titles like Mythic Mesopotamia, etc also mooted down the line we have an awesome set of historical supplements.

After the Vampire Wars is basically True Blood, insofar that it's a dark urban fantasy about playing-the-monsters in a society where they are openly presented to humanity (rather than existing in a masquerade).

I'm all for Mythic Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and so on. Really I find real-world mythological settings much more interesting than anything anyone has ever made up for D&D or RuneQuest and other fantasy games. I'd love to see a whole array of books in this vein from Zimbabwe to the Aztecs, from Scandinavia to Vietnam. I imagine the market disagrees given the paucity of such publications aside from a handful of GURPS books. As for urban fantasy vampire stuff, I have zero interest in that sort of thing. Mythic Transylvania, maybe!

When GURPS shifted to fourth edition, it was stated that they weren't going to do any more historical setting books as they didn't sell enough, so it's good that we have a game (Mythras) that has made enough of a niche on these well researched books - which can still have an overlay of fantasy if people want. Thing is, settings like Mythic Constantinople are as exotic and as interesting as any fantasy setting bar none. There are even vampires in the city...

In a big sense, I agree with Kiero - I tend towards historical settings (occasionally with magic, often without) because I feel it's more "grounded", even when I'm heavily diverging from it.

Now, on topic. I've run Roman Republic games a lot (maybe 4 times?) and one in the Late Empire (as the Western Empire falls apart) and once at the end of the Eastern Empire (as Mehmet II takes Constantinople). For the most part, I focus on times of strife. Like, on game was the players as soldiers in the 2nd Punic War. Another game was them joining Sulla as he moved to take Rome. A third game was the players in Roman Africa as Rome started to withdraw itself. the fourth was them as a down and out noble family in Constantinople trying to decide to join a rebel movement against the Ottomans or tie their star to the burgeoning new empire (after all, Mehmet later claimed to be the Kaiser-i-Rum). Fun times!

Game system-wise, I've used in no particular order: GURPS, Reign, Fate, and 2nd Edition AD&D. Once my Genesys book arrives, I've an idea to adapt that to a Roman setting once again, since I can use the Mass Combat rules in one of the FFG SW splatbooks. So, Rome still has its claws in me.

I can also say I've played with the historocity. Like, in my Punic Wars game, I made the supposition that noble women were allowed political careers (to wit, the Rape of Lucretia gave Brutus the idea to make himself and a prominent woman the first Consuls, in order that what happened under the power of the Kings (and princes...) could never happen again, blah blah blah). That was hard because it upended a lot of things the time period takes for granted. Still, fun (and largely done because I had two women at the table, and wouldn't it be weird to say "You get to do nothing fun! Haha!"; also a bit of precedent, since lower level women did all the same jobs as men, save for mining and sailing and soldiering; the Vestals, for example, employed women plumbers to fix the pipes at the Domus Publica).

Quote from: StanTheMan;1018220(and largely done because I had two women at the table, and wouldn't it be weird to say "You get to do nothing fun! Haha!"

I know it's a radical thought, but you could always let them play male PCs. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1018239I know it's a radical thought, but you could always let them play male PCs. :D

Could. But the ones in questions weren't into that, so, no dice, as it were. After all, they wanted to do the same gaming/power fantasy as the rest; themselves, but in THIS setting doing THESE things. As far as I'm concerned, why not?

Quote from: StanTheMan;1018241Could. But the ones in questions weren't into that, so, no dice, as it were. After all, they wanted to do the same gaming/power fantasy as the rest; themselves, but in THIS setting doing THESE things. As far as I'm concerned, why not?

Fine by me, I like power fantasy and I certainly seek to accommodate my female players' fantasies as much as my male players. :)

It is really a pity that the historical GURPS books sold poorly. They were amazing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1018844It is really a pity that the historical GURPS books sold poorly. They were amazing.

Yes, I agree completely; they were/are right in my wheelhouse. And they go for crazy prices sometimes in the secondhand books market. But everybody wants their goddam dragons, zombies, and magic items.

Quote from: Dumarest;1018874Yes, I agree completely; they were/are right in my wheelhouse. And they go for crazy prices sometimes in the secondhand books market. But everybody wants their goddam dragons, zombies, and magic items.

But then there is this in Suetonius:

QuoteHe [the Emperor Tiberius] had among his pets a serpent [in some translations dragon], and when he was going to feed it from his own hand, as his custom was, and discovered that it had been devoured by ants, he was warned to beware of the power of the multitude. (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Tiberius*.html)

I recall seeing a passage in Pliny which suggests that the Emperor Claudius had to have another dragon put down by the Praetorians when it got a bit uppity, but I cannot now find it.  Still, you too can have a dragon in your Roman-era fantasy if you wish, though, as one of my players suggested:

"It can't be much of a dragon if it was eaten by ants."

And another replied, "well, we haven't seen the ants yet, either."

Quote from: wombat1;1018889But then there is this in Suetonius:



I recall seeing a passage in Pliny which suggests that the Emperor Claudius had to have another dragon put down by the Praetorians when it got a bit uppity, but I cannot now find it.  Still, you too can have a dragon in your Roman-era fantasy if you wish, though, as one of my players suggested:

"It can't be much of a dragon if it was eaten by ants."

And another replied, "well, we haven't seen the ants yet, either."

Not sure what you're addressing here since we were talking about historical settings, not fantasy versions.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1018844It is really a pity that the historical GURPS books sold poorly. They were amazing.

This is the prime example of why history gaming doesn't sell outside of war gaming.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1018980This is the prime example of why history gaming doesn't sell outside of war gaming.

I blame a mental block among gamers. You add a touch of fantasy to a historical game, and it does just fine. Dark Albion is a case in point.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1019168I blame a mental block among gamers. You add a touch of fantasy to a historical game, and it does just fine. Dark Albion is a case in point.

It's not a mental block, it's a lack of imagination.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1019168I blame a mental block among gamers. You add a touch of fantasy to a historical game, and it does just fine. Dark Albion is a case in point.

Quote from: Kiero;1019191It's not a mental block, it's a lack of imagination.

While I tend to agree with Kiero, let's just call it "mental block" for politeness' sake:D!

Quote from: Kiero;1019191It's not a mental block, it's a lack of imagination.

Yes. Ironically roleplayers on average seem to have very little imagination or desire to do more than just the same old vanilla fantasy. It puzzles me as much as the fat neckbeards who think they are experts on martial arts and swordmanship because they watched some Chinese and Japanese movies.

I'm not as polite as Asen.

Well, I think the times are changing:). The vanilla fantasy thing was certainly a problem at some point, but doesn't seem to be such a big one now!
To clarify, I'm judging by the games I see people playing online.
Sure, d20 games are still more numerous, but lately people seem more willing to go beyond vanilla settings. So I see no reason to be less than polite;)!

Well, the reason I say it's a mental block is that just adding a tiny bit of fantasy makes it suddenly acceptable to play a game that's 80-90% historical.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1019987Well, the reason I say it's a mental block is that just adding a tiny bit of fantasy makes it suddenly acceptable to play a game that's 80-90% historical.

Because it allows people to 'change' history, rather than re-enact it.  It's a silly hang up but that's how a lot of players think in my experience (anecdotal.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1019987Well, the reason I say it's a mental block is that just adding a tiny bit of fantasy makes it suddenly acceptable to play a game that's 80-90% historical.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1019990Because it allows people to 'change' history, rather than re-enact it.  It's a silly hang up but that's how a lot of players think in my experience (anecdotal.)

I think it's even more fundamental than that.  When you're playing 100% historical, you're faced with the fact that in real life, you're probably not a hero and probably not doing awesomely interesting things.  If you were, you'd be out doing them and too busy to roleplay.  You don't have the wealth to follow your interests 24/7 or the freedom or courage to just set off and walk around the world with a backpack.  

Every cool thing your character does reminds you that you could do similar things...you're just not.

Add magic in, even minor, and BAM, fantasy.  Now nothing that happens in that game says anything about you, your situation, your limitations, your decisions in life, whatever.

Even a game without magic can have genre rules that turn it into "fantasy", because you're a cinematic/pulp/literary protagonist, and again, you get that distance.

In addition, Magic, as well as High Tech, acts as a force multiplier.  It allows players to reinforce that "difference" between themselves and their character, even in a very mundane, 99% historical/real life setting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1020024I think it's even more fundamental than that.  When you're playing 100% historical, you're faced with the fact that in real life, you're probably not a hero and probably not doing awesomely interesting things.  If you were, you'd be out doing them and too busy to roleplay.  You don't have the wealth to follow your interests 24/7 or the freedom or courage to just set off and walk around the world with a backpack.  

Every cool thing your character does reminds you that you could do similar things...you're just not.

Add magic in, even minor, and BAM, fantasy.  Now nothing that happens in that game says anything about you, your situation, your limitations, your decisions in life, whatever.

Even a game without magic can have genre rules that turn it into "fantasy", because you're a cinematic/pulp/literary protagonist, and again, you get that distance.

In addition, Magic, as well as High Tech, acts as a force multiplier.  It allows players to reinforce that "difference" between themselves and their character, even in a very mundane, 99% historical/real life setting.

That's only true if the historical premise is "you play an ordinary peasant/serf/commoner/slave in this period". See again "lack of imagination".

I ran a straight historical game, the premise was explicitly "the PCs are all experienced mercenaries and their retinues", which avoided all of those things you've described.

Quote from: Kiero;1020027That's only true if the historical premise is "you play an ordinary peasant/serf/commoner/slave in this period". See again "lack of imagination".

I ran a straight historical game, the premise was explicitly "the PCs are all experienced mercenaries and their retinues", which avoided all of those things you've described.

You missed my point.  
My point was not:
"Historical gaming will be boring playing people who live in drudgery like you do in real life."
My point was:
"Historical gaming with interesting PCs reminds you that your real life could be a lot more interesting, it just isn't."

I'm not saying your "lack of imagination" argument is wrong, I certainly think a lot of people think the first.  Which was kind of the point of the other thread, to get the historians to show us how cool it could be.

I just think there are other factors at work as well.  People want varying levels of Escapism out of their RPGs, and once you toss in magic or high tech, you hit a whole different bracket of Escapism.

True enough, it's escapism of a different (smaller) order of magnitude.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1020024I think it's even more fundamental than that.  When you're playing 100% historical, you're faced with the fact that in real life, you're probably not a hero and probably not doing awesomely interesting things.  If you were, you'd be out doing them and too busy to roleplay.  You don't have the wealth to follow your interests 24/7 or the freedom or courage to just set off and walk around the world with a backpack.  

Every cool thing your character does reminds you that you could do similar things...you're just not.

Add magic in, even minor, and BAM, fantasy.  Now nothing that happens in that game says anything about you, your situation, your limitations, your decisions in life, whatever.

Even a game without magic can have genre rules that turn it into "fantasy", because you're a cinematic/pulp/literary protagonist, and again, you get that distance.

In addition, Magic, as well as High Tech, acts as a force multiplier.  It allows players to reinforce that "difference" between themselves and their character, even in a very mundane, 99% historical/real life setting.

I once had to transcribe the personal journal of a woman who lived in Lynn during the late 1800s. It was very interesting to read what she did on a daily basis, I learned a lot about how she got around, the spiritualist movement and the significance of public lectures. But it would have made a terrible RPG if I didn't throw in some drama or make her more important. But I don't think anyone believes doing authentic historical gaming means you have to enforce the drudgery of daily life. Heck most history books tend to focus on things that are exciting, interesting or exceptional in some way.

There are plenty of gamers, including me, with an interest in historical subjects, but little inclination to explore that interest via roleplaying.  Attributing that taste to lack of imagination is the biggest demonstration of a lack of imagination in this topic, as it is a very simple, easily observable part of human nature in all kinds of situations.  

It would be much more accurate to say that many gamers find that their tastes in roleplaying lean more to myth than reality.  It's not that reality isn't interesting.  It often is, even often more so than myth.  It's not necessarily the kind of interesting that someone wants in their entertainment, though.  There's a reason why those supplements are titled "Mythic" X, even if their basis is rooted strongly in history.

My experience is also that gamers require at least a token amount of fantasy, even though pure historical would be only mildly different.

Still, there are times when the mix of fantasy and historical can be multiplying instead of just throwing in a requisite. Apropos of Roman gaming, one of my favorite characters was from a GURPS Fantasy game set in a fantasy reincarnation of the Roman empire. He was a Romanized elf, who enthusiastically embraced Roman culture as 1000% superior to the tree-hugging nonsense of his elvish brethren. He worked as a merchant and was trying to accumulate enough wealth to buy some land and become a true Roman citizen. He had taken the name of Antonius Publius Eldarus.

I think it counts as Roman era fantasy, though it wasn't very historical.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1020024I think it's even more fundamental than that.  When you're playing 100% historical, you're faced with the fact that in real life, you're probably not a hero and probably not doing awesomely interesting things.

In my experience it's more that all the cool stuff cannot be done by the PC's, because anything really noteworthy would be in the history books. It's a millstone around the players neck because they'll never be as cool in or out of their imaginations.  It's like it's the worst case of GMPC taking over the campaign!  Except that these were real people!

Also, it's a bit of a burden on the GM because they have to limit the campaign in a way that doesn't overly affect the world around them too much, or it becomes fantasy with or without magic.  Now, there's nothing wrong with that sort of campaign but a lot of people would rather go somewhere that they don't have to worry about 'stepping' on any toes.  And fantasy is often simplest for that.

As always, Your Mileage WILL Vary.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1020260In my experience it's more that all the cool stuff cannot be done by the PC's, because anything really noteworthy would be in the history books. It's a millstone around the players neck because they'll never be as cool in or out of their imaginations.  It's like it's the worst case of GMPC taking over the campaign!  Except that these were real people!

Also, it's a bit of a burden on the GM because they have to limit the campaign in a way that doesn't overly affect the world around them too much, or it becomes fantasy with or without magic.  Now, there's nothing wrong with that sort of campaign but a lot of people would rather go somewhere that they don't have to worry about 'stepping' on any toes.  And fantasy is often simplest for that.

As always, Your Mileage WILL Vary.

It doesn't become fantasy, it becomes alt-history if you make a big enough change.  Still, I wouldn't want to play in any form of game in which you couldn't make that type of change.

Kind of sounds like what we were talking about over in the AiME thread about there being plenty to do even if you're not the Fellowship.  Which is interesting, because maybe Middle-Earth is SO detailed and omnipresent that it actually crosses a line somewhere causing the same reaction people have when faced with real history.  I think Tolkien would have liked that.

You see, from the GM's standpoint, the PCs are always stepping on toes, they just don't know it until they start seeing the pushback.   Stepping on toes is practically a job requirement.  The only difference in a highly detailed environment like Middle-Earth or real history, is that the players know the toes are there.

You've highlighted one of the major stumbling blocks people seem to have with history, which is based on a misapprehension. Firstly, that we have a comprehensive record of everything that took place, leaving no room for license. Secondly, that what is recorded is the unvarnished truth, which leaves no room for interpretation or variation. Neither of those is true, and the historical record becomes less authoritative the further back we go.

To the first, the further back in time you go, the more fragmented the literary and other non-archaeological sources become. It becomes a question of the best educated guesses to fill the ever-expanding blanks between what has survived and trying to build a coherent picture from it. As someone interested in antiquity, this is particularly acute, where the fire at the Great Library of Alexandreia destroyed a great wealth of information, but also that many cultures simply didn't record anything that's useful to us beyond an understanding of government administration.

To the second, the notion that a historian's job is to provide an objective and truthful record of what has gone before is an incredibly modern conceit. In the past, at best a historian's only bias might be to tell a good story. More often, it was to hammer home a political point (like "look how bad democracy and demagogues are!") or to fawn over the ancestors of the patron who was paying them. So a lot of reading historical antiquity is as much about knowing when particular sources are reliable, and how to judge who is better on a particular topic.

So in summary, I reject this notion that doing a historical game means being constrained by the "historical record". Even the most cursory reading of any history would demonstrate how fallacious this idea is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1020293It doesn't become fantasy, it becomes alt-history if you make a big enough change.  Still, I wouldn't want to play in any form of game in which you couldn't make that type of change.

Kind of sounds like what we were talking about over in the AiME thread about there being plenty to do even if you're not the Fellowship.  Which is interesting, because maybe Middle-Earth is SO detailed and omnipresent that it actually crosses a line somewhere causing the same reaction people have when faced with real history.  I think Tolkien would have liked that.

You see, from the GM's standpoint, the PCs are always stepping on toes, they just don't know it until they start seeing the pushback.   Stepping on toes is practically a job requirement.  The only difference in a highly detailed environment like Middle-Earth or real history, is that the players know the toes are there.

I think this is probably correct for most of the players I have had.  They tend to be a "polite bunch" about things like that.  Even though I wouldn't mind if they trashed the setting, they would mind.  They'd feel the same way about a world that I made, if I overtly showed the toes for them to step on.  I'll take the good with the bad on something like this.  It's also a player trait that causes them to get attached to certain setting elements, and then want to protect them.  In a setting I make, they pick those elements because they care about them.  In a preset setting, in their minds, the elements to care about are already picked.  Plus, sometimes I'm surprised by what they pick.  In a preset setting, I am very rarely so surprised.

Edit:  Along those same lines, I guess I should say that if I were so inclined, I could get away with a historical setting if it is sufficiently removed from the interests and knowledge of the players at the table.  Thus my early statement about playing in a period immediately after the fall of the Roman empire.  I'd make it fantasy because that's what I enjoy.  But were I so inclined, I could probably pull of that game as an alt-history one, too.  When everything is crumbled, and the goals are immediate survival, history-altering goals tend to go on the backburner naturally.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1019990Because it allows people to 'change' history, rather than re-enact it.  It's a silly hang up but that's how a lot of players think in my experience (anecdotal.)

Yeah, I think that it's maybe more fundamental than that, it's just that the touch of fantasy somehow feels like it's 'liberating' somehow, that they have permission to have weird things happen or something.

Which is just nonsense, because of course you could run a historical game with some fantasy where PCs were still highly restrained in terms of what they themselves could accomplish, or a purely historical game where the PCs had enormous freedom to alter events.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1020708Yeah, I think that it's maybe more fundamental than that, it's just that the touch of fantasy somehow feels like it's 'liberating' somehow, that they have permission to have weird things happen or something.

I think you've hit on something there.

QuoteSo in summary, I reject this notion that doing a historical game means being constrained by the "historical record". Even the most cursory reading of any history would demonstrate how fallacious this idea is.

Especially, as the poster points out, that large parts of the historical record are poorly recorded, or not at all.  In finding a point in which to set a Call of Cthulhu campaign set in ancient Rome, I hit upon the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius partly because of constraints imposed by the Lovecraftian and other fictional stories I was looking at, and partly because it seemed not so well documented historically as what came before and what came after.  The player characters thus had greater scope to operate, as did I as the keeper in writing scenarios.

And it may or may not be liberating to have weird things happening in such a story, as another poster suggests--there is also the observation in Lovecraft's essay "Notes on Writing Weird Fiction," which suggests the author (or game master) has the problem of maintaining believability for a weird tale:  "Inconceivable events and conditions have a special handicap to overcome, and this can be accomplished only through the maintenance of a careful realism in every phase of the story except that touching on the one given marvel."

This leads me to try to demand more historicity from the historically centered CoC game, rather than less.

Quote from: wombat1;1018889But then there is this in Suetonius:



I recall seeing a passage in Pliny which suggests that the Emperor Claudius had to have another dragon put down by the Praetorians when it got a bit uppity, but I cannot now find it.  Still, you too can have a dragon in your Roman-era fantasy if you wish, though, as one of my players suggested:

"It can't be much of a dragon if it was eaten by ants."

And another replied, "well, we haven't seen the ants yet, either."

The word dragon was used for any number of large reptiles from snakes to iguanas to monitors to crocodiles, so I'd assume he was referring to one of those. As for the ants, maybe druids had Creeping Doom spells in real life. :eek:

Quote from: Elfdart;1021201The word dragon was used for any number of large reptiles from snakes to iguanas to monitors to crocodiles, so I'd assume he was referring to one of those.

People can interpret this in different ways. Fans of purely historical/no fantasy settings use the above approach, saying that dragon must refer to large reptiles. Fans of fantasy settings can say that dragon refers to, well, dragons.

Personally, I go Mythic. Roman mythology is full of monsters, gods and goddesses, magic and so on, so why not have dragons, centaurs, a hydra and so on?

Quote from: wombat1;1020954Especially, as the poster points out, that large parts of the historical record are poorly recorded, or not at all.  In finding a point in which to set a Call of Cthulhu campaign set in ancient Rome, I hit upon the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius partly because of constraints imposed by the Lovecraftian and other fictional stories I was looking at, and partly because it seemed not so well documented historically as what came before and what came after.  The player characters thus had greater scope to operate, as did I as the keeper in writing scenarios.

That is actually fairly well documented period. It is, however, a period that is less well-known by the general public, and by the average gamer, than the Julio-Claudian or Flavians emperors, or the time of Commodus (though that one is mainly thanks to Gladiator).

Anyways, it's a good period to do a CoC campaign because the empire is very stable, but is under the risk of decadence, and it was also when the Roman Secret Service (the Frumentarii) started to operate. It would be pretty easy, I think, to reinvent the Frumentarii (or some special division of them, a kind of Bureau XIII or whatever) as an organization dedicated to investigating mythos dangers to the Empire.

Quote from: Elfdart;1021201The word dragon was used for any number of large reptiles from snakes to iguanas to monitors to crocodiles, so I'd assume he was referring to one of those. As for the ants, maybe druids had Creeping Doom spells in real life. :eek:

True enough and fair enough--so one could easily include in that category of critters an overgrown Komodo Dragon, which would be more than enough to have long day written all over it for our heroes such as they are, and since we are dealing with Call of Cthulhu and have access to serpent people which I admit aren't straight up history but a species of fantasy it can be a bit enhanced to make it even bigger.  Though of course, we still haven't seen the ants.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1021685That is actually fairly well documented period. It is, however, a period that is less well-known by the general public, and by the average gamer, than the Julio-Claudian or Flavians emperors, or the time of Commodus (though that one is mainly thanks to Gladiator).

Anyways, it's a good period to do a CoC campaign because the empire is very stable, but is under the risk of decadence, and it was also when the Roman Secret Service (the Frumentarii) started to operate. It would be pretty easy, I think, to reinvent the Frumentarii (or some special division of them, a kind of Bureau XIII or whatever) as an organization dedicated to investigating mythos dangers to the Empire.

Exactly so, though the thought running through my mind when I wrote it was that the key bit of Cassius Dio is missing, so all manner of possibilities open up.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015073I had one campaign, will have to look up my old documents on it to be able to tell what it was about. I remember I put a lot of work into it but one of the players messed it up.

I actually found the papers for the campaign yesterday, have to read through them and then will post about it.

I enjoy starting a historical Roman campaign, and then letting it run right off the rails using D&D, complete with Magic, Druids, Wizards, and Witches, and Witchcraft. Great Fun!