Greece vs. Rome: Which is better for a Campaign?

[Wik]

So, while reading David Gemmell's excellent Troy series, I got a hankering to run a Greek-themed game. And, the more I thought about it, the more I realized you could easily adapt 4e to suit a Greek theme.

But that won't happen - I have a campaign running, and I won't drop it on a whim.

In any case, I started thinking. I usually prefer a Roman-style campaign world. But, what works better for a Role-playing setting? A greek world, or a Roman world?

Note that the question isn't "What is more interesting?" (I'd say Roman, others might say Greek), but "What is more suited towards a Role-playing campaign setting?".

P.S. before you say something silly like "It depends on the system", just assume we're talking about Good Ol' Fashioned D&D here. If you were going to make a campaign world, which model would you adopt?

 

[ProfessorPain]

It depends on the campaign

Honestly, I could go for either; I would suggest blending them both together. You can probably get the most bang for your buck this way; particularly if you are designing an entire bonze age campaign world. Shouldn't be too hard. Chances are, players who get excited about Caesar, also get excited by the Illiad.

I think I have more affinity for the Roman Empire; have always found it more interesting. Rome is especially good for city or political adventures. The only downside is it is stable and perhaps a little too structured. But it is a campaign setting so you can do what you want to with it.

What kind of campaign did you have in mind? I have always wanted to run a political campaign modeled after I Claudius, but I haven't been able to come up with a good game plan yet.

 

[Wik]

So, a few thoughts I have:

Greek Model
Pros:
* Lots of small city-states, so you can have much variety in locales.
* A sort of Epic feel, with many unique monsters for heroes to defeat
* Travel is encouraged, in the vein of The Odyssey

Cons:
* Frequent intervention of Deities could be a problem for balance
* If PCs have a home base, it'd be pretty small (one small city or kingdom)
* The lack of a "Common tongue" could be problematic

Roman Model
Pros:
* PCs can range from a whide variety of places, and still belong to the same Empire (and thus, speak the same language)
* Well suited to a political vibe
* Wider range of approaches available to the group - they could be gladiators, politicians, legionnaires, explorers...

Cons:
* Sense of "Magic" is a bit more muted, as Romans were much more pragmatic.
* Harder to come up with "Orc invasions", since the well-equipped legions should be able to deal with this.
* Doesn't always fit well with a "points of light" approach.

 

[ProfessorPain]

So, a few thoughts I have:

Greek Model
Pros:
* Lots of small city-states, so you can have much variety in locales.
* A sort of Epic feel, with many unique monsters for heroes to defeat
* Travel is encouraged, in the vein of The Odyssey

Cons:
* Frequent intervention of Deities could be a problem for balance
* If PCs have a home base, it'd be pretty small (one small city or kingdom)
* The lack of a "Common tongue" could be problematic

Roman Model
Pros:
* PCs can range from a whide variety of places, and still belong to the same Empire (and thus, speak the same language)
* Well suited to a political vibe
* Wider range of approaches available to the group - they could be gladiators, politicians, legionnaires, explorers...

Cons:
* Sense of "Magic" is a bit more muted, as Romans were much more pragmatic.
* Harder to come up with "Orc invasions", since the well-equipped legions should be able to deal with this.
* Doesn't always fit well with a "points of light" approach.

These seem to nail it. Again if your campaign world is big, you can always have an expanding roman-esq empire in the east, and a thriving greek-like culture in the west. Or you can completley combine the two. Make the empire less strongly centralized. Or at least, less well equiped to deal with threats in an organized way (perhaps the legions are occupied with a barbarian threat to the north? Or you can deviate more from history, and have them facing a threat that is more sinister. Personally I wouldn't worry about it not fitting the points of light concept completely; as points of light never struck me as all that interesting or believable. The issue really is there needs to be conflicts in the game world, and room for adventure. Also, don't knock the orc invasion. The roman's could deal with threats; but what if they are fighting multiple wars at once; or dealing with internal rebellions; or the orcs just plain outnumber them.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I went with Greece because it fits D&D's "points of light" better.

 

[xechnao]

So, a few thoughts I have:

Greek Model
Pros:
* Lots of small city-states, so you can have much variety in locales.
* A sort of Epic feel, with many unique monsters for heroes to defeat
* Travel is encouraged, in the vein of The Odyssey

Cons:
* Frequent intervention of Deities could be a problem for balance
* If PCs have a home base, it'd be pretty small (one small city or kingdom)
* The lack of a "Common tongue" could be problematic

Roman Model
Pros:
* PCs can range from a whide variety of places, and still belong to the same Empire (and thus, speak the same language)
* Well suited to a political vibe
* Wider range of approaches available to the group - they could be gladiators, politicians, legionnaires, explorers...

Cons:
* Sense of "Magic" is a bit more muted, as Romans were much more pragmatic.
* Harder to come up with "Orc invasions", since the well-equipped legions should be able to deal with this.
* Doesn't always fit well with a "points of light" approach.

Huh?

"Ancient Greek is the historical stage in the development of the Greek language spanning across the Archaic (c. 9th–6th centuries BC), Classical (c. 5th–4th centuries BC), and Hellenistic (c. 3rd century BC–6th century AD) periods of ancient Greece and the ancient world. It is predated in the 2nd millennium BC by Mycenaean Greek. Its Hellenistic phase is known as Koine ("common") or Biblical Greek, and its late period mutates imperceptibly into Medieval Greek. Koine is regarded as a separate historical stage of its own, although in its earlier form it closely resembles Classical Greek. Prior to the Koine period, Greek of the classic and earlier periods included several regional dialects."

This is the very first paragraph of:
Ancient Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wik]

Also, don't knock the orc invasion. The roman's could deal with threats; but what if they are fighting multiple wars at once; or dealing with internal rebellions; or the orcs just plain outnumber them.

True. In fact, I ran a Roman game where this exact same thing was happening. The "Romans" had to deal with a few problems, and the PCs found themselves in a border skirmish with Trolls, with only a few small units of Legionnaires helping out (the bulk of the Army was either suppressing rebellions, or fighting a rogue Roman army in a bloody civil war).

I guess the reason I'm asking "what's better as written?" is that it's a thought exercise. If you had to run a 2e campaign using one of the historical supplements, and you had to choose between "The Glory of Rome" and the Greek "Age of Heroes" supplement, which would you run, you know?

I voted "Greece", but I think that's because that's what I'm reading right now. A huge part of me is just fascinated by Rome, and there are some big reasons why Rome could be better for a long-running campaign world (especially earlier Rome, and Rome in it's last days).

 

[Wik]

Huh?

"Ancient Greek is the historical stage in the development of the Greek language spanning across the Archaic (c. 9th–6th centuries BC), Classical (c. 5th–4th centuries BC), and Hellenistic (c. 3rd century BC–6th century AD) periods of ancient Greece and the ancient world. It is predated in the 2nd millennium BC by Mycenaean Greek. Its Hellenistic phase is known as Koine ("common") or Biblical Greek, and its late period mutates imperceptibly into Medieval Greek. Koine is regarded as a separate historical stage of its own, although in its earlier form it closely resembles Classical Greek. Prior to the Koine period, Greek of the classic and earlier periods included several regional dialects."

This is the very first paragraph of:
Ancient Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, the Greeks all spoke Greek. But, the problem is, there weren't just Greeks in a "Greek" setting - there were Hittites, Egyptians, Etruscans, Phoenicians, Babylonians... and they all spoke differing languages. Not to mention that each island had a different dialect.

Compare this to the Roman Empire, which dominated the Meditteranean - and facilitated the spread of latin. While people still spoke their native languages (Egyptian, Greek, etc...) it was also pretty likely they spoke latin as well.

 

[ProfessorPain]

True. In fact, I ran a Roman game where this exact same thing was happening. The "Romans" had to deal with a few problems, and the PCs found themselves in a border skirmish with Trolls, with only a few small units of Legionnaires helping out (the bulk of the Army was either suppressing rebellions, or fighting a rogue Roman army in a bloody civil war).

I guess the reason I'm asking "what's better as written?" is that it's a thought exercise. If you had to run a 2e campaign using one of the historical supplements, and you had to choose between "The Glory of Rome" and the Greek "Age of Heroes" supplement, which would you run, you know?

I voted "Greece", but I think that's because that's what I'm reading right now. A huge part of me is just fascinated by Rome, and there are some big reasons why Rome could be better for a long-running campaign world (especially earlier Rome, and Rome in it's last days).

I know much less about greece; but I think it would be loads of fun; particularly after having just re-watched 300. It seems like it would be a little more free-form, because of the lack of a central authority. My thinking is Greece is probably better for Quest/Epic Adventures, and Rome better for City/Political adventures.

 

[xechnao]

Yeah, the Greeks all spoke Greek. But, the problem is, there weren't just Greeks in a "Greek" setting - there were Hittites, Egyptians, Etruscans, Phoenicians, Babylonians... and they all spoke differing languages. Not to mention that each island had a different dialect.

Compare this to the Roman Empire, which dominated the Meditteranean - and facilitated the spread of latin. While people still spoke their native languages (Egyptian, Greek, etc...) it was also pretty likely they spoke latin as well.

Ancient greek was considered the de facto common language in the east (egypt included) and south Italy even in roman times.