Hi,

Having taken about a month long hiatus from ABSQUE ROMA to get some perspective on it, I've come back to make some changes to the design. I'm going to outline the changes below, but you can also get the new version on my website, www.primevalpress.com. There's an HTML version now, which should be more convenient.

There are several changes I'd like to request feedback on:


1. Split of Animus into Romanitas (roughly "Romanness") and Animus.

Animus was the game's universal currency, representing inner drive and self-confidence. I've now split it with the creation of it's quasi-opposite, Romanitas. Romanitas is one's civilized character: drive and determination by Roman standards, as seen by the character himself. Animus becomes "uncivilized" character -- not necessarily barbarous per se, but unrestrained and unrefined passion and motivation. Animus and Romanitas together fuel most of what a character does. Accomplishments that support a drive (was value) give a character animus or romanitas. Either can be spent to give bonuses to task resolution. Thus, what constitutes a "civilized" or "noncivilized" trait depends wholly on how the character views the world, through what his drives are.

Question #1: Is the character-specific distinction between A/R appropriate? Would it perhaps be better to define clearly what key features of Romanitas are? After all, the game is about the decline of civilization -- if you can just redefine it, maybe some of the pressure to fight that decline is lost.

Question #2: How separate do I need to keep these mechanically? Right now the differences are: each derive from particular drives, and can only be spent on related tasks; only Animus can heal a character; while Animus can be gained from "negative" accomplishments, like pursuing a mistress, Romanitas generally cannot; Romantias can isntead be gained by your civitas having qualities you consider Roman. Most of these distinctions are not hard and fast though, but qutie fuzzy. Is more definition needed to make the split worthwhile? Is a split worthwhile?


2. Removal of direct bonuses from actions that support drives (values). Instead you get Animus/Romanitas from doing actually achieving something supportive. This creates an interesting gamble: you can spend A/R to improve your chances on a task, but after a certain point, you won't be able to make the A/R back by winning ? sometimes you won't no matter what. So players need to do things that suport character drives or see them become relatively impotent.

Question: Does this make larger "goals" totally redundant? The difference, as I see, is that goals must be defined ahead of time, with A/R invested into them, and if you fail, it's wasted. So while the return on a Goal is good, it's much more long term since you have to always be working towards it.


3. Move to away from dicefulness. Not diceless, the system simply emphasizes fortune much less. No question here really. The new mechanic is to roll 2d6 and take the higher result. I'm considering altering the number rolled when animus/romanitas is used just for esthetic reasons...but it'll work either way.


4. Doom. The civitas's decline away from Romanitas is handled partly mechanically through black chips that are placed in a pile on the table every session. Every time something bad happens to the civitas, a chip can be removed. If too many chips pile up, then they all have to be used at once: i.e. something really bad happens, probably directly decreasign the citias's virtues.

Question: What other interesting tricks could I do with the basic idea of doom chips? Is there a better way to accrue them beyond X number per session? Is there any way to quantify just how many should be used with a given "bad event"?



Overall I'm trying to streamline play, and also link the different aspects of the mechancis in together, mostly through the central theme of Romanitas vs. barbarity. Any thoughts on how that could be done better, or how I'm failing to do it now, would be appreciated.

As Loki has just pointed out to me, the link to the HTML rule set above is broken. It should be http://www.primevalpress.com/games/ar/AR_IIb.html.

Hello. It may be that there is little interest in this project at the moment, or (more hopefully) that it's present condition is so wildly blissful that no comments can be made that would improve it.... Erring on the former side, but still hoping, I should like to add that I have since made a few additions to the game, including a reworked mechanic, rules that axplain things much better now, and -- most significantly for this post -- some major additions to the idea of Doom and how the game proceeds on a macro level.

There are now several specific effects associated with the passage of time in the game. A brief explanatory quote from the rules:

All civitates must face hard times as the structure of local Roman life disappears around it, allies become scarce, barbarian raiders and settlers close in, and ordinary problems become nigh-insurmountable. In fact, the central theme of ABSQVE ROMA is the maintenance of civilization in the midst of civilization?s otherwise universal decline.

Jasper wrote: Hello. It may be that there is little interest in this project at the moment, or (more hopefully) that it's present condition is so wildly blissful that no comments can be made that would improve it....

Point taken, Eero. I need to do some more "in house" testing anyway -- but it's been a bugger to get enough people together, and AR is really a game than needs at least four.

Somehow I managed to completely miss this thread altogether.

1) I like the split of Animus and Romanitas. However, the direction I'd pursue is a little bit different. I'd allow Animus and Romanitas to both do exactly the same thing mechanically 100%. The only difference is the color associated with how they are done. Are you doing things like a Roman, or are you doing things like a barbarian aka...non Roman. The more you use Animus, the more those around you perceive you as being less Roman. The more you use Romanitas the more those around you perceive you as being Roman. Whether that perception is a good or bad thing is entirely relative to who is around you.

Obtaining Animus and Romanitas is where I'd differentiate them mechanically. I don't think the distinction is "pursuing a mistress" is Animus. After all, Romans spent alot of effort in pursuing mistresses. How the mistress is pursued would be the question. For instance, if you treat your wife like a piece of property and marriage as a social contract...gain Romanitas. If you're married and fulfill your desire for love and romance with a mistress...gain Romanitas. If you have some silly notion about actually being in love with your wife...gain Animus.

That's the distinction I'd make. Mechanically they're identical. Having points in one or the other is simply a question of how Roman you are or aren't.


I also really like the Doom idea. The world is slowly falling apart and the civitas must either try to resist or adapt. Is there a way for the PCs to stave off the doom through their actions? If the Doom comes steadily with every session and no way to avoid it, than I think you have quite a nice representation of reality, but perhaps not the most enjoyable game. Even if the fall is inevitable, how can the players get involved in the struggle?


Have you considered making the civitas the real character? Instead of PCs players can create a whole troupe of leading citizens and characters who can be portrayed at different times for different stories. The story then becomes one of the community rather than individuals...which strikes me as exactly what made Rome, Rome.

I missed this too. Very interesting ideas, IMO.

Ralph, I like the idea of the civitas as a sort of pseudo character. With that, and doom, you get an effect a lot like the game "Republic of Rome." Wherin the player has a constant pressure to help Rome, and a contradictory pressure to help himself. So the premise becomes the classic question of Self-Interest vs. Community Interest, and the strong bond between the two. You can't have Self-Interest without the community. So how much responsibility do you feel as an individual to support the community.

That would make an awesome game. OTOH, Fulminata does this some, doesn't it?

Anyhow, you could say that the community rating is composed of the Romanitas ratings altogether. And the outside pressure, the doom could be rated by the total Animus ratings. Or something like this. Just a thought. Basically, if people don't work together enough, then the end comes. If they only work together, then nobody ever "gets ahead" personally.

Mike

Interesting thoughts, Ralph. The reason behind my original distinction was to promote adherance to Roman ideals -- perhaps the real underpinning of the Roman way of life -- but dependant on character conceptions, so that a particular person could view "marriage as contract" as a chief Roman virtue. Would you continue to allow the definitions of what constitutes a "Roman" or "non-Roman" action to be fluid and up to the character, through his values? Or would you maybe have only one set of values instead of some for Romanitas and others for Animus?


To some degree the civitas already is a character, in that it has various attributes, includign virtues, and I would consider playing multiple characters the norm, albeit with probably one principle character. You're probably right that the rules should encourage paly of several characters, at least on a rotating basis between sessions.

Regarding, "constant pressure to help Rome, and a contradictory pressure to help himself" and "Self-Interest vs. Community Interest": could this maybe be enhanced by altering the Romanitas awards away from supporting Roman-type-values in general to helping the civitas? Maybe get some reward for any kind of value-support, but get more for helping the community, and a lot more when doing both?

I've tried to come up with some interesting way of linking the character values with civitas virtues, but I think the current way is weak and limiting -- if you have the same ones, you get a regular Romanitas award. I like the idea of tying civitas ratings to character Romanitas -- but who would be considered? Just the main characters? Just certain key figures in the community? Another problem is that Romanitas and Animus ratings are constantly in flux: a character might have a very low rating in either one at a given moment, because he's constantly getting in the points and spending them immediately.

I also agree that Doom needs to be limited in some way. In a long-lasting game you could tie it to the date I suppose: after X years of survival, the Doom slacks off and finally goes away -- you win! In a shorter term game, I think the continuing survival of the civitas -- and its virtues -- would have to be the goal for players, as well as completing individual character goals.

I'm still mulling over all this. Good thoughts, guys.

Hmm. I like the idea of the Civita's values being based on those of the characters. Perhaps the players would have to agree on some in common. Then the common ones they share are the Civitas Values, and the others that their individual characters have are their own? Gain Romanitas when supporting Civitas values, and Animus when supporting their own.

The idea is that, then when the Civitas is attacked, then it's a test of the values chosen, and how well the citizens uphold them (which is a test itself).

Mike

So you're proposing three categories of values then: romanitas, romanitas-civitas, and animus?

No.

At the beginning of the game, the players when making their characters together, would come up with values for their characters. They would have to agree on half of these, say, to hold in common. Those that we all hold in common would become the "Civitas Values" as opposed to the "Personal Values". The character holds these values as a member of the Civitas, but they aren't unique to him.

For example, Ralph and I decide to have Strength and Honor as the Civitas Values, and I decide to have Luxury and Ostentatiousness as my character's "Personal Values." Ralph decides to have Warfare and Glory as his character's Personal Values.

So my character has these values:
Strength
Honor
Luxury
Ostentatiousness

And Ralph's has:
Strength
Honor
Warfare
Glory

When either of us does something to emphasize Strength or Honor, the Civitas Values we gain Romanitas, and the Civitas gains power too. When we do something to emphasize our characters' Personal Values, we gain Animus, and the Civitas loses power.

This way the players are not only responsible for creating their characters' values, but those of their vision of Rome. Or at least the ones that they want involved in their story.

Mike

Clever...that has alot of potential...and the added advantage that it doesn't require an exaustive list of Roman Traits to accomplish...just some examples to build on.

I would also add some Civates Traits that aren't on either of our lists...perhaps selected from a list of "core Roman values" that we can elect to adhere to or not.

2 things from just this thread, before I delve into AR a bit on my own:

1. Whatever mechanism for Doom is used, I'd indeed be careful to not limit the possible actions of the players to avert it too much. Because limited options will lead to limited play strategies - and minmaxing, I fear. Of course, you could always go for the pathos of the doom becoming real - but then you're focussing on the character's development and emotions, en doom become less threatening to the player because it's just a tool to describe the setting.

2. On the decline of wealth thing (if that's still in your current incarnation): I haven't read it, but I'd make sure that this event would hurt the wealthiest players the most, instead of the least. Otherwise, players might be tempted to just buy a degree of wealth at character creation, and use it as a sort of hit points - "hey, as long as I'm not at 0, there's no problem". Of course, in such a way that buying wealth at the start isn't actually discouraged - maybe it's a high-risk strategy?

Hope to get some time to read more this week, it's not looking likely though.

Hm. You know the more I think about this idea, the more I like it. At first I was concerned that characters would not be free to define their own version of Romanness. But AR is a game about community, first and foremost, and regardless, I can simply re-style the definition of Animus appropriately. Animus then becomes something of a catch-all for any othe values, with the consequences of acting on them depending on the specific value. For instance, doing something you consider to be moral, even though it isn't a core value of the civitas -- like starting a blood feud over honor -- may or may not bring complications on the character due to this incompatability. While an immoral, compulsive value would logically be more likely to bring about later problems. (And in both cases, just to be clear, I'm talking about shaping the consequences of actions to fit the themes of the game, the value of "civilization," not just real-world logical consequences.)

Defining where values sit it always going to involve some soft and arbitrary lines, but with the system proposed by Mike, there's only one line, and it makes sense for the mechanics of the game. Further lines, drawn in the heads of the players, don't need to have a hard mechanical basis.


As for a mechanic to link character Romanitas values to the strength of the civitas... I'm not sure. An actual attribute that guaged a character's total Romanitas would probably be really useful here, but I can't see much other purpose for it, and am opposed for other reasons as well. I've considered the idea of having an "influence" stat, which describes how much power a character has to alter the thoughts and actions of the people of the civitas, so that an inspiriing leader who himself acted in a Roman way would shift the virtues of the Civitas far more than a random field worker. And the players of course control these influential characters, by and large. This may be heavy handed though. I still want the vast majority of virtue shifts to be the result of specific projects the characters undertake -- not just their actnig as role models through their own Roman behavior.


Tobias,

To address your concerns:

1. I don't think anyone was suggesting limiting character/player actions surrounding Doom, but rather limiting Doom itself, in terms of how inevitable it has to be. And the Doom very much is "real": it accounts for the never-ending problems that face the characters -- not because it's realistic and maps to a real-world force, but because its appropriate to the game's "genre," if you will, and thus is the incarnation of our general sense of time/neglect/chaos/what have you. I wasn't thinking that characters would necessarily have any conception of Doom themselves.

2. That's a good point -- wealthy characters should probably see their vast sums collapse out from under them as foreign investments disappear. At the same time, it was indeed intended to be a "high-risk" strategy, although a necessary one in many cases: wealth is needed at the start of the game to get the civitas going, but sooner rather than later, the characters have to depend only on their own guts and gusto.

Thinking about wealth, I think I might now make a hard mechanic out of what I had thought to handle "softly" with GM/player discretion: I never really intended wealth to die off completely, but merely to shift forms -- instead of currency, it becomes personal access to civitas subsidii. A way to handle this change-over is probably in order.

Thanks for the comments.

...still thinking about how changes in character A/R will affect the civitas and its virtues, but here's a quick thought: How about when a character gains Animus a Doom chip is added to the pile? The civitas doesn't directly suffer from independant behavior from characters, and the players can undo any potential damage by working against the Doom, but it still creates risk.

On the other hand, I'm not absolutely sure about a hard and fast Romanitas => civitas virtue link in general. If I can think of a better incentive for having good virtues, then that will be the carrot -- making character want to pursue virtue, rather than virtue be a natural consequence of Roman behavior.

Sounds to me like it's time for some (more?) Actual Play. I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around what a play session would look like (granted, I still haven't had time to read the full text... sigh)