Republic of Rome LITE
Scott DiBerardino
I've always liked RoR, but have usually had trouble with the poorly
organized rulebook, the scores of niggly little rules, and excessive chit
fiddling. I've taken it upon myself to 'germanify' the game in an attempt to
bring its playing time and 'fiddlyness' down to levels where I can conceive
of playing it again without taking a week off.
I've had little trouble de-chitting the game, mostly by tracking each
faction's holdings as a whole rather than by individual senator. I've also
reduced the numbers quite a bit to make them more manageable. This aspect of
redesign has gone well.
However, there are still lots of chromey rules that really should get the
axe if I'm going to make it possible to finish a period in 60-90 minutes.
Some of the candidates:
Knights: Let's face it, they don't add too much to the game. I can keep
them, as a faction resource, but it seems like a waste of effort; everybody
gets a little more money and a few more votes, but I don't think the game
would suffer much without them.
Pontifex Maximus: This is already an advanced rule, so it can probably go.
If I kept it, I'd simplify by eliminating priesthoods.
Exile and Ransomed Commanders: Doesn't come up that often.
Enemy Leaders: Just another thing to keep track of.
Veteran Legions and Allegiance: I'd really like to keep this one since it's
so important later in the game... I would again simplify it by making it a
faction resource rather than a personal one.
Land Bills: maybe the state can just buy off some unrest? reduce types to
just one?
Individually, few of these rules account for much 'fiddlyness', but together
their effects are compounded... the game has plenty going on already.
So I guess I'm asking all you veteran RoR players:
What do you think could come out of RoR and leave most of the flavor and
decision-making intact?
Please keep in mind the premise when answering the question; answers like,
"Leave it all in!" are rather useless to me :)
-scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
"Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.
Their tastes may not be the same."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Glen E. Bailey Jr.
group gets together for about 4 hours once a week. It would be good
to play at the game store in an afternoon, also. We've never gotten very
far into the game, probably because it took so long and we prefer to play
really big games (i.e., World in Flames) so a one-nighter for a break is
a good thing.
Glen
Brian Bankler
I'm not sure you could pull RoR to 90 minutes and still have an
interesting game. I do think that you may be able to get to 150-180,
though.
Scott DiBerardino wrote:
>
> Here's a design question for all you Republic of Rome fans out there.
>
> I've always liked RoR, but have usually had trouble with the poorly
> organized rulebook, the scores of niggly little rules, and excessive chit
> fiddling. I've taken it upon myself to 'germanify' the game in an attempt to
> bring its playing time and 'fiddlyness' down to levels where I can conceive
> of playing it again without taking a week off.
>
> I've had little trouble de-chitting the game, mostly by tracking each
> faction's holdings as a whole rather than by individual senator. I've also
> reduced the numbers quite a bit to make them more manageable. This aspect of
> redesign has gone well.
>
> However, there are still lots of chromey rules that really should get the
> axe if I'm going to make it possible to finish a period in 60-90 minutes.
> Some of the candidates:
>
> Knights: Let's face it, they don't add too much to the game. I can keep
> them, as a faction resource, but it seems like a waste of effort; everybody
> gets a little more money and a few more votes, but I don't think the game
> would suffer much without them.
Hm. How about giving knights via a card (an event that gives everyone
one) and allowing them to be pressured for a fixed amount? It's a
reasonable
trade off, the speed hit comes from people deciding whether to spend 0-5
Talents.
> Pontifex Maximus: This is already an advanced rule, so it can probably go.
> If I kept it, I'd simplify by eliminating priesthoods.
Puntable.
> Exile and Ransomed Commanders: Doesn't come up that often.
Ditto.
> Enemy Leaders: Just another thing to keep track of.
I don't know. They are really just a card that says "War Strength +X"
for a specific war. Reduce the obscurer rules, if you like.
> Veteran Legions and Allegiance: I'd really like to keep this one since it's
> so important later in the game... I would again simplify it by making it a
> faction resource rather than a personal one.
You are losing the flavor of influencing away senators from factions,
which is part of what makes the game interesting, I believe.
> Land Bills: maybe the state can just buy off some unrest? reduce types to
> just one?
Hm. Land Bills are a very important aspect to the game. I'd be loath
to tinker with them too much.
> Individually, few of these rules account for much 'fiddlyness', but together
> their effects are compounded... the game has plenty going on already.
>
> So I guess I'm asking all you veteran RoR players:
> What do you think could come out of RoR and leave most of the flavor and
> decision-making intact?
Hm. Most of the time issues in RoR come from the Consul and Prosecutor
elections (I find). But there are a lot of politics involved. Perhaps
upping
the penalities for making proposals that fail would help.
I'd have to have the rules in front of me to make better suggestions,
but the goal is worthy. RoR is a game that I play once every other year
or so,
but it's certainly not a bad game.
> Please keep in mind the premise when answering the question; answers like,
> "Leave it all in!" are rather useless to me :)
>
> -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
> "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.
> Their tastes may not be the same."
> -- George Bernard Shaw
Brian
Scott DiBerardino
playing through all three periods would take 3-4 hours. I'm not sure this
goal can be achievable and leave the game with enough interesting stuff
going on, but I'm willing to try...
-scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
"Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you,
just as the highwayman's gun."
-- Alexander Berkman
Scott DiBerardino
Thank you for your comments...
> From: Brian Bankler <brian....@mciworld.com>
>
> I'm not sure you could pull RoR to 90 minutes and still have an
> interesting game. I do think that you may be able to get to 150-180,
> though.
If I can get it to 90 minutes per period then it's 4.5 hours for the
full-blown game, which isn't too bad.
> Hm. How about giving knights via a card (an event that gives everyone one) and
> allowing them to be pressured for a fixed amount? It's a reasonable trade off,
> the speed hit comes from people deciding whether to spend 0-5 Talents.
Keeping in mind that I've divided most talent costs by 3 to 5...
In my simple version, you can recruit a Knight for 2t which gives you a vote
and 1t income every turn, and can be pressured for 2t.
It just seems like there are other ways to get both money and votes, so
Knights don't really add much to the game.
>> Pontifex Maximus: This is already an advanced rule, so it can probably go.
>> If I kept it, I'd simplify by eliminating priesthoods.
>
> Puntable.
>
>> Exile and Ransomed Commanders: Doesn't come up that often.
>
> Ditto.
Pretty much done.
>> Enemy Leaders: Just another thing to keep track of.
>
> I don't know. They are really just a card that says "War Strength +X"
> for a specific war. Reduce the obscurer rules, if you like.
Like I said, Leaders are about as tough to track as the Pontifex, but in
aggregate the more useless stuff I can boot the better...
>> Veteran Legions and Allegiance: I'd really like to keep this one since it's
>> so important later in the game... I would again simplify it by making it a
>> faction resource rather than a personal one.
>
> You are losing the flavor of influencing away senators from factions,
> which is part of what makes the game interesting, I believe.
I'm not sure what you mean by this... I'm talking about veterans being tied
to specific factions instead of senators, and not tracking individual
veteran IDs...
Persuasion attempts are still very much alive and largely the same after my
simplification process.
> Hm. Land Bills are a very important aspect to the game. I'd be loath
> to tinker with them too much.
I'll probably reduce them to one type (perennial) just to pare down the
options. Same with sponsoring games and contributions to the state, most
likely.
> Hm. Most of the time issues in RoR come from the Consul and Prosecutor
> elections (I find). But there are a lot of politics involved. Perhaps upping
> the penalities for making proposals that fail would help.
<in email, you suggested tossing governorship>
I'd rather leave governorship intact for two reasons; more room for
political maneuvering, as they give more things to vote on; important source
of income for corruption and revolution. Absolutely I will simplify
eliminate provincial involvement with wars/revolts, but I think the
political element they add warrants their inclusion. Testing will prove this
one way or another.
> I'd have to have the rules in front of me to make better suggestions, but the
> goal is worthy. RoR is a game that I play once every other year or so, but
> it's certainly not a bad game.
I really like political games like this one, but the game is buried under so
much System that i'm exhausted by the time we're through with it whenever we
play...
-scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
"The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it."
-- Abbie Hoffman
Carl de Visser
<sdib...@student.umass.edu> wrote:
[A bunch of stuff about simplifying RoR]
What you really should do for a simplified version is play Red Empire
(by GDW I think). Its amazing how similar it is, but it obly takes 20
odd minutes to play. It has the same kind of decisions involved, only
in Soviet Russia. THe disasters can destroy the Empire, if you don't
all cooperate, but the real victory is from selfish play. I sometimes
wonder why I spend 20 hours playing a game of Republic of ROme after
playing a few games of Red Empire in a couple of hours.
Carl de Visser http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~devisser
Have fun, be nice, think. Pick two.
Scott DiBerardino
>
> What you really should do for a simplified version is play Red Empire
> (by GDW I think). Its amazing how similar it is, but it obly takes 20
> odd minutes to play. It has the same kind of decisions involved, only
> in Soviet Russia. THe disasters can destroy the Empire, if you don't
> all cooperate, but the real victory is from selfish play. I sometimes
> wonder why I spend 20 hours playing a game of Republic of ROme after
> playing a few games of Red Empire in a couple of hours.
I used to have Red Empire. Whatever reason I got rid of it for must have
been good enough at the time :/
Of course, part of the appeal of playing Republic of Rome is the Roman
theme.
-scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
"I have no purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the states where it exists."
-- Abraham Lincoln, first Lincoln-Douglas debate, Aug 21, 1858
trurl
This is a game that could really use this makeover.
I'd say much of the time spent is in elections and prosecutions.
Perhaps eliminating minor prosecutions would help. Much of the
time seems to be spent with the censor determining the current
market value of various prosecutions. Or the consuls doing job
interviews to find a censor who won't do that.
Perhaps broaden that rule that says 'the same pair cannot be
renominated for consuls' to disallowing either individually from
seeking consul after a failed vote. Or to make this more friendly
game :) say no senator can serve as consul a second time until
each current senator has been nominated for consul.
other time savers
- only 1 initiative per player
- no vetern legions- no rebelling from Rome, play til some
faction has xx influence or 'victory points'
The game is about steering your faction to victory. The key
components are politics, forced cooperation to keep Rome together
and of course competition gain more for your faction than the
others.
victory points gained from winning wars
reducing unrest
counting influence /popularity/ money of senators at
random intervals
good luck
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> I used to have Red Empire. Whatever reason I got rid of it for must have
> been good enough at the time :/
Red Empire was a reasonably original variant of the "Naval War" theme
- Basically, there are three factions of cards trying to destroy other
power figures, while at the same time trying to prevent eight points
of disasters to pass (leading to the fall of the Red Empire).
They (I think it was GDW) also made a fantasy character "Naval War"
called "Challenge", which is kinda playable.
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@multinett.no>
This line intentionally left cluttered. dfgjksdfdghsdknfgsjksngskj
Brian Bankler
>
>
> > From: Brian Bankler <brian....@mciworld.com>
> >
> > I'm not sure you could pull RoR to 90 minutes and still have an
> > interesting game. I do think that you may be able to get to 150-180,
> > though.
>
> If I can get it to 90 minutes per period then it's 4.5 hours for the
> full-blown game, which isn't too bad.
Ok...I assumed you meant 90 minutes in total.
> Keeping in mind that I've divided most talent costs by 3 to 5...
>
> In my simple version, you can recruit a Knight for 2t which gives you a vote
> and 1t income every turn, and can be pressured for 2t.
That seems like a no-brainer. Invest your money at 50% interest,
no risk (although you can get it out whenever you like) and a vote?
A Knight for 2t that gives you a vote and pressures for 1t seems fine
(no
income).
> It just seems like there are other ways to get both money and votes, so
> Knights don't really add much to the game.
Well, if 1T still equals 1Vote (once), then 2T for one vote forever
seems pretty good.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this... I'm talking about veterans being tied
> to specific factions instead of senators, and not tracking individual
> veteran IDs...
Ok, again I was envisioning something else. But since you have
to have Veteran Legion chits (just to give to the faction, not to a
senator), how much do you gain?
> > Hm. Land Bills are a very important aspect to the game. I'd be loath
> > to tinker with them too much.
>
> I'll probably reduce them to one type (perennial) just to pare down the
> options. Same with sponsoring games and contributions to the state, most
> likely.
I don't find that the three levels are really that complicated.
You could make it a flat X Talents gets you +1 (Inf/Pop), but I think
the charts work out nicely.
> <in email, you suggested tossing governorship>
>
> I'd rather leave governorship intact for two reasons; more room for
> political maneuvering, as they give more things to vote on; important source
> of income for corruption and revolution. Absolutely I will simplify
> eliminate provincial involvement with wars/revolts, but I think the
> political element they add warrants their inclusion. Testing will prove this
> one way or another.
And the ability to throw someone out of rome (and hence not
able to vote) is nice.
You can probably remove the # of random events. Or make them cards
that are shuffled into the deck (no looking up what they do then). Of
course,
I've never really liked the random hose of "1/6 of the time you don't
get
a card." So maybe just one (or two) event(s) per turn and everyone gets
a
card.
Another poster's suggestion of eliminating veteran legions and
rebellions altogether has some merit. Rebellions never seem to matter
until the late empire anyway (of course, we always toss the game before
then).
Brian
Scott DiBerardino
>
>> In my simple version, you can recruit a Knight for 2t which gives you a vote
>> and 1t income every turn, and can be pressured for 2t.
>
> That seems like a no-brainer. Invest your money at 50% interest, no risk
> (although you can get it out whenever you like) and a vote? A Knight for 2t
> that gives you a vote and pressures for 1t seems fine (no income).
To get three knights reliably would cost about 9t in RoR, and would generate
about 10t on average if pressured. so maybe 3t investment? Also, there's an
event in the late game that eliminates all knights, so it's not exactly a
sound lifelong investment.
> But since you have to have Veteran Legion chits (just to give to the faction,
> not to a senator), how much do you gain?
I would use a mutli-purpose track on the board, so there would be a single
chit per faction. Same for vote totals (and knights if i don't eliminate
them entirely.)
> I don't find that the three levels are really that complicated.
> You could make it a flat X Talents gets you +1 (Inf/Pop), but I think
> the charts work out nicely.
It's not that land bills by themselves are too complicated. But when you
have rules for land bills, and games, and contributions, and bequests,
and... you see what i mean? there are two levels of decision: do i sponsor a
land bill? and then what kind? removing one level impacts complexity, and
does not IMHO alter the enjoyment of the game much.
> You can probably remove the # of random events. Or make them cards that are
> shuffled into the deck (no looking up what they do then). Of course, I've
> never really liked the random hose of "1/6 of the time you don't get a card."
> So maybe just one (or two) event(s) per turn and everyone gets a card.
The two options I've considered are:
1) include some of the most likely random events as cards in the decks. pro:
easy to use; con: every event always happens.
2) make a separate deck of random events and either draw one a turn or put
'draw event' cards in the deck. pro: better distribution of events, they
don't always happen; con: i have to make a lot more cards :/
> Another poster's suggestion of eliminating veteran legions and
> rebellions altogether has some merit. Rebellions never seem to matter
> until the late empire anyway (of course, we always toss the game before
> then).
I'd like to be able to play just the late periods, and the game is all about
rebellion at that stage. I'm convinced a rewrite of the rules would make
revolution less cumbersome.
-scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
Scott DiBerardino
>
> This is a game that could really use this makeover.
Exactly what I was thinking.
> I'd say much of the time spent is in elections and prosecutions.
> Perhaps eliminating minor prosecutions would help. Much of the
> time seems to be spent with the censor determining the current
> market value of various prosecutions. Or the consuls doing job
> interviews to find a censor who won't do that.
Certain types of players will lengthen any game to unreasonable times. Then
again, some people like to spend that much time on politics; it's a
political game after all. There's not much I can do about that one way or
the other...
I wonder if some kind of time limit could be imposed? Enh, probably
unnecessary. If people want to play a short game, they'll negotiate faster
:)
> Perhaps broaden that rule that says 'the same pair cannot be
> renominated for consuls' to disallowing either individually from
> seeking consul after a failed vote. Or to make this more friendly
> game :) say no senator can serve as consul a second time until
> each current senator has been nominated for consul.
Good ideas; some revision to the election process may be in order.
> other time savers
> - only 1 initiative per player
this disrupts the balance of timing in the game too much; it counts on
turning six cards from the deck each turn.
> - no veteran legions- no rebelling from Rome, play til some
> faction has xx influence or 'victory points'
rebellion is too important to the late game. i think i can leave it in,
which allows for a two-hour late-period-only game.
Rome needs those veteran legions late in the game too, as it may face many
wars with a minimum of time.
I have to admit, it may be impossible to hit the time goal i'm shooting for,
but i'm pushing ahead with the simplification anyway. i hope i can get a
playtest soon, maybe this weekend?
-scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
"I know not how to concieve of good, apart from the pleasures, sexual
pleasures, the pleasures of sound and the pleasures of beautiful form."
-- Epicurus
Roberto Ullfig
>
> > other time savers
> > - only 1 initiative per player
>
> this disrupts the balance of timing in the game too much; it counts on
> turning six cards from the deck each turn.
>
I've implemented this in a PBEM game once. You still have six
initiatives but the extra ones don't belong to any particular
player. It works well.
Basically, an initiative roll is made normally and a card drawn
if necessary. If the card is red it is assigned randomly to a
player; however a player cannot get a red card in this fashion
unless everyone else already has (just to balance things out a
bit). When each player has received one card in this fashion the
cycle repeats. No Knights or Games or Persuasions during these
non-player initiatives. The number of cards drawn per turn
therefore remains the same. I HIGHLY recommend this method for
PBEM games with less than 6 players.
--
Roberto Ullfig : ro...@suba.com
Phil Dutre
Hi,
Prosecutions: having only 1 type of prosecution probably helps;
also the punishments could be more streamlined. We always have to
look up what exactly happens to statesmen when exiled etc.
Provincial forces & legions garrisoned in provinces: this can
also be made easier (e.g. for losses they count differently)
Disasters/Stand-offs for battles: now there is a different number for
each war. Maybe it's a better way just to say 'if you roll two
ones or twos, a disaster happens, two threes or fours means a
stand-off, if there is a leader, two 5's and 6's also count'.
The probabilities should be worked out, but you get the idea.
Are the faction leaders that important? They are immune from
a number of events, and you can protect a senator that way,
but I do not think it would harm the game much if you would get rid
of them.
More drastically would be folding influence and oratory into a single
score. New players always have problems figuring out what score to
use for what action, and just having a single 'political' score
for each senator might make things a bit easier.
Combine the assasination attempts and bodyguard rerolls into a single
die throw, with maybe an expanded table to cover all possibilities.
IIRC there's also a rule that states that some wars are turned into
revolts if e.g. the 1st macednaion war happens after the 2nd one.
This has an effect on the spoils of war, I think. This rule doesn't
contribute much.
Phil
--
=======================================================================
Philip Dutre Program of Computer Graphics Cornell University
ph...@graphics.cornell.edu http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~phil/
=======================================================================
Steve Spisak
: Perhaps eliminating minor prosecutions would help. Much of the
: time seems to be spent with the censor determining the current
: market value of various prosecutions. Or the consuls doing job
: interviews to find a censor who won't do that.
All that Bi#$hing and haggling is the fun of the game. I'll nominate you,
you won't prosecute my faction, everyone's happy. :)
And the voting is tons of fun, tribuning, high priest veto, assassinate
the guy with 7 votes...
: Perhaps broaden that rule that says 'the same pair cannot be
: renominated for consuls' to disallowing either individually from
: seeking consul after a failed vote. Or to make this more friendly
: game :) say no senator can serve as consul a second time until
: each current senator has been nominated for consul.
Friendly game? To me, a friendly game means we dont steal each other's
faction members too often.
Scott DiBerardino
> From: Phil Dutre <ph...@graphics.cornell.edu>
>
> Prosecutions: having only 1 type of prosecution probably helps;
> also the punishments could be more streamlined. We always have to
> look up what exactly happens to statesmen when exiled etc.
I've reduced the prosecution limit to one per turn; I'm keeping the
distinction between minor and major prosecutions, but removing the option
for exile. It's pretty straightforward otherwise.
> Provincial forces & legions garrisoned in provinces: this can
> also be made easier (e.g. for losses they count differently)
These were optional rules to start with. I would do away with provincial
forces and local taxes in any event. I may allow garrisons and provincial
revolts, however.
> Disasters/Stand-offs for battles: now there is a different number for
> each war. Maybe it's a better way just to say 'if you roll two
> ones or twos, a disaster happens, two threes or fours means a
> stand-off, if there is a leader, two 5's and 6's also count'.
> The probabilities should be worked out, but you get the idea.
Different numbers provide some character to the different wars. The
probabilities on the 2nd Punic are vastly different than on the Cilician
Pirates, for instance. On the other hand, it *is* simpler. The
Disaster/Standoff results need to stay, I think, to balance the amount of
forces Rome could send.
I'm most likely eliminating enemy leaders.
> Are the faction leaders that important? They are immune from
> a number of events, and you can protect a senator that way,
> but I do not think it would harm the game much if you would get rid
> of them.
The protection you mention is important, and having a 'leader' also adds a
bit to the identity of your faction.
I'm beginning to think I might have a basic and advanced game, since there
are many things that could be stripped out at the expense of flavor and
interest, but would still leave the basic political/foreign affairs engine
intact. This would be one of them, I guess.
> More drastically would be folding influence and oratory into a single
> score. New players always have problems figuring out what score to
> use for what action, and just having a single 'political' score
> for each senator might make things a bit easier.
I don't see much benefit from this, as allowing Influence to add to Votes
would change the dynamics of the game more than i'm willing to. I'll think
about it, though, as it is one less number to remember for every senator.
> Combine the assassination attempts and bodyguard rerolls into a single
> die throw, with maybe an expanded table to cover all possibilities.
Maybe the -1 to the roll is enough, and rerolls aren't needed at all.
> IIRC there's also a rule that states that some wars are turned into
> revolts if e.g. the 1st macednaion war happens after the 2nd one.
> This has an effect on the spoils of war, I think. This rule doesn't
> contribute much.
Agreed. You have to prosecute them in order anyway if they come up together.
-scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu
"And with the guts of the last priest let us strange the last king."
-- Denis Diderot