Historia Realis: Rome News

[p]"Exert yourself in every direction to earn men's good word, not with a view to rival others, but to surpass yourself."[/p]

[p]— Cicero’s advice to his brother Quintus, who had become governor of Asia (Cicero, Ad Quintum Fratrem, Book 1, Letter 1).[/p][p][/p][p]Hi! Lucas here.[/p][p]In this dev diary, I’m going to cover the “high-level concept” for provincial administration in Historia Realis. In other words, I'll talk about the experience that Historia Realis intends to provide to players in terms of being a governor, or of being in a governor's staff.[/p][p]I won’t get into specific mechanics — instead, I’ll talk about my historical research, design goals and the “pre-production” of my prototype for this system. Next time, I’ll cover the actual prototype, and that diary will have lots of examples and images. But this one is all text, no pretty pictures. Still interesting stuff, I think![/p][p]I’ll focus on the administration of “peaceful” provinces here, sometimes called permanent or territorial provinces — those that had already been conquered and just needed maintenance. War and conquest will be left for another time.[/p][p][/p][p]A fancy new banner![/p][p][/p][p]I've had to kill a few sacred cows — or sacred geese, if we’re sticking to the Roman theme — in order to create a historically accurate experience.[/p][p]Without studying the history, there are many naive approaches to systems design that I could’ve taken. Here are a few common strategy gaming tropes, and why it would be a mistake to implement them:[/p][p][/p][p]Other common tropes are tech trees, diplomacy, moving troops in a map, etc.[/p][p]All these elements can —and probably will— show up in some form. They’re not entirely out of place and wrong. But, when making the core of a new system, I have to think of the general rule rather than the exceptions, and what matches historical evidence.[/p][p]These tropes also miss some important aspects: local autonomy, law, order and corruption. And they don’t capture what it was like to be a Roman governor.[/p][p][/p][h3]What I did instead[/h3][p]I took a first principles approach, and ignored gaming tropes. My question was: what was the experience of being a governor actually like? What choices did one have to make? And what mechanics better convey that experience?[/p][p]The mechanics I’ve arrived at so far are not things like “spend 100 gold to build a winery” or “move troops from here to there”. But something much more interesting — at least to me.[/p][p][/p][h3]An (Optional) Note On Realism vs Fun[/h3][p]I had written here about realism and fun, but it was a bit of a long digression so I removed it. The TLDR is: a game can be both ‘realistic’ and fun, and I’m aiming for both. I'll make the full text available on our Discord server, so join us if you want to read more on that![/p][p]Join our Discord![/p][p][/p][p]Historian Peter Brunt points out four main tasks of provincial government, to which I added some specific examples:[/p]

• [p]Finances[/p]
  • [p]Conducting the census.[/p]
  • [p]Auditing provincial accounts.[/p]
  • [p]Taxation (during the Republic, mostly collected by publicani or locals and sent to Rome, therefore not paid to the governor nor to the province, but still his responsibility).[/p]
• [p]Law[/p]
  • [p]Settling disputes.[/p]
  • [p]Touring the cities to make legal decisions.[/p]
  • [p]Receiving petitions.[/p]
• [p]Management[/p]
  • [p]Supervising the staff.[/p]
  • [p]Supervising local government and councils.[/p]
  • [p]“Networking” with local elites and publicani.[/p]
• [p]Defence[/p]
  • [p]Taking care of internal order.[/p]
  • [p]Building and maintaining forts, walls, supplies.[/p]
  • [p]Commanding troops when necessary.[/p]

[p]There was a lot more, of course, and for that I recommend his book:[/p]

• [p]P. A. Brunt - Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford University Press (1990).[/p]

[hr][/hr][p][/p][p]Generally, provinces would be assigned a random governor from a list of current and former consuls and praetors. This process was called sortitio.[/p][p]However, this is Roman history we’re talking about, so of course it was more complicated in practice! Active consuls were more likely to get provinces with wars. The Senate would sometimes assign them directly by name and not by random lot. Other times, an assigned magistrate would trade his posting with someone else (famously, Cicero yielded his assignment as governor of Macedonia to Antonius Hybrida in exchange for favors).[/p][p]But I won’t go deep into this here, as the focus here is on provincial administration and not allocations, so I’ll just recommend this fantastic book on the subject:[/p]

• [p]David Rafferty - Provincial Allocations in Rome (123-52 BCE). Franz Steiner Verlag (2019).[/p]

[hr][/hr][p][/p]

[p]"You must keep your eyes open and vigilant, in order that in the guardianship of your province you may be considered to vouch to the allies, the citizens, and the state, not for yourself alone, but for all the subordinates of your government. However, you have in the persons of your legati men likely to have a regard for their own reputation."[/p]

[p]— Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus[/p][p][/p][p]The governor wasn’t alone. There were apparitores, minor civil servants, and more. But I’ll focus on the big fish, the inner circle of the governor:[/p][p][/p][h2]Legates[/h2][h3](Senior officers)[/h3][p]The Governor chose a few legates, who were his secretaries or military officers in times of war. Some sources say there were often 3 legates, but the number varies.[/p][p]They were often friends of the governor, and this was to be expected. The Romans saw no problem in a governor taking his friends to help him in his assigned province. It was only natural, he needed men he could trust.[/p][p][/p][h2]Prefects[/h2][h3](Junior officers)[/h3][p]These were younger men (usually between 17 and 30) who gained experience in the provinces. They were chosen from the network of clients of the legates and the governor, and were often family members (sons, nephews, sons-in-law, etc).[/p][p]There were several kinds of junior officers under the legates and the governor himself. I’ve settled on the word Prefect over the word Tribune to avoid confusion with the office of Plebeian Tribune, which was held only at the city of Rome itself. Sometimes the word comites also shows up in reference to them.[/p][p][/p][h2]The Quaestor[/h2][p]One elected Quaestor was randomly assigned to each province to serve under the governor there.[/p][p]This man was the second-in-command of a province, and probably ensured that Roman interests were taken care of, counterbalancing the “nepotism” of the rest of the staff. At least in theory.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]I said no pretty images, but here's one: character stats, an important aspect of staff selection.[/p][hr][/hr][p][/p]

[p]"But while you resist, as you do, money, pleasure, and every kind of desire yourself, there will be a risk of your not being able to suppress some fraudulent banker or some rather over-extortionate tax-collector!"[/p]

[p]— Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus[/p][p][/p][p]The special ingredient in drama is conflict. And for conflict, you need opposing forces, or at least forces with conflicting interests.[/p][p]The governor and his staff were not the only powerful people in a province. These were the 3 groups and their responsibilities:[/p][p][/p][h2]1. Governor and Staff[/h2][p]Represented Rome and had the responsibilities I already outlined: finances, law, management and defence. They could make extraordinary requests on the provincials, and execute anyone they judged guilty, and could, in theory, rule as an absolute despot. However, this total power was checked by them having to return to Rome after their term and possibly face prosecution and exile.[/p][p]Sometimes, completely honest and competent men would face prosecution and exile, just because they had enemies in Rome. See the case of Publius Rutilius Rufus.[/p][p][/p][h2]2. Local Elites[/h2][p]These could be called civitates or peregrini, though these words have more specific meanings. Each city or community had their own, and their role in the province was either to work autonomously for their own aims or to appeal to the governor if necessary — perhaps to settle a dispute, or ask for economic relief, which would often come from other nearby communities, urged by the governor.[/p][p][/p][h2]3. The Publicani[/h2][p]They were rich men who organized themselves in companies (societates publicanorum). They had bid for public contracts in Rome, and now were in the province to fulfill those contracts, either to collect taxes or to build and maintain public works (ports, roads, acqueducts…). Like the Monty Python quote goes, “what have the Romans ever done for us?”[/p][p]They were members of the equestrian order (equites), and probably the richest among them. Sometimes richer than Senators, but, since they were directly involved in business, they couldn’t be in politics (the line was blurry, but that was the idea).[/p][p]There was a tension between the Roman governors and the publicani, as the latter were incentivized to extract as much resources from the province as possible, and the former had to try to stop them. That’s because of how Roman taxation worked. Rome would estimate how much a province would yield in taxes for the next 5 years, and then these private companies would bid for the right to collect those taxes. Then, the contractors would go to the province and collect everything they could, in order to make their money back, and hopefully some profit — or a lot of profit, if they could really milk the provincials.[/p][p]In other words, Rome didn’t collect its provincial taxes. Rome sold the rights to collect those taxes to private citizens and was paid beforehand by them, and then the contractors would collect whatever they could from the provincials in order to fill their own pockets. A rather strange system, but one that worked for them during the Republic![/p][p]The governor was a balancing force, preventing the publicani from exploiting too much — sometimes. Other times, governors would get bribed to help the publicani do the milking. See Verres in Sicily. But generally, the governor had little incentive to help the publicani collect too much, since those taxes would be pocketed by the publicani themselves, and not by the governor nor by Rome. At the same time, it was the governor’s implied threat of violence, through his control over the provincial army, that ensured that the publicani could demand taxes in the first place.[/p][p]Between the publicani and the locals, there was a more obvious tension: the publicani were tax collectors first and foremost, so they were generally despised.[/p][p]Here are a couple of authors that really helped me understand these dynamics:[/p]

• [p]Ernst Badian - Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Blackwell (1972).[/p]
• [p]James Tan - Competition Between Public and Private Revenues in Roman Social and Political History. Columbia University (2011).[/p]
• [p]James Tan - Power and public finance at Rome (264-49 BCE). Oxford University Press (2018).[/p]

[hr][/hr][p][/p][p]Whenever I’m making a prototype or implementing a feature, I like to have clarity on the problem I’m trying to solve. Otherwise, it’s easy to get lost in iterating forever, and not knowing if I’m making things better or worse. So let’s look at some goals to measure the success of the prototype against.[/p][p][/p][h3]Design Pillars[/h3][p]These have always been my 3 priorities for this game:[/p]

• [p]Historical Realism: The game cares deeply about history.[/p]
• [p]Deep Simulation: Non-arcadey gameplay, whatever that means.[/p]
• [p]Emergent Stories: Characters are alive, and their lives are interesting.[/p]

[p]As such, any sub-system needs to follow the guidelines above.[/p][p][/p][p]You can sign up for the alpha HERE![/p][p]Those pillars have always been displayed on the game's site, linked above.[/p][p][/p][h3]Province Prototype Design Goals[/h3][p]With those in mind, here are my other, more particular goals for this specific prototype:[/p]

• [p]The mechanics are realistic representations of Roman provincial management. But they don’t have to be boring just because of that. To use a better word, the mechanics are good representations.[/p]
• [p]The mechanics are light, yet impactful. What’s there in the core mechanics are the most important elements. The content will handle exceptions, complexity and edge cases — the core mechanics will stay light.[/p]
• [p]It’s easy to play, and meaningful (not necessarily hard) to master. By meaningful I mean that mastering the system means that you can come back to it again and again and derive different meanings and stories from it. By easy to play, I mean that it’s not convoluted, and interactions are simple but have deep consequences.[/p]
• [p]It fits into the bigger game. Even though I’m prototyping separately from the rest, kind of like making a standalone game, I need to think of the spaces where this sub-system will interact with the whole.[/p]
• [p]No % chances of success. This one is a personal thing. I want to make careful use of RNG, and prefer “input randomness” over “output randomness”. That is, randomness should happen before the player makes a choice, not after. To make up an example: instead of a coin flip to decide an outcome, you flip 5 coins and then decide how to use them. This way, there’s still randomness to create interesting situations, but you get to direct it.[/p]

[p][/p][h3]Player Experience Goals[/h3][p]Taking a player-centric approach, I also came up with these goals:[/p]

• [p]Experience what it was like: The theme of provincial management is not incidental, but central. You’re not just moving numbers around, optimizing them and not seeing what thematic meaning they have. Each player interaction tells a story: what it was really like to be a Roman administrator in a province.[/p]
• [p]Be your own kind of Governor or staff member: You’re able to roleplay as the kind of governor you want to be. Be corrupt or clean. Work hard or slack off. Help the locals or the tax collectors. There is plenty of space for self-expression.[/p]
• [p]The province is alive: Things are happening without you. You can participate, or you can be hands-off. Others are not waiting on you, they’re doing their own thing. But you’re still a part of it, and you can influence how things go.[/p][p][/p]

[h2]What This All Means[/h2][p]Historia Realis is meant to be a drama-filled experience of emergent narrative.[/p][p]Changing the tax rate from 6% to 7% to gain +50 gold is not very dramatic, and wouldn’t fit the design goals, nor the subject matter. Therefore, it’s not a mechanic.[/p][p]There is a lot of granularity that would be possible to do, but that does not deliver the intended experience. Whenever I catch myself wanting to implement something just for the sake of it, without delivering on the promised experience, I stop myself and try to find an implementation that gives the player more bang for their buck.[/p][p][/p][hr][/hr][p][/p][h2]Corruption[/h2]

[p]"The better a man is, the less he suspects others of being bad."[/p]

[p]— Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus[/p][p][/p][p]Corruption was a major problem in the provinces, not only perpetrated by the publicani and the governors, but also by the local elites.[/p][p]I’ve given corruption an important role — I think I’ll dedicate a whole dev diary to it later. For now, I’ll just say it’s a pretty cool mechanic and you can either be corrupt or fight corruption, and much more! It’s not just a -10% yield modifier or something silly like that.[/p][p][/p][h2]Provincial Revolts (and their lack)[/h2][p]Roman republican provinces were quite stable. You might expect the provinces to be trying to free themselves from Roman rule quite often, but that wasn’t the case. If we look at this list, there are a few early revolts in Italy, and then the following revolts are generally fought to gain Roman citizenship rather than to secede.[/p][p]There are slave revolts and civil wars, but virtually no provincial revolts, considering the centuries of Roman rule. The notable exceptions seem to be Hispania (Iberian Revolt, Numantine War, 1st and 2nd Celtiberian Wars) and Gaul. Towards the Principate, we also see revolts in Egypt, Thrace and Judea. But I’ll not get into the Empire right now, as I’m focusing on the Republican system. Regardless, those are still quite few in my view![/p][p]With this general lack of provincial revolts, I’ve decided not to model them in my initial protoype — yet. What I tried to convey was the core of provincial administration first, and exceptions (like revolts) will be added later.[/p][p][/p][h2]What else I left out[/h2][p]Some things were intentionally left out of my initial design. Like I said above, first I’m designing the general rule, and then I’ll cover exceptions. As books sometimes say, “this page intentionally left blank”.[/p][p]Here’s some of what I left out:[/p]

• [p]Warfare, conquest and revolts (as explained above).[/p]
• [p]Roman Colonization and the relations between locals and Roman colonists (thanks to community member Cicer Tarquini on our Discord for sending me some great material on this subject!).[/p]
• [p]Content, especially flavor to bring actions to life and differentiate provinces from each other. I have a planned Provincial Situations mechanic to tackle this later.[/p]
• [p]Special provinces like Italy or Egypt, and what made them unique.[/p]
• [p]The gradual increase of ownership of land in the provinces by Roman citizens, displacing locals.[/p]

[p]You can expect these aspects to get more attention later on.[/p][hr][/hr][p][/p][p]And that's my high level concept, or pre-production document, or whatever you want to call it, for provincial administration. Which is an important step, an "ideal" that will allow me to judge the prototype and whether it's hitting the design goals set here. Next time, I'll bring you the actual prototype![/p][p]Thanks! Especially if you’ve read the whole thing — I really appreciate it. Here’s what else you can do:[/p][p]Join our Discord![/p][p]Sign up for the alpha![/p][p]Check out my other games![/p][p]And wishlist Historia Realis![/p][p][dynamiclink][/dynamiclink]Thanks![/p][p][/p][p]— Lucas[/p]

[p][/p][p][/p][p]Hi, Lucas here![/p][p]This will be a focused diary on a very specific thing: personality.[/p][p]People seem to like personality theory, considering the popularity of the MBTI personality test and such. Are you an INTP?[/p][p]In Historia Realis, there are 64 personalities that characters can have, and today we’ll look at how I got to those, and their differences.[/p][p]Personalities are not traits. They’re very different things. There are hundreds of traits in the game, and they’re separate from personality.[/p][p]Characters are born with a specific personality, while traits can be gained. You can have hundreds of traits, but you only have one personality. Let’s see some comparisons:[/p][p][/p][p]A character profile, displaying their personality.[/p][p][/p][h2]Aspects of Personality[/h2][p]A personality is composed of 4 pairs of aspects, as seen in the image above:[/p]

• [p]Imaginative Practical[/p]
• [p]Focused Spontaneous[/p]
• [p]Sociable Reserved[/p]
• [p]Amiable Assertive[/p]

[p]Each pair is mutually exclusive. That is, you are either on the Imaginative camp or in the Practical camp. That’s because the pair Imaginative/Practical is a single value between -100 and 100. Any positive value means Imaginative, while any negative means Practical. And values closer to 0 mean that a character is more towards the middle of the road between the two.[/p][p]One peculiar choice I’ve made is for values never to be between -40 and 40, only either lower or higher than that. The reason for this is to avoid boring characters that are neither this nor that, and thus have no personality. Also, it avoids the visual problem of the bar in the UI showing up too small to see, or so small that it looks like a thin, ugly line.[/p][p]Anyway, from those values are derived our archetypes.[/p][p][/p][h2]Archetypes[/h2][p]With 4 pairs of aspects, that makes for 16 possible archetypes. For example:[/p]

• [p]The Executor archetype is Practical, Focused, Reserved and Assertive.[/p]
• [p]The Dreamer archetype is Imaginative, Spontaneous, Reserved and Amiable.[/p]

[p]And so on, to a total of 16 combinations.[/p][p]You’ll notice that 16 personalities is exactly the number of core MBTI personalities: ESTP, INFP, ESFJ, etc. Indeed, the personalities in Historia Realis do correlate to those somewhat, but not exactly.[/p][p]My inspiration for the pairs of aspects was actually the Big Five, which are generally regarded as more scientific. I only changed them slightly:[/p]

• [p]Openness to being Imaginative[/p]
• [p]Conscientiousness to being Focused[/p]
• [p]Extraversion to being Sociable[/p]
• [p]Agreeableness to being Amiable[/p]
• [p]Neuroticism was not included.[/p]

[p]The reason for not including Neuroticism is that, in my opinion, it is more a description of one’s mental health and well-being than an aspect of personality. That is, the presence of Neuroticism indicates mental unwellness. When one becomes depressed or anxious, there’s no personality change, just a passing state, in my view. That’s of course all debatable, and if you have the Debater personality you might want to debate me, but that’s how I personally see it. Regardless, that kind of state is simulated elsewhere in the game, in the Vice and Tranquility system.[/p][p]There is some correlation between the MBTI and the Big Five, and that’s clearer with the shared concept of Extraversion. But they are slightly different. In addition, I created counter-aspects to those “Big Four”, so that there was a contrast or “other side”. I named them Practical, Spontaneous, Reserved and Assertive. I didn’t want the lack of an aspect to be a negative, or merely a void. Instead, it’s also something that could be useful or desirable — it’s just different. I didn’t want any personality to sound negative, but some of them do sound funny.[/p][p]This is, of course, not in the original Big Five theory, and therefore it’s just something I made up. Which is fine, because I’m making up a game afterall.[/p][p][/p][p]A personality variation: The Harmonizer.[/p][p][/p][h2]Personality Variations[/h2][p]For some reason that I can’t remember — perhaps I just thought 16 personalities wasn’t cool enough — I decided to make four variations of each archetype. What if an Executor was particularly Practical? Then they’re a Realist. Or particularly Reserved? They’re an Individualist. And so on.[/p][p]The variation is determined by your most predominant aspect. If you’re more Sociable than anything else, then you’ll get the Sociable variation of your archetype.[/p][p]With 16 archetypes and 4 variations each, that makes for 64 personalities in the game (16 * 4). I gave each of these 64 personalities a name and a flavor text to bring them to life. Let’s look at some![/p][p]The variations make it less likely that any two characters will share the same personality, but sometimes they still do. Even then, there are 3 intensities to distinguish further. We'll get into that next.[/p][p][/p][p]Some personalities.[/p][p][/p][h2]Intensity[/h2][p]How much does a character embody their personality? Is it Subtle, Moderate or Extreme? Those are the 3 intensities.[/p][p]Intensity is just a description of what’s already there, in plain sight. In the bars, you can see how much a character has of each aspect. The bigger the bar, the higher the intensity. If you’re really Practical, really Focused, really Reserved, and really Amiable, you are an Intense Traditionalist. If you are only a bit of those things, you are a Subtle Traditionalist. And if you’re around the middle, you’re Moderate Traditionalist. It’s pretty simple, though there’s some weird calculations that go into deciding it. The important thing is that you see more people with personalities of Moderate intensity, and less so Subtle and Intense.[/p][p]Intensity helps you quickly know how seriously a character takes their personality. It also helps distinguish between characters who share the same personality. Maybe they are both Loners, but one is Subtle while the other is Intense. There is a difference.[/p][p]That makes for 192 possibilities (64 * 3). But both the Subtle Dreamer and the Intense Dreamer are Dreamers, and they share the same flavor text too. So 64 personalities, each with 3 intensities.[/p][p][/p][h2]Other Distinctions[/h2][p]There are other things that make characters unique.[/p][p]In addition to personality and traits, characters also have aptitudes, attributes, and (soon) skills. They have different relationships, families, life stories and so on.[/p][p]However, I’ll leave those for later diaries. Just rest assured that personalities are not the only things that distinguish characters.[/p][p][/p][h2]Ancient Theory of “Humors”[/h2][p]Unusually for me, I did not research too deeply into how the Romans viewed personality. That’s because, frankly, they had some whacky views that are hard to get into today. They had the theory of Humors, with “fluids” like Phlegm, Black Bile, Yellow Bile and Blood — and their imbalances — influencing how one acted. They also talked about the elements: Fire, Water, Air and Earth.[/p][p]These things might show up in the game as flavor text somewhere, and, interestingly, they can be mapped to my 8 aspects quite well:[/p][p]That said, I went with psychology and my own personal experience more than with history for this one.[/p][p][/p][p][/p][p]The Free-Spirit.[/p][p][/p][h2]On the Conflict With Traits[/h2][p]Since personality and traits are separate systems, it’s possible that a character with the Loner personality might end up with the “Life of the Party” trait, or similar. Oh no! This might sound like a terrible contradiction, but I’m very happy with it. Life is made of these irrationalities, and to me that sounds way more interesting — and way better for generating cool stories — than only expected, boring things happening.[/p][p]In other words: it’s a feature, not a bug. We will see “Life of the Party” Loners, and much more.[/p][p][/p][h2]How does personality affect the game, exactly?[/h2][p]This remains to be seen. I only now just implemented them, and they will permeate throughout the other systems in time. Some possibilities:[/p]

• [p]Relationships can be harder or easier to form, depending on personality match.[/p]
• [p]Some personalities are more likely to take some actions, or to avoid them.[/p]
• [p]When selecting your staff for a governorship, it’s probably a good idea to cover all personality aspects: have someone who is Imaginative, but also another who is Practical, etc. In other words, personality could be a part of determining your success in war or administration.[/p]
• [p]Many other things. Let me know if you have ideas! You can comment here or join our Discord.[/p][p][/p]

[h2]Historical Personalities[/h2][p]Historical characters will have to be given personalities that at least somewhat match them. This is hard, because people are complex! But something has to be given. Here are some of my ideas:[/p][p][/p][p]More historical figures:[/p][p][/p][p]Of course, there will be many more.[/p][p][/p][h2]Thanks![/h2][p]As an aside, I took the MBTI yesterday and I got INFJ. Years ago, it always gave me INTJ. I guess I’ve mellowed out. As for the Big Five, my last result was something like:[/p]

• [p]Highest on Conscientiousness (checks out, I double-checked the spelling of the word).[/p]
• [p]High on Openness[/p]
• [p]Medium on Agreeableness[/p]
• [p]Low on Extraversion[/p]
• [p]Zero on Neuroticism[/p]

[p]I particularly strive for this last one; I was depressed and anxious before and I know how much that sucks. In fact, I made a game about it:[/p][p][dynamiclink][/dynamiclink]And since I’m self-promoting, let’s go all the way! Writing the flavor text for each personality was a fun way to exercise my creative writing skills, which I did more extensively in my last narrative game:[/p][p][dynamiclink][/dynamiclink]If you do check out those games, thank you! They also have free demos so you can try before you buy.[/p][p]And remember to wishlist Historia Realis, if you haven’t yet![/p][p][dynamiclink][/dynamiclink]Thanks![/p][p]— Lucas[/p]

Let's talk internal politics of Rome! This diary presents Motions, focusing on two types: triumphs and trials. These were two mechanisms through which the internal politics of Rome rewarded and punished its representatives.

I will talk about the Stages that a Motion can go through, perhaps first being approved in the Senate before it can be ratified in an Assembly. Then the Clashes that happened, and the ultimate outcome of a motion. I’ve also included a couple of notes on my design philosophy, and what you can expect from future diaries.

Hope you enjoy. Thanks!

— Lucas

“Gaius Verres appears to stand his trial before you: a man already condemned, in the world's opinion, by his life and deeds; already acquitted, according to his own confident assertions, by his vast fortune.”

— Cicero, in the speech In Verrem (Against Verres)

(Gaius Verres, former governor of Sicily, would later exile himself in Massilia to avoid condemnation — a common practice. Cicero, at this time a little-known young former Quaestor, would go on to become Aedile, and eventually Consul. Later yet, both men would be killed by the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate).

The full Motions screen, where internal politics happen.



A Motion can be many things: awarding a Triumph to a general; prosecuting a governor for corruption; establishing a new law, etc. In this diary, I will focus on the first two: triumphs and trials.

Let’s first look at the roles in which the player (and all other characters) can appear in a Motion:

1. You can start a Motion and be its promulgator;
2. You can be the Target or Beneficiary of a Motion;
3. You can participate in a Motion either supporting or opposing it;

This means that you can be in many positions, such as:

- You’re the prosecutor trying to exile a corrupt governor.
- You’re the victorious general trying to get approval to celebrate a Triumph.
- You’re trying to enact a law, or perhaps you’re trying to stop it from being enacted.
- You’re a corrupt governor defending yourself!
- You’re defending a corrupt governor, perhaps because they’re your friend or family, or perhaps they aren’t corrupt at all — they were unjustly accused.

As you can see, there are many possible roles to play in Motions. Ultimately, a Motion either passes or it fails. But there is a lot that goes on inbetween, and how that happens.

A list of Motions.



Issues in Historia Realis are “things that a Motion can be about”. They occur naturally as the game progresses. The governor of Sicily was corrupt? An issue is created. Gaius bribed voters to get elected Praetor? New issue. Lucius won a great victory in Gaul? That’s an issue too. He’ll want a Triumph, and his enemies in the Senate might not want him to gain that glory. Issues are just a big list of things that can be acted upon through Motions.

Issues generally do nothing, just sit there waiting for a Motion to “pick them up”. But not always, and I’ll have more on that in a future diary.

[h3]Note On Game Design: Don’t Be Annoying[/h3]

One of my design goals with Historia Realis is to create an annoyance-free experience, or as close to it as possible. Here are a few traps that I tried avoiding with this system:

ːsteamthumbsdownː Too much micro-management: There is some interaction which is natural and required, but I try to frontload most of the “clicks” and customization to the beginning of a Motion, and then things just run along. This is because you'll also be doing a bunch of other stuff while trying to pass a motion.
ːsteamthumbsdownː Feeling out of control or hopeless: I don’t want you to feel like there’s nothing you can do to pass your Motion and that it’s all up to RNG. Therefore, there are several ways to influence the outcome of a Motion. Calling on participants is the most basic one, so I’ll touch on that next.



The Active Politicians list.

I’ve ran into a few problems when designing the experience of “being a Senator”. One major one was that you probably don’t want to be bothered about everything that’s going on in politics every single year, simply because there’s so much of it. You’re generally more concerned about advancing yourself, not about the prosecution of so-and-so, the triumph of a random guy, and so on. Although it’s a cool thing to simulate every little thing, they can also feel distant and repetitive, so they have to happen in the background, to some extent.

Unless, of course, you do want to care about what’s happening in a given year. Then you can become an Active Politician (I need a better name for this — I’ll take suggestions in the comments). You also automatically become one by being elected to office.

When you become an Active Politician, you can participate in Motions, and you’ll get invited to support or oppose this or that one, and you can start motions yourself, though some Motions are exclusive to specific offices like Consul or Plebeian Tribune.

The point is this: only a small percentage of Senators (and some non-Senators) will be Active Politicians each year. If you don’t care about the internal politics right now, you can just ignore them. Or you can become active if they become relevant to you.

There is some historical justification for this: the concept of pedarii is disputed, but it referred to senators who voted along with their “superiors”, and didn’t debate. It’s also well established that junior senators were generally less active, and spoke last, if at all (however, they were often more active as prosecutors).

There’s also some natural inactivity: those engaged in governing provinces, or being on the staff of a governor, or waging war, are naturally inactive in the Senate because they’re far from Rome.

The Clashes within each Motion are represented by little icons under the yellow/red bars.



Roman politics were notoriously aggressive. However, I use the term Clash not just in a sense of violence, but also in the sense of political clashes.

What determines the outcome of a Motion is not only the number and quality of supporters and opposers, but also their performance as the two sides Clash. Delivering performances, either through speeches in the Senate or in a Contio (public meeting), or perhaps performing well in a street brawl, is vital.

When a Motion starts, a certain number of Clashes is expected to occur: let’s say 3. As time goes on, each Clash is set up and its slot gets filled. When they’re all filled, they get resolved and the outcome of the Motion is decided.

Clashes can generate interesting and unexpected outcomes, and I have some ideas to expand upon this simple mechanic — it will probably get its own diary in the future.



Look, Roman law was complicated. It was mostly based on tradition rather than well-defined procedures — and yet tradition was often interpreted differently, or force was used to establish new precedents. Especially in the Late Republic: see the Gracchi, Marcus Drusus, Sulla, etc.

So to represent the procedures of Roman politics, I needed a mechanic that was both structured and flexible. The result was Stages.

A Motion has to go through all of its Stages, and be approved in all of them, in order to pass. If it’s shot down at any Stage, it either becomes a weaker version of itself in order to try to pass, or it fails (unless it Escalates, but I’ll leave that for later).

A Triumph Motion.

Triumphs are simple. They have just one Stage: the Senate. Historically, triumphs were awarded by the Senate and required no ratification by any assembly.

A Prosecution Motion. Notice it has more slots for Clashes, and a separation between the icons to represent different Stages.

Prosecutions were historically very complicated, but I’ll try to keep it simple. A quaestio, or inquiry, had to be established to look into the matter and pass judgement on it. For that to happen, one of the governing bodies had to first approve of the establishment of the quaestio. This means there are at least two stages: deliberation and quaestio. For example, it might go:

- Tribal Assembly → Quaestio → End.
- Senate → Quaestio → End.

Two stages in either case, but different governing bodies establish the court.

But let’s make it a bit more complicated. In 149 BC, the plebeian tribune Lucius Calpurnius Piso created a law that established the quaestio perpetua, a permanent court for trials of corrupt governors. The composition of the jury of this court became a major political dispute for the next century, but that is a different matter. What matters here is that he simplified the procedure so that prosecutions could be completed in a single Stage:

- Quaestio → End.

So you see, Stages allow for both structure and flexibility. Here are a few other examples of Stages you might see:

- Senate → Senate → Centuriate Assembly → End: A law is rejected by the senate, but it’s rewritten and the weaker version passes, so it’s taken to be ratified by the Assembly.
- Centuriate Assembly → End: A law is taken directly to be voted on by the Assembly, bypassing the Senate. This will likely cause Legitimacy issues (see Upcoming Additions below).
- Senate → Tribal Assembly → Escalation → End: A motion passes in the Senate, but fails in the tribal assembly, perhaps being vetoed by a Tribune. But its promulgator doesn’t withdraw it, so it escalates into violence and leads to loss of Stability (see below).

Finished Motions.



The most severe outcome of a Motion would be the death or exile of a former governor. Another possible outcome was financial restitution, often a multiple of the amount known to have been stolen (2 times what was stolen or so, it changed throughout time).

But acquittal was far more often the case. And then the prosecutor might be themselves prosecuted in retaliation.

One such historical case of retaliations went like this:

- The elder Caepio was exiled and fined for losing the Battle of Arausio, against the Cimbri. The prosecutors were the tribunes Saturninus and Norbanus.
- Caepio’s son, whom we will call Caepio the Younger, wrecked the voting proceedings of a law that Saturninus was trying to pass. It passed anyway.
- Eight years later, as the political landscape shifted, Caepio was prosecuted for that disruption.
- Caepio and his allies prosecuted Norbanus for his tribuneship. Saturninus was dead by now.
- In the end, the jury of equites acquitted both Caepio and Norbanus, ignoring their petty squabbles.

To me, all this maneuvering had two goals: 1) increasing the standing of oneself (and one’s allies) and 2) decreseaing the standing of one’s enemies (and their allies). But this was also wrapped around a complex political landscape, which I will talk in a future dev diary about Interest Groups.

Triumphs and Ovations were also a part of the same apparatus: you try to get them for yourself and your friends, and avoid your enemies from doing so. As such, the main outcome of Motions is changes to Prominence, either positive or negative. Look forward to a future dev diary about social status.

Right now I haven’t yet implemented gaining an Agnomen, the nickname that victorious generals often got: Africanus, Macedonicus, Numidicus, Asiaticus and so on. But fear not, this is coming!

Motions screen with both current and finished motions.

[h3]Note On Game Design: Depth vs Complexity[/h3]

I am following the thesis that depth comes from simple yet interconnected systems. I’m trying to avoid “complex” systems as much as possible, because they’re hard to understand and to interact with for the player, and hard to change and improve for the developer.

This means that, instead of designing complex and convoluted systems, I’m trying to design a few simple yet meaningful and effective systems that create depth not so much within themselves, but in the overall experience, through the interactions between all systems.

Within a single system, what I want is at least one core tension. That is, one “hard choice” (or “interesting decision”, to use Sid Meier’s term) that comes up often.

The hard choice for Motions is often this: do I want a small guaranteed reward, or a big risky reward? For example, you can go after a corrupt governor. But he has lots of friends in the Senate, so you’ll likely fail. But if you succeed, you’ll gain a lot of prominence!

It's a single interesting choice. However, due to interconnected system, this choice also overlaps with others. What if the corrupt governor is a friend of your father-in-law? Do you want to take that relationship hit?

With these overlapping systems, depth emerges.



"That man is GUILTY!" Sketch for a painting representing a prosecution in the Forum.

There’s a lot more to talk about, but this is all for today. I'm going to mention a few of the things you can expect in upcoming diaries:

[h2]Additions to Motions:[/h2]

Some things you can expect to see in future dev diaries:

- Lawmaking: In addition to trials and triumphs, you’ll be able to propose laws.
- Voting: You’ll be able to see the voting process in the Senate and Assemblies.
- Escalation and Vetos: Violence can erupt and extreme measures like vetos can be taken.
- Retaliation: Accusing someone could lead to them accusing you, justly or unjustly.
- Legitimacy and Due Process: Some motions will be more legitimate than others, depending on whether they were seen as just and if they followed the due process or not.
- Revoking, Weakening and Strengthening Motions: Laws and even motions like exiles can be revoked in the following years, creating a very dynamic society. Or they can sometimes be weakened or strengthened, creating links between past and present.

[h2]Interconnected Systems[/h2]

Here are some upcoming or current systems that interact with the Motions system:

- Interest Groups: Groups like Equites, Urban Populace, Soldiers, etc, will be dynamic and demand more rights through laws.
- Factions: Characters will be able to ally each other and cooperate in elections, their year in office and beyond.
- Favors and Grudges: Gain favors by helping others in their Motions, and spend those favors to pass your own.
- Tiers and Prominence: Rise in the ranks of society by prosecuting and defending others, and passing laws, gaining prominence through the courts (see the dev diary on hierarchy & marriage).
- Vice: Become more vicious by pursuing unjust convictions (see the dev diary on Vice).
- Magistracies & Provinces: Only some office holders can start some Motions, and only former provincial governors and their staff can be prosecuted for corruption in the provinces.
- Stability & Civil War: Violence and escalation in the courts can lead to the destabilization of Rome, and eventually to civil war.

All that said, please note that everything I said here might change. And it probably will! That's the iterative nature of making games, you just keep changing and improving things.

Wishlist Historia Realis:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2560540/Historia_Realis_Rome/
Thank you!
— Lucas

Hey, Lucas here! Today we’re gonna look at social status and social mobility in Historia Realis, in particular two institutions through which elite Romans achieved and maintained their position in society: conubio (marriage) and amicitia (literally “friendship”, but in fact more like a socio-political alliance). As we’ll see, these were interconnected.

Please note that the game is a work in progress, so everything I mention here can still change.



“I’d rather be first in a village than second in Rome.”
— Julius Caesar (as often paraphrased from Plutarch, Life of Caesar)

Romans were fiercely competitive, and Rome was an increasingly socially mobile society. The following video I made shows the data on which families held Consulships. Over time, we see more and more novi homines (”new men”, those with no ancestors that had held the Consulship before).
[previewyoutube][/previewyoutube]

Representing social mobility in the game also means representing social structure in some way. You can’t have social mobility without some kind of social ranking, places from which to climb and fall. This is where the Tier System comes in.

The Romans did have concrete structures of social hierarchy, the ordines (orders). But these were mostly to differentiate the elite from the rest. In Historia Realis, all simulated characters are part of the elite, men who could conceivably be elected into the cursus honorum, plus their families. So ordo (order) is not a useful concept here, since all men of the aristocracy were in the same order.

So how to rank these men?



The Tier system represents social position, even though there isn’t an exact historical equivalent to it. I believe that it captures the spirit of Roman hierarchy, if not its precise form. There is a danger here of being “too creative” with history and making something that is detached from how things actually worked in the past (I’m looking at you, pretty much every historical game). But I believe that part of making great games is taking risks and making bold, dangerous decisions – provided that they pay off. Only time will tell, but I like the results so far.

Another point in favor of this system is that it allows for the “top man” dynamic that the Romans liked so much. Their word for it was princeps, from which the word “prince” comes from, but which meant literally “first”. The most well-known use was princeps senatus, “first in the Senate”, and then the title of simply princeps by Augustus. However, Princeps was used in many contexts.



Being first (princeps) among peers was a crucial part of Roman life. In the game, therefore, there is a “first tier” among all tiers, which is where the top Romans are. Furthermore, each tier also has a “first place” slot. To simulate social mobility, the character in that first place gets promoted to a higher tier every five years (a period which the Romans called a lustrum, when new Censors took the census and rearranged the social hierarchy).

You gain points of Prominence in your tier by succeeding in your actions and endeavors, but also through other means. I will talk about this more in future diaries.


The concept of a Tier is represented by this stairs icon.



How did Romans in different rungs of society relate to each other?

There was the patron and client relationship between men of different orders. But, among the elite, since they were all of the same rank, they had a similar kind of relationship called amicitia, which sounded more respectful.

From my research, the essence of amicitia was:

• It was mutual and mutually beneficial.
  
• It could be between equals as well as between superiors and inferiors.
  
• It was limited in number. One wasn’t the amicus of everyone — even Cicero, who had many amici, was clearly not an amicus of Mark Antony. In fact, he was an inimicus (enemy), but that’s another diary.
  
• Although limited, it seems that men higher up could have many supporters. We find many names of Quaestors and other upstarts linked to men like Pompey and Caesar.
  
• It was fluid. Alliances could be made and unmade.
  

A character's main resources and attributes. Choosing allies with the right Aptitudes (the A, B, C letters at top of the bars) and the right Skills (the height of the bars) is crucial. A depleted, red bar means that an attribute has been used recently, but it will recharge and be ready for use again soon.

• Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Antony performed various duties in war and peace for Caesar, and Caesar supported Antony in elections and giving him positions, such as a legateship in Gaul.
  
• Julius Caesar and Labienus. Labienus served mostly in war, and then “betrayed” Caesar once the Civil War began, fighting in Pompey’s side.
  
• Pompey and Labienus. Even before the Civil War, Pompey had supported Labienus in his political career, and possibly introduced him to Caesar.
  
• There are many more examples of this kind of relationship. Octavian and Agrippa. Marius and the Metelli. Caesar and Pompey. Crassus and Caesar. The list goes on.
  

How did the relationship show up in practice?

• Support in actions, political or otherwise.
  
• Electoral sponsorship.
  
• Assignment of positions as legates in military campaigns and administrative staff in provinces.
  
• Tutoring of children and teens.
  
• Marriages to cement these alliances.
  

Right now I’ve only implemented the basic structure that will enable the above elements, so you can expect more details about each one in the future.


Did these relations of alliance create factions? Some common uses for the term ‘faction’ in Roman history are:

• Marian faction (Gaius Marius and then Cinna and his followers).
  
• Sullan faction (Under Sulla, in opposition to the above).
  
• The Gracchian faction (Gracchi brothers).
  
• The Triumvirates could be considered factions, and sometimes a “Senatorial faction” is mentioned in opposition to both.
  

It’s well-established that there were no political parties in the Roman Republic, but controversies remain among scholars about how the Romans organized. Most historians say that there were no groups such as the traditional optimates and populares, though it seems that at least the cause of the people did exist and was exploited by several politicians (Gracchi brothers, Saturninus, Clodius, etc), as also existed the cause of the aristocracy and its attempt to hold on to power (Sulla, Cicero, Cato, etc). There were also powerful families which could be conceived of as factions: the Cornelii Scipii, the Caecilii Metelli, perhaps the Julio-Claudians. But allegiances were fickle and there were often members of the same family on opposite sides of political disputes.

It seems that the Latin word factio was used in a derogatory way, as an accusation. “You are forming a factio!”. As if people who were organizing in factions were somehow cheating the political system, deviating from the mos maiorum (way of the ancestors).

Considering this complexity, I’ve decided to refrain, for now, from having factions in Historia Realis. I believe that implementing amicitia, which has more solid support from historical sources, might be enough (and conveys the complexity of social organization better).


We generally associate marriage alliances with monarchies. But the Roman Republic made use of them extensively. Perhaps the most notable example is the marriage between Pompey and Julia, the daughter of Julius Caesar. They got married when she was about 17 and Pompey was an accomplished 47-year old, which was not an uncommon age difference. When she died giving birth (to a child who didn’t survive), the alliance between Pompey and Caesar also ended, and the Civil War soon began.

Marriage is intrinsically connected with amicitia. You’d generally marry someone in your social circle, the daughter of an amicus, and you’d often form a relationship of amicitia with a relative. For example, Mark Antony was a distant relative of Julius Caesar. Antony’s mother, Julia, was probably a third-cousin of Caesar.



There’s a fantastic book about marriage in Ancient Rome called Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, by Susan Treggiari. Here are some of my notes from it. Please note that these are all about aristocratic marriage:

On Men

• Men were valued for two main factors: noble birth (nobilitas) and wealth.
  
• Young promising men often married right before their Quaestorship and after their 10-year military service (around age 30). But sometimes they’d marry around age 18, before starting their military service.
  
• Handsome men were valued.
  
• Male promiscuity could be a problem, but not always.
  
• Male achievement and rise in the cursus honorum mattered.
  

On Women

• Women were valued for beauty, health, pudicitia (good character) and wealth.
  
• Women who had produced children (and thus were fertile and healthy) were valued.
  
• Women were wed for their money too, because of the dowry men could get.
  
• Young virgins had low or no dowries, because their virginity was already considered valuable.
  

Other Interesting Notes

• Ugliness mattered in both genders. That is, people didn’t want to marry ugly people.
  
• Outsiders were marriageable sometimes. That is, up-and-coming wealthy men from the provinces could find wives in Rome.
  
• There was a possible increase of marriages for love in the Late Republic. But it was mostly a socio-economic alliance.
  
• The father was the initiator for finding suitors for his daughter.
  
• But the bachelor could also have initiative when searching for a wife.
  
• Cicero’s daughter marriage process, from brethroral to wedding, took about a year.
  
• Dowries could be higher depending on age and divorced status. Divorced women generally had to put up higher dowries.
  
• Ill-intentioned bachelors could marry promiscuous women with intention to divorce and take their wealth.
  
• Men needed to have enough family funds (father’s) to support the same lifestyle the woman was used to.
  
• There were different types of marriage. Perhaps the most meaningful difference was whether the husband became the legal guardian of the woman (cum manu) or if she remained under her father (sine manu).
  

This painting I made shows a Roman wedding. The wedding day was long and eventful, with many moments throughout. I decided to portray a scene towards the end, after the bride arrived at the groom’s house. There was a ritual where the bride symbolically offered the groom a spindle, representing her role in weaving the family’s clothes (though rich women likely just bought clothes), while the husband offered fire and water, probably representing his provisioning of resources fundamental for life and survival.

The flammeum, an orange veil covering the bride's face, is a commonly mentioned piece of clothing in weddings. White clothes for both the groom and bride were also tradition.



There’s much more to cover. I haven’t talked about genetics, inheritable traits and attributes, adoptions, divorce, dowries, brethrorals, inheritance of property, and so much more! I will discuss these things in future diaries as they are implemented, so make sure to follow the game on Steam if you don’t want to miss it!



Check out the website where you can sign up for the alpha, and join our Discord to discuss the game and get exclusive progress updates!

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2560540/Historia_Realis_Rome/

Harmony makes small things grow; the lack of harmony makes great things decay. – Sallust

Hi! Lucas here. Today I’d like to introduce a few special resources that characters have in Historia Realis. These are: Vice, Tranquility and Animus. They are all part of the action system and add depth and interest to it by creating opportunities for stories to emerge.

Most actions are neither Vice nor Leisure, just normal. Vice and Leisure are special types of actions, and I will now explain what they do.





Vice was a big deal for Romans and I believe it’s part of what makes Roman history so compelling for us today. Many of us know the emperors Caligula, Nero and Commodus for their extravagance and vice. So, for Historia Realis to be an accurate representation of Rome, you need to be able to witness (and do) some wicked stuff.

There were lesser and greater vices. Playing games (especially dice games) was a common vice, but not a terrible one. So there are degrees of importance, like any action: Trivial, Important, Crucial and Vital. Here are a few example Vice actions you could take:

• Play Dice (Trivial): +3 Vice.
  
• Bet Too Much (Important): +6 Vice.
  
• Bet Your House (Crucial): +9 Vice.
  
• Kill A Slave for Pleasure (Vital): +15 Vice.
  

These are just a few examples, and the values will probably be changed for balance. In addition, they all have their own consequences and place in the greater context of the game’s content. But their importance determines how much more vicious you become.

But why would you ever indulge in vice and become vicious? Because it can be helpful:

• Vice enables new actions that you wouldn’t be able to take otherwise.
  
• Indulging vices can increase your Animus (more on this below).
  
• Sometimes it can cost you Animus to resist indulging your vices, and you don’t want to spend your precious Animus that way.
  
• Vice compensates for a lack of Tranquility, which could otherwise cause you to perform worse in actions. I will go into this next.
  

Playing dice games – a small vice.

[hr][/hr]




The Romans had a word for leisure: otium. It was defined in opposition to negotium, business. There are also many leisure actions in the game, for example:

• Watch a Play (Trivial): +3 Tranquility.
  
• Enjoy Nature (Trivial): +3 Tranquility.
  
• Organize a Banquet (Important): +6 Tranquility.
  
• There are no Crucial or Vital leisure actions (at least so far). This makes sense thematically, but it also means that Tranquility is harder to get than Vice. Which makes Vice all the more tempting, as it can compensate for low Tranquility.
  

Tranquility can be negative. It ranges from -100 to +10. Yes, there is an intended asymmetry there. Aristocratic Romans were generally not interested in maximizing their leisure and tranquility, and certainly they weren’t supposed to do it. Having some positive Tranquility gives you a slight bonus in all actions, but that’s all. You’ll probably not manage to keep it positive for long.

So what are the consequences for having negative Tranquility?

• Low Tranquility makes you more likely to Fumble in actions, which halves your Effort.
  
• Low Tranquility makes you less likely to get Critical Efforts in actions, which double your effort.
  
• Some actions are only available if you have high enough Tranquility.
  

But as I said before, Vice can compensate for Tranquility. Maybe you’re not super relaxed and content, but at least you have your vices. And so Vice can literally make up for Tranquility. If you have -25 Tranquility but +25 Vice, you won’t suffer any of the negative consequences of low Tranquility. However, Vice can never give you the slight bonus that positive Tranquility gives — it only negates debuffs.

[hr][/hr]




Possibly the most precious resource in the game, Animus is used to compel changes in fortune in order to win actions you'd otherwise lose, to resist vices, to broaden your range of actions, and much more.

It is gained in a few different ways, but mainly through acting on your grudges (competition is what moved the Roman spirit) and performing favors and obligations you previously bound yourself to (loyalty, or fides, was also important to the Romans).

Having low Animus just means you have less ways of affecting which actions happen and their outcome. In other words, Animus is a way to direct the simulation by mitigating randomness. Of course, AI characters can also use their Animus to try to achieve their aims.

The Discord chose to name this resource Animus rather than Will. You can join us to participate in votes like this!

[hr][/hr]


You may have noticed that, although I titled this diary ‘Vice and Virtue’, Virtue is completely missing as a resource in the game. This is not an accident. There is no virtue resource for complex historical reasons that I will now explain.

Be warned that what follows are nerdy history things. If you’d like to stop reading here, it is understandable, and I thank you very much!

What follows are some random notes from my research. A lot of the writing here is fragmented and doesn't form a cohesive text, appearing random at times, although I tried to stitch it together somewhat, for your convenience. I apologize for any strangeness.

[h2]How to be a good Roman[/h2]

The good man (homo bonus) was a man full of virtue (virtus). Virtutes are things well done, bene facta, deeds. Only through action one demonstrates one’s character. So far, nothing too strange. But hold my posca, we will get deeper into it below.

[h2]Vice[/h2]

Vice, to the Romans, was about self-indulgence or lack of self-control. Mores were the customs that defined good behavior. Mos maiorum was “the way of our ancestors”.

Some common vices:

• Adultery.
  
• Mollitia (effemenacy).
  
• Friendship and relationships with actors, musicians and other such low-lives like prostitutes.
  
• Luxury, excessive food, drink and sex.
  

Moderate pleasure was either tolerated or seen as fine. Moderatio was later cited as a virtue.

Interestingly, it seems that the word vitium was used in a context of religious rituals with the meaning of “mistake during the ritual”, which would generally force people to do the ritual again from the beginning. But in this context it wasn’t about character flaws or self-indulgence, just not following the right procedure due to inattention.

The etymology of vitium seems to be either from Proto-Indo-European weyh₁-, “to pursue” or from “apart, wrong, two”. I don’t think we can really know. In any case, I made the icon a little red die showing the number two in honor of that second possible origin.

[h2]Corruption and Ambitio[/h2]

I am not sure if corruption fell within vitium. It was perhaps more a matter of law and honor rather than vice. The Romans had a specific word, ambitus, for political and electoral corruption.

Ambitio, from where the word “ambition” comes, was about advancing by breaking the rules:

“Ambitio has the sense of ambition and is used both with neutral or negative connotations in the ancient sources, particularly when describing political evils. This neutral aspect is used when describing someone willing to struggle for political advancement, an individual who either persevered in the end or gave up without pressing the existing system too far, while the negative describes individuals who allowed their ambition for advancement and office to run contrary to the good of the state.”

The moral and political tradition of Rome. Earl, Donald C; 1967.

I don’t believe that ambitus or corruption will be resources (like Vice) in the game, but they will exist. My intention is to have them as traits that can be leveled up or down, and so be used to take action or to target others in actions. For example, you can attempt to prosecute and exile a corrupt governor who has returned to Rome. This often happened (and they were often acquitted).

Perhaps actions like ‘Embezzle Provincial Taxes’ and actions of ambitus will be classified as Vices in the game.

Ambitio was the acquisition of power through evil means (malae artes) instead of the right way (vera via). But what makes for evil in this context? Who is to judge what is the “right way” to compete? Laws? But aren’t laws dictated by the powerful, the victors? And can't they change them once they take power, like was in fact the case with Cinna, Sulla, Augustus, etc?

Corruption and Dishonor seem to me harder to measure than Vice. It seems that winning made a Roman un-corrupt through the ratification of the actions that led to their attainment of power (as long as they stayed in power). We see this with Sulla, Marius, Caesar, Antony and Augustus. Once they reach power, they legalize their dishonorable actions. But, while one could have the state cleanse their honor, they couldn’t cleanse vice. I might add Honor (honos) as a resource when I get to the new amicitia (alliance) system soon.

[h2]The Evolution of Virtus[/h2]

Virtue is not a resource in Historia Realis. There are a few reasons. For one, traditional Roman virtue had a very different meaning to ours, and, to complicate things further, it then changed. Another reason is that Prominence (prominentia) is a better way of describing what virtus might describe in the system. But that is for a future dev diary.

Virtus translates literally as “manhood”, and it meant bravery, skill in battle and willingness to fight enemies in war. So it was virtuous to kill, and it was more virtuous to kill more. Of course, it wasn’t about killing just anyone, but killing enemies of Rome. To be virtuous was to fight, and to win. And the victor won glory for themselves, their family, and for Rome.

That is why Caesar could proudly boast of committing genocide against the Eburones in Gaul (there's a great Reddit topic about it here, including the OP changing their opinion based on evidence presented in the comments, which is admirable).

“Outside of the service of the Republic there existed no public office and, therefore, strictly speaking, no gloria, no nobilitas, no auctoritas, no virtus.”

Donald Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), 27.

This meaning was very different from what we now understand as virtue. And it started shifting around the second century BC, as Greek Stoicism started influencing Rome. The translation the Romans found for arete, or excellence, was virtus.

But in Stoicism, this excellence was moral, not martial. Thus the word virtus, or what it meant to be a good man, became disputed.

Sulla was a traditional virtuous Roman. Yes, he was a murderous dictator. But he was virtuous in the original sense of the word. His famous epitaph perhaps said:

"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full”

Or it could've been:

"No better friend, no worse enemy”

Or perhaps something like:

*None of his friends surpassed him in returning good, nor any of his enemies in returning evil.”

(Discussion about Sulla's epitaph here)

He was proud of being vengeful. He was a good man for it. Revenge was not a vice to the Romans. In fact, one could argue that it was virtuous to exact revenge. This only changed with Stoicism.

While Sulla was virtuous in that way, he was one of the more notoriously vicious characters of his time, because he mingled with actors, musicians and prostitutes (all equally low-lives), and indulged pleasures and luxury.

Some endeavor choices.

[h2]Stoic Humanitas[/h2]

Roman Stoicism kept the traditional notion of vice, indulging and seeking pleasure, but added another dimension, that of ethics. The novel idea was that it was wrong to hurt others, no matter if they wronged you first, for the simple fact that they were also human. This idea of humanity, humanitas was new.

Instead of it being virtuous to take revenge, the virtuous thing became to forgive and break the cycle of anger that traditional virtus (revenge and competition) created.

That said, I don’t believe that any of the prominent early Roman "stoics" managed to follow that ideal. That includes Cato the Younger, Brutus and Cicero (if we can consider any of them stoics). They were all very much engaged in the game of power and revenge, even if they shared stoic ideals as well.

[h2]Caesar(s) and Forgiveness[/h2]

Although Julius Caesar wasn’t a stoic, he was notoriously forgiving after his Civil War. He pardoned many who had fought in Pompey’s side.

Augustus was much less forgiving, perhaps having learned the lesson from his adoptive father’s murder, but he wasn’t wholly unforgiving. For example, he executed Mark Antony’s heir (Antyllus), but not any of Antony’s other children, including the ones with Cleopatra. And Iullus Antonius, Antony’s second son, married the niece of Augustus and was close to the imperial family. Too close, perhaps, as he was found to be a lover of Julia, Augustus’s daughter, and was forced to commit suicide.

It’s hard to say how much of this behavior came from personality or practicality rather than the historical trend of stoic thought. I only bring up these concrete cases to show the complexity of history. Caesar was forgiving even though he wasn’t a stoic. Augustus was much more of a stoic, and kept stoic philosophers around him as tutors and advisors, but he could be quite cruel and was less forgiving than Caesar. It’s complicated.

[h2]Brutus and Murder[/h2]

According to Cassius Dio’s Roman History, these were the last words of Brutus:

O wretched Virtue, thou wert but a name,
And yet I worshipped thee as real indeed;
But now, it seems, thou wert but Fortune’s slave

The word used for Virtue is in the original Greek is ἀρετή – arete, excellence.

There were probably many things in Brutus’s inner world that made him become the leader of Caesar’s assassination. I would highlight these:

• His family's past and legacy as overthrowers of the Roman Kingdom.
  
• His interpretation of Stoicism.
  
• Virtus as manliness and competition, the traditional Roman definition.
  

Here’s a question I don’t know the answer to: If the original concept of virtus was to compete fairly in war and elections, and the stoic virtue was to be kind and accept that which you can’t control, then how did Brutus manage to distort virtue into murder?

My theory is that Caesar disrupted the competition for power between Roman aristocrats that allowed for virtus in the traditional sense. Caesar disrupted the mos maiorum by winning too much and not allowing others to compete.

Augustus managed to tame that competition for a while, limiting it to offices under his special powers. But the competition would return stronger than ever with the coups that characterized the Empire. This time not between old aristocratic families, but between novi homines (new men).

[h2]Did Stoicism influence Christianity?[/h2]

Maybe, I really don’t know. This question is outside the scope of the game — Historia Realis takes place before the rise of Christianity. However, it’s an interesting subject and I’ll leave you with a quote from someone who studied this more indepth:

“It is often held that there is a major difference between Graeco-Roman and Christian ethics in terms of their theological basis and motivation, that is, that there is a distinctive religious motivation behind the latter that is more or less lacking in the ethics of the philosophical schools. This claim does not do full justice to our knowledge of Stoicism. As we have seen, especially in the discussion of Seneca and Epictetus, Stoic ethics has a strong theological foundation as it is largely based, not only on theories about God and God’s presence in the world, but also on the theory of the divine origin of humankind itself. In principle, the theory implies that no one is really superior to another, because all have equal share in the divine, and all have God as their ‘father’ who cares for them, helps and guides them, whoever they may be. Nature (God) ‘loves us most tenderly (amantissima)’, Seneca declares. In fact, we are loved (amamur) to the point of being spoiled’. The proper response to such love and care is—or should be—to act in the same manner towards one’s fellow human beings, i.e. towards other sharers of the divine. The difference between Christianity and Stoicism in this respect may therefore be more apparent than real.”

Runar M. Thorsteinsson – Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality-Oxford University Press (2010)

[h2]Takeaways From My Research[/h2]

• Roman Virtus shifted from “service in war and state" towards “ethical conduct for the common good of humanity and one’s peace of mind” due to the influence of Stoicism. Virtus became a disputed, conflicting term with the introduction of Greek ideas.
  
• Vice (vitium) did not undergo the same change as virtus. It always meant lack of self-discipline and indulgence of various pleasures.
  
• There were multiple factors at play. The Romans of the Late Republic had complex motivations, and were perhaps influenced by Stoicism, but also by others factors such as traditional Roman virtus and their own personalities and interests.
  

[hr][/hr]

Painting I made showing the convivium (Roman banquet).

I've been interested in a more Expressionist art style, especially with the rise of AI art, perhaps much like the Expressionists themselves reacted to the invention of photography. I've been enjoying making art that is clearly human-made, even though it might look a bit rough. Still working on getting this style right!



Check out the website where you can sign up for the alpha, and join our Discord to discuss the game and get the latest news and exclusive screenshots and progress updates! Thanks!

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2560540/Historia_Realis_Rome/