My Romanesque World

[Brennin Magalus]

Fusangite kindly suggested I start a thread on my world, so that is what I am doing here. I have a deep and abiding interest in the 4th century Roman Empire, which serves as the historical milieu of my game (see the link in my signature).

The approach I take with my pseudo-Roman world is probably most akin to the approach taken by S&S in their R&R: Excalibur book. In that book they tend to accommodate the Arthurian mythos to D&D, not the other way around. In my game, for example, I do not limit armor to "lorica hamata" or "lorica segmentata." Not only is it a pain, but I figure that, in a world with dwarves and magic, the Romans would have "advanced" armor.

Another thing I try to do is fully integrate the non-humans instead of tacking them on as if they do not influence the world whatsoever. One of the ways I have thought of approaching this is to replace real world cultures of Late Antiquity with non-humans. For example, I have replaced the Sassanid Persia with a Gray Elven monarchy/magocracy, which tends toward neutrality (I thought a neutral villain would be a nice switch). The Gray Elves (for lack of a better name) have subjugated the Hobgoblins (who have replaced the Turks) who now serve in their military.

Similarly, I have replaced the Huns (and Mongolians) with goblins and have contemplated replacing Germans with shifters and Goths with Orcs.

As for religion, I want to simulate Christian Rome, so there is one good deity (Tagathon, from Ancient Greek "to agathon," which denotes "the good") and one evil deity with three aspects (Tergenus, from "ter genus," which denotes "three natures"). Pagan nature worship also exists, as well as pseudo-Buddhism in far away Bharat, Zhong Guo, and Zipangu (incidentally, monks must come from one of these places or the Gray Elven Empire).

Another thing I like to do is come up with campaign specific terms drawn from Latin, Greek, and Keltic (I am not a stickler here--I am willing to use ecclesiastic Latin, for example, or not pay attention to the difference between P-Keltic and Q-Keltic). An example of this is my campaign specific term for the paladin: "eques dei" (Latin for "knight" or "horseman" of God).

Um, what else? I was thinking of adding the warforged as a collaboration between the dwarves and the Romans to counter Gray Elven mages and their Hobgoblin soldiers on the battlefield. Also, I have thought of making changelings the "new drow" by having them rule the Underdark.

Well, that's-a my world. I plan on running a PBP or something like unto it sometime in the future, and when I do I will recruit here.

 

[Aaron2]

The approach I take with my pseudo-Roman world is probably most akin to the approach taken by S&S in their R&R: Excalibur book. In that book they tend to accommodate the Arthurian mythos to D&D, not the other way around. In my game, for example, I do not limit armor to "lorica hamata" or "lorica segmentata." Not only is it a pain, but I figure that, in a world with dwarves and magic, the Romans would have "advanced" armor.

My world is also Romanesque (more -esque than Roman) and one of the things I've been struggling with is trying to justify the existance of traditionally armed and armored legionaires together with knights and orcs. The way I figure it is that the legions were better equipped than many armies of medieval times. So, I can pretty much stick with standard roman equipment (pilum, shortword, scutum and various light armors).

Since your deally with the later empire, you already have a clear distinction between the poorly armed legions and the newer, more heavily armed, cavalry forces. (Well, maybe not so much in the 4th century as the 5th+)


Aaron

 

[SWBaxter]

The approach I take with my pseudo-Roman world is probably most akin to the approach taken by S&S in their R&R: Excalibur book. In that book they tend to accommodate the Arthurian mythos to D&D, not the other way around. In my game, for example, I do not limit armor to "lorica hamata" or "lorica segmentata." Not only is it a pain, but I figure that, in a world with dwarves and magic, the Romans would have "advanced" armor.

Historically, Roman armour was pretty advanced as compared to medieval types - you have to get into the early Renaissance before a significant number of knights were wearing as good or better armour than Rome's cataphractii and clibanarii heavy cavalry, and Rome's infantry wore about as much armour as you could put on soldiers and still expect them to march long distances. The differences from D&D are mostly physics - Rome didn't armour the infantry as heavily as the cavalry because in the real world no infantry equipped that way could cover any kind of useful distance, whereas in D&D people in full plate can travel all day relatively easily. If they lived under D&D-style physics, the lorica segmentata et al would've built to be the equivalent of plate mail (at least).

 

[leporidae]

Roman Infantry

Roman infantry was so effective because they were able to bring concentrated force together (with training, discipline...) that was able to break apart their opponents infantry. But I suspect people standing shoulder to shoulder on a battlefield would not be any more effective in a world with fireballs/dragons/cloud kills than it would in a world with machine guns.

For my Romanesque campaign (though it was a few centuries later - more like a post-Roman Empire world, though elements of the former Empire persisted) I assumed that they had undergone a transformation on par with the military transformation during WWI. Instead of massed infantry - the legions now operated as collections of coordinated but independant and tactically more spread-out groups. Their role was to support the heavy firepower (mages and recruited monsters) instead of being expected to claim and hold ground on their own.

 

[painandgreed]

What role do wizards have in this Romanesque world?

My homebrew world includes a Romanesque history. The ceasers were replaced with wizard-kings which resulted in a single long lived tyrant modeled in the spirit of Glen Cook's Lord and Lady. Their eventual fall, the sack of Rome and the creation of an eastern and Western empires.

For more info on Rome, I highly sugest Livy's books on Rome, particularly the earliest histories and legends of Rome. You get a good feel of what Rome was based on and the cultural mythology they lived in. Also, if you have a romanesque world, you need a Trojanesque history since the earliest Romans were said to be Trojans and much of their early history was fighting and joining with other Trojan settlements to defend themselves against the native populations.

 

[loki44]

I was confused by the title of this thread. I thought Romanesque usually refers to a medieval architectural style (often compared and contrasted with Gothic). I had no idea what a Romanesque game would be like in that sense. I get it now.

 

[fusangite]

Similarly, I have replaced the Huns (and Mongolians) with goblins and have contemplated replacing Germans with shifters and Goths with Orcs.

Does this mean that the army and pastoral regions are full of monstrous humanoids who have sworn allegiance to the empire?

As for religion, I want to simulate Christian Rome, so there is one good deity (Tagathon, from Ancient Greek "to agathon," which denotes "the good") and one evil deity with three aspects (Tergenus, from "ter genus," which denotes "three natures").

Does this mean that the empire is monophysite then? This raises some interesting questions about how the period of church councils in which something is orthodox one year and heretical the next is mapped into D&D. I'm really interested in your thoughts there. Also, does your formulation make the world Manichean?

Pagan nature worship also exists,

Is this understood as demonic worship by the imperial faith?

Um, what else? I was thinking of adding the warforged as a collaboration between the dwarves and the Romans to counter Gray Elven mages and their Hobgoblin soldiers on the battlefield. Also, I have thought of making changelings the "new drow" by having them rule the Underdark.

It sounds like monstrous humanoids, humans and demi-humans are actually much better at forming alliances and working together than in most D&D worlds. Does this mean you're a little more relaxed about alignment?

Also, underlying this whole thing is your theory of how/if the empire is falling. Because D&D works differently in so many ways, are you taking this in the Thomas Harlan direction and injecting magic to keep the empire going or are you coming up with new, more D&Dish ideas about what is making the West fall and the East not?

 

[mythusmage]

Interesting. To add to the wealth of advice and questions I have the following.

1. Historicity. How close to real world history does it adhere? Is it more in the general overview or in the small details? For example, does the history of your Roman Empire include the plagues that swept the Balkans in the 3rd century?

2. Could you give us further details on how you're handling non-humans? On that subject, See if you can get ahold of a copy of Hinterwelt Enterprise's Roma Imperious. Borrowed or bought used (I would not recommend paying full price for it, it has problems). That said, it does featuring an interesting fantasy Roman Empire. One of the best parts is its treatment of dwarfs. The dwarfs of Roma Imperious being varied in nature. Most of them being nasty little stunties who are into kidnapping people and either eating them (most of the them) or transforming them into dwarfs (the rest).

3. On the subject of a fantasy Rome, may I recommend Thomas Harlan's Oath of Empire tetralogy. A four book series which (you might say) tells the story of how Morgoth (Prince Maxian Atreus), Sauron (Lord Dahak), and Gandalf (the Prophet Mohammed) came to be. Okay, silliness aside, it is a good read, and has tons of information on the world of OoE which you could use, suitably altered, in your world. (BTW, Mohammed was originally a minor character, but Tom got to reading up on him and got to like him. Changed the course of the story entirely.)

4. For further reading on the subject of fantasy Rome get yourself a copy of Fulminata. Adamant Press is doing a d20 version. Or you can check out the original

5. Goths and Germans: The Goths were Germans, as far as I know. The Goths were simply the largest German nation at the time. It should also be noted that the Skands (our Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes) had yet to emerge entirely from their German forebearers, and that the proto-Skands were just starting to explore and colonize the Scandinavian penninsula.

Since you are planning on making the Goths orcs and the Germans shifters, may I recommend to following?: The Germans are descended from the Goths (so to speak) and thus are evolved orcs who have become shape-changers. An ancient boon or curse. The proto-Skands are orcs who are evolving into goblins.

For a Tolkeinesque touch, make the Finns the proto-Skand proto-goblins are displacing wood elves. And add in trolls as the pre-Finn/pre-Skand aboriginal inhabitants of Scandinavia.

Hope this helps.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I was confused by the title of this thread. I thought Romanesque usually refers to a medieval architectural style (often compared and contrasted with Gothic). I had no idea what a Romanesque game would be like in that sense. I get it now.

I had the same reaction at first. Then I got distracted contemplating a Rubenesque campaign setting, where everyone was a chunky naked woman. Then I started giggling and lost my original train of thought.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Does this mean that the army and pastoral regions are full of monstrous humanoids who have sworn allegiance to the empire?

That is a good question. Monstrous humanoids as foederati is an interesting concept that I am willing to entertain.

Does this mean that the empire is monophysite then?

No, as there is no explicit Christ figure that would allow for a debate concerning the relationship between his divine and human natures. Besides which, my real life Christological sympathies lie with the Alexandrian priest Arius, whose Christology is "lower" than that of the monophysites. In fact, anyone who is familiar with the 4th century Christological disputes should not have any trouble noting my thinly veiled criticisms of the opposition.

This raises some interesting questions about how the period of church councils in which something is orthodox one year and heretical the next is mapped into D&D. I'm really interested in your thoughts there.

Early Christianity (especially fourth century Christianity) is one of my chief interests. I am willing to discuss it with you here or offline, as appropriate.

Also, does your formulation make the world Manichean?

Only to the extent that Manichaeism was about cosmic dualism.

Is [Pagan nature worship] understood as demonic worship by the imperial faith?

That is another good question. Probably not, but it is viewed with contempt regardless (I am reminded of Constantine informing the pagans that they could have their temples of falsehood).

It sounds like monstrous humanoids, humans and demi-humans are actually much better at forming alliances and working together than in most D&D worlds. Does this mean you're a little more relaxed about alignment?

I don't think so. Under the influence of the "Sassanid Elves," many of their hobgoblin Mamluks have drifted toward LN as opposed to LE and any monstrous humanoids who were accepted as foederati by the empire would have to be domesticated neutral types.

Also, underlying this whole thing is your theory of how/if the empire is falling. Because D&D works differently in so many ways, are you taking this in the Thomas Harlan direction and injecting magic to keep the empire going or are you coming up with new, more D&Dish ideas about what is making the West fall and the East not?

Under Valentinian the West was in good shape. Excepting Adrianople, which was an unmitigated disaster, the East was in good shape under Valens. I am not certain when or if my fantasy Roman Empire will "fall."

Thanks for your pithy questions, Fusangite.