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:



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.

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.