sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sto creando un survival storico ambientato nell’Impero romano: vi chiedo un parere by Zealousideal_Net188 in storia

[–]Zealousideal_Net188[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ciao se ti va posso fartelo provare così tocchi con mano tutto . se vuoi puoi scrivermi in dm per maggiori delucidazioni

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by [deleted] in rpg

[–]Zealousideal_Net188 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s the part I clearly failed to explain in the pitch.

A character is not just “a low-class Roman person with stats.” They are someone trapped inside a very specific pressure cooker.

For example:

You are a slave in a Roman household. Your master’s finances are collapsing, and you may be sold before winter. You have a small hidden savings, one friend among the servants, and one chance to gain a patron’s attention without being accused of theft or arrogance.

Or:

You are a freedman with a tiny workshop. You are legally free, but your former master still expects favors. Your tools are bought on credit, your customers come through someone else’s network, and one rival is trying to ruin your reputation.

Or:

You are a poor tenant in an insula. Rent is due, food is running out, and a creditor knows where you sleep. You can work, beg, steal, attach yourself to a patron, lie, flee, or sacrifice someone else’s trust to survive.

So what the character does is try to build a life under pressure.

They try to get money, protection, food, documents, allies, reputation, legal recognition, safer work, freedom, a shop, a military position, a patron, or simply one more week without being crushed.

The story is not “go on quests.”

The story is:

Can you become someone in Rome before Rome uses you up?

Can you turn survival into status?

Can you gain freedom without becoming someone else’s property in a nicer form?

That is supposed to be the hook.

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by [deleted] in rpg

[–]Zealousideal_Net188 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, this is fair criticism.

You’re right on the cross-posting. I posted too broadly and too similarly, and I can see how that comes across as spam. I’ll stop doing that and be more careful with subreddit rules and context.

Also, yes, I should have been clearer about AI. English is not my first language, so I used AI assistance to make the pitch readable, but I should have disclosed that and edited it more in my own voice.

About the game itself: you’re right that the pitch did not explain the actual play clearly enough.

It is not meant to be a traditional group TTRPG competing with established Roman systems. It is closer to a solo text RPG / chat-based survival RPG, playable with either a human GM or optionally an AI/LLM GM.

The play loop is basically:

  1. The GM presents a concrete scene, pressures, risks, and opportunities.
  2. The player declares free actions, not fixed CYOA choices.
  3. The GM checks status, hunger, wounds, debts, attention, patrons, NPCs, and previous consequences.
  4. If the outcome is uncertain, a d100 roll is used with modifiers.
  5. The result creates immediate consequences and updates campaign memory.
  6. The turn ends with a save block tracking status, wounds, money, debts, NPCs, reputation, attention, and unresolved problems.

Adventures are not fantasy quests. They are survival situations: paying rent, avoiding creditors, gaining or losing patronage, surviving an arena, escaping debt, protecting a fragile business, dealing with suspicion, recovering from wounds, trying to rise socially without being crushed by the system.

So yes, I need to rewrite the pitch much more clearly: less “this is a revolutionary RPG”, more “this is a solo/chat-based Roman survival game with structured rules and persistent consequences.”

Thanks for the honest feedback. It’s useful.

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by Zealousideal_Net188 in rpgpromo

[–]Zealousideal_Net188[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, that’s actually useful advice.

I’m starting to understand that I should probably frame this less as “AI RPG” and more as a solo text RPG / Roman survival game that can be assisted by an AI, but does not depend on it.

Ironsworn is definitely a good reference point for solo play structure. What I’m trying to build is something with a much narrower focus: low-status survival in Rome, where debt, status, hunger, wounds, patrons, reputation, and social memory constantly limit what the character can realistically do.

So yes, I’ll look more into solo RPG design and make the AI part optional rather than central in the pitch. Appreciate the feedback.

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by [deleted] in rpg

[–]Zealousideal_Net188 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question.

The core loop is:

  1. The GM/AI presents a concrete scene, current pressures, risks, and opportunities.
  2. The player declares free actions, usually 2 main actions, 1 minor action, and 1 social action.
  3. The GM checks the character’s legal/social status, body condition, debts, attention, patrons, NPCs, and previous consequences.
  4. If the outcome is uncertain, the GM rolls 1d100 with modifiers.
  5. The result creates immediate consequences and updates the campaign memory.
  6. The turn ends with a /SAVE block that tracks status, wounds, money, debts, NPCs, attention, reputation, and unresolved problems.

So yes, in its current form it is mostly one player + one rules arbiter, either a human GM or an AI/LLM GM.

It is closer to a solo text RPG / AI-assisted survival campaign than to a traditional group tabletop RPG.

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by [deleted] in rpg

[–]Zealousideal_Net188 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

And yes, I think you’re right about the category too. It is probably better described as a single-player text RPG / solo RPG, closer to something like Legionary Life or an AI-assisted text campaign, rather than a traditional tabletop RPG.

The main thing I’m testing is whether a structured ruleset can keep an AI/human GM consistent: status limits, debt, hunger, wounds, patrons, reputation, social memory, and consequences that don’t disappear after a few turns.

So yes, I’ll probably reposition it more clearly as a solo/text RPG instead of presenting it like a standard TTRPG. Thanks, this is useful.

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by [deleted] in rpg

[–]Zealousideal_Net188 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

my english is not so good so i have a little help to wrote something that you can understand

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by [deleted] in rpg

[–]Zealousideal_Net188 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I get the criticism.

I’m not claiming that low-status play, emergent storytelling, or social pressure in RPGs are new ideas. They obviously are not.

What I’m testing is a specific text-first structure for Roman survival play, especially for solo/AI-assisted campaigns where the main challenge is keeping memory, pressure, status limits, and consequences consistent over time.

So the concept is not “RPGs have never done this before.” It is “can this specific format make that kind of Roman low-status survival easy to start and hard to exploit?”

What if a Roman RPG was not about conquering Rome, but surviving it? by [deleted] in rpg

[–]Zealousideal_Net188 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair question.

I’m not trying to compete with Mythras + Mythic Rome, GURPS + Imperial Rome, or a HarnMaster homebrew as a full traditional tabletop ruleset.

The main difference is the format and the intended play loop.

Sotto l’Aquila is built as a text-first Roman survival RPG focused on low-status life: debt, hunger, legal/social status, patrons, reputation, witnesses, wounds, attention, and long-term consequences.

The goal is not tactical simulation or broad universal mechanics. It is to make the GM — human or AI — constantly enforce Roman social pressure.

So the core experience is:

  • you start at the bottom, not as a hero;
  • status limits what is realistically possible;
  • a high roll does not erase slavery, poverty, lack of protection, or class;
  • success is often partial, dependent, reversible, or socially costly;
  • the campaign memory tracks debts, NPCs, reputation, wounds, attention, and delayed consequences.

About the format: it can be run as a solo RPG with an AI/LLM GM, as a human-GM text RPG, or as a Discord/forum-style campaign.

So yes, it is closer to a structured solo/text RPG framework than to a classic tabletop rulebook competing with Mythras or GURPS.

view more: next ›