Republic of Rome
"Frenemies, Romans, Countrymen ..."
Most games are competitive. Even in a relaxed, laid back atmosphere with everyone chill and polite, the game itself is competitive. There’s one winner1. In the 21st Century, co-operative games (such as Matt Leacock’s Pandemic) have gained a huge following2 …. but back in the 20th Century?
Games. Are. Competitive.
But, one game turned that on it’s head. Somewhat. Maybe.
Richard Berthold, Don Greenwood & Robert Haines’s Republic of Rome is set in the Roman Republic: before Caesar, before the empire. The Senate (not one man) controlled the budget, passed laws and declared wars. But in the earliest days (500 BC), Rome wasn’t “our Rome3.” It was small, threatened, and worried.
Nearly constantly at war, and often the underdog.
Each players represent factions of Senators and when the Senate is in session players argue and vote, trying to keep Rome alive: How to spend the budget? How to position the legions against Rome’s enemies? Which Generals to send? There are also problems at home: tax the people to much you won’t have to worry about Carthage … the peasants will kill you. Players debate as long as they want, then cast the votes.
At the end of the game somebody will win. Assuming Rome survives.
But survival is far from assured4. So the players have to walk a tightrope, the jockeying for position is constrained by the “common good.” Later on you worry about giving a General too many troops because they may become more loyal to him than Rome and (oops!) we have a winner5. Or a player may become so wealthy and influential that they are voted into a position of power.
The answer to both of these problems is (obviously) by attempting to assassinate the popular guy first. And this can be done at almost any time during the senate phase by uttering a code phrase, kind of a safe-word in reverse6. Assassination is risky (if you fail and get caught, the mob would likely string up a bunch of your senators).
When the senate is in session, its mostly free form. You argue, debate, pass laws related to budget, troops, prosecute wars, maybe spend some money on bread and circuses to placate the mob7 but if one guy gets to powerful, maybe the knives come out. But if Rome is failing, they are put away and people focused on survival.
Once the Senate is adjourned (which could happen suddenly if presiding officer simply adjourns it or is sent off to the front), then you have a bunch of phases to resolve the wars, see if the peasants revolt, which senators die due to old age or plague, and which other nations have grown too big for their britches. Basically, you fast-forward a few years until the next crisis, and then the Senate opens up for its next session.
Personally, Republic of Rome was a big step up from prior games, in terms of rules. This isn’t Sim City where the computer handles the numbers; the players have to learn how to roll the dice for wars and understand all the possibilities and different things that can happen. Not just because there’s no computer moderator, but also because without understanding the threats the Senators can’t make informed choices. Republic of Rome might have been the first game where I had to really read the rule book and pay careful attention to detail to understand the game.
But this complexity had benefits, too. Republic of Rome is noted for its historical accuracy and attention to detail. Not just the wars, but a good introduction to some of the politics of the time. Players groan when a Land Reform bill is proposed (basically giving new farmland to peasants or slaves), because it costs valuable money but anyone voting against it is going to be less popular. (The mob loves the guy who proposed it!). Do you want to send that popular guy off to the boonies (like Gaul)? He’ll pocket a nice chunk of tax money governing it, but at least he won’t be around to cast his vote or influence legions.
Republic of Rome isn’t the first game to have the “Maybe nobody wins”8 condition, and it was not a major hit (although it is kind of a “cult classic”). But it also stands out as one of the great simulation games that isn’t just simulating a battle (or military campaign, or war) but of an entire political system, capturing the problem of politicians everywhere: balancing personal ambition versus good governance.
For those reasons, I personally think that Republic of Rome is worth considering as one of The 100 Most Influential Games of the 20th Century.
Although some games have teams (with one team winning and the rest losing) or a one-versus-many; but in either case you have a winner and one (or more) losers. A few games (such as Diplomacy or Cosmic Encounter) do allow for joint victories, but those are relatively rare.
Boardgamegeek has over 13,000 games listed as “Cooperative” but looking at the Top Ranked 200, none predates Pandemic. But there are a few cooperative games of note in the 20th Century. Stay tuned!
The Rome you think about every day? That’s the Empire, not the Republic.
Particularly in the “Early Game” scenario; but there are scenarios where Rome is better established and things not nearly as dire.
That’s how Julius Caesar won in real life.
For us it was “Die, Swine!”
OK, some parts of the Rome you think about every day started during the Republic.
The rules suggest "Die, swine" as well.
Another game I can't comment on. Which is odd, given my - and the game's - vintage.