F:AT Thursday - The Republic of Rome and Teaching Games

Teaching a new game is a skill. I like to think I'm pretty good at it especially with games I know very well. Hell, I've taught games so often that I should hope I've developed some ability. I imagine most people that read my blog or visit the Fort are the same,  drivers of the hobby rather than riders.

I  don't mind teaching, really. Oh, we all know the types of people that we hate to teach. Mr. Cellphone who is very intent on texting rather than listening. Mr "Thousand-questions", who is never satisfied with the "we'll get to that in a moment" delay as you explain the basic concepts. He needs his questions answered right now! Mr. "I-got-this", who knows everything before you start and then on turn 3 it is discovered he has been doing something fundamentally  wrong that requires a complete restart of the game to correct. Or Mr. "You-never-told-me-that", who gets bent because he made a poor play or is penalized by a rule that you most certainly DID tell him and, even when every other person at the table agrees that you did talk about the rule in question, insists that you didn't. 

When I have to teach a game that is new to everyone including myself based on my having read the rules  I feel uncomfortable. That it is a game I own and a game that I am eager for everyone to like (myself included) can be taken as a given, else I wouldn't be in that position. If it is a complicated game this unease can become even more pronounced as I can see the eyes turn glassy as I attempt to explain concepts and procedures even I am not too clear on yet.

Such was the case with The Republic of Rome which I attempted to teach to the true believers last night with mixed results.

I made it known that I really wanted to try this game and that it would be a learning game. The gang knew it would be a slog and I soothed my troubled conscience by saying that I didn't mind if they weren't into it and wanted to play something else. But here is the dirty little secret...I play with a great group of people. I mean really fabulous. We are all very accommodating when somebody has a game they  want played and none of us tries to dominate the choices. So by saying I really wanted to try it meant that we'd be playing it.

The heart and soul of Republic of Rome is voting and negotiation. It's really what drives the game and what makes the game fun (potentially).  However, there is a lot going on at once in the game and to know what is important, what is not, and how one aspect will affect another you really need to have the whole picture in your mind. You can't get that whole picture without first learning the game step by torturous step and playing through a turn or two.

So we all sucked it up. I bulldozed through the glassy eyes of boredom, the furrowed brows of confusion, and the tapping fingers of impatience as I made my initial explanations of what we were trying to accomplish. We went step by step through a game turn as outlined in the "Streamlined Rules" available online. We wasted money on things that were not worth it, we ignored things that we shouldn't have. And by brute force we made it to the end of turn three. (I exaggerate here. They were good sports about it but knew I was anxious for them not to hate it..and smelling that blood in the water...these sharks couldn't help but bust my ass).

So what were our thoughts regarding this game? I know you're  biting  your nails in eagerness to find out....

I liked it. I liked it enough to want to play it again and soon. I felt that we stopped just as things were beginning to fall into place for me as to what sorts of things I should be doing. I think Engineer Al kind of dug it, and Josh was very tired and so wasn't really at the right energy level for a heavy negotiation game. Uba, as always is a tough read when it comes to games like this. She prefers, I think, more straight forward games. I don't want to say less complex because it's not simplicity she's after but rather directness. Republic of Rome is a bit more sideways in it's approach.

I like that it is deep and the strategies can be a bit more subtle than in more abrupt games like Article 57. I like that there is a lot going on. I like the old school feel of it. Uba asked if the game was from the 80's because it sure felt like it (it was first published in 1990 by Avalon Hill so close enough). 

There is a trend to extoll the stripped down nature of many modern designs and to an extent that can be good. Certainly there are older games that get bogged down in too much..."stuff" ...but I think there is a different category of game that is neither a "barrel hoop" nor a "Ferris wheel".  Republic of Rome might be one of these games in the middle, a good "Crager rim" of a game. (Take that analogy down in your diary and treasure it always)

There is randomness in this game and lots of it. Nothing is a sure thing. That is good. Your best laid plans can come to naught if the dice are against you.  If, however, you couple this with the long play time, it can be seen as a drawback. Josh was leery because if you play for three hours only to have everything come to shit because of one unlucky roll, that is not a good thing. I don't think the game is as capricious as that but it is something to be aware of. 

The design of the board, for those new to the game, can be a bit intimidating. 2/3rds of it are charts and result tables for different aspects of the game, spots for cards, and tracks for certain game elements. But to look at it...well it's cluttered and to discern the current game state takes a bit of thought. Also, even with all those charts, there was no turn sequence on the board.

Terminology, one of the most important but often overlooked aspects of a game (Hello GMT...I'm looking square at you) was a bit foggy in some areas. Using the word "oratory" to describe "voting power" while "influence" is something used for entirely different purposes had us a bit confused.  Also, needless abbreviations on game elements that could easily fit the whole word was annoying. "Loy" instead of "Loyalty" on a card with plenty of room?

And my own little pet peeve of a gripe. Cute dice. This annoys the hell out of me. Valley Games did the same thing in Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage. Do NOT make dice with Roman numerals instead of pips or Arabic numerals. Just don't! It's cute, it's thematic, it's neat...it's a pain in the ass. Give me normal dice.

We had four players and the game plays six. Like most negotiation games, I think it would only be improved by having as many people as possible.

In my mind I have a vision of a table of six friends all shouting and laughing and back stabbing each other six ways from Sunday.

I think this game could really be super BUT it requires people willing to play more than once and for them to be in the right frame of mind for raucous wheeling and dealing. The kind of people who laugh in appreciation when you've executed a perfect betrayal and  totally hosed them rather than getting mad.

Did I teach the F:AT Thursday crew well enough to be able to get them to play it again. I don't know but I hope so.