Hm.

Well, in that case, stepping back a bit and having a four-year term where we basically just pick the xenoparakletor and let them run along on their own doing their best, without presenting the city with an endless pile of decisions to make, might be the best thing.

We could focus the decision-making on events occurring within the city?
 
I have a lot of cool plans for many different factions, but it may just be that my priorities are misplaced. I'm very deeply interested in the historical and AH component whereas other people are far less so. This might be why; I am excited in the 'plot' components but people really just want to play out the turns of the game and experience the yearly life of Eretrian citizens. This can be a common pitfall for many QMs who get too excited about long-term plots or stuff that interests them more than players.
Well, seeing as things are due for another bit of tweaking, and remembering how 'I wanna build an empire' was off-and-on a thing, bit of time to get player feedback wouldn't be amiss. A poll or two. Definitely get more of a complete picture about what exactly people want to do in this 'nation RP but with an ensemble cast and culture' quest. Play Greek City State Simulator? Build a mini-empire? Swerve the course of history to a specific end? Fight to preserve some ideal part of history?
It's not, really. I don't do a lot of off-screen stuff. I have a timeline of events but that was written before the game began. It's difficult to juggle different plots in foreign policy (if you've noticed the xenoparakletor section has ballooned) but that's more because I'm packing more details in per turn, not out of an overarching sense of duty to off-screen developments.

Most of the detail just tends to be writing very long posts for each single issue, and it's hard for me not to because I want to provide enough context, you know? And it's hard not to provide lots of information as I want players to make informed decisions. This particular situation with the Iapyges was partly me experimenting with providing less info, and I'm not totally sold :V
Ah. That pre-empts me about what kind of detail is bugging you. Good news and bad news: Good news, fixing that means doing a normal progression or a few mega-turns is going to be alot simpler and easier. Bad news, you're going to have to experiment in rebalancing the detail you put into each vote option. Maybe even cut back the number of options* In regards to giving players information, this is just strictly my opinion. I can't say how applicable this would be to your writing style, the quest, or the playerbase here:

Taking away agency, either implicitly or explicitly, is the Mega No-No for most quest players. Power fantasy and all that. But you can talk people who may be amenable into accepting less control. And the key word is talk. Stick a big bold author's note telling people what's going on. Yes, you're operating on limited info. Yes, it still is enough to figure out the right answer. Yes, this does tie into X, Y, and Z past decisions. Yes, if everybody throws up their hands and can't figure it out I'll throw you a bone. If it sounds like hand-holding, that's exactly the mental metaphorical image I've had when discussing this in the past. That or the first half of teaching a kid how to ride a bike without training wheels.

*The whole option slot "efficiency" thing is a whole 'nother ball game I may get into later if you'd like me to.
 
Thinking about it I think part of the issue is that it's harder to do internal issues because of the 'players as ekklesia' shtick. There's necessarily a foreign policy focus because within the city player agency is pretty dominant; it doesn't seem fair to, say, have a situation where a majority of citizens are angry about an ekklesia policy, because the ekklesia are the citizens, literally. It makes it more challenging to have big internal narratives because players aren't going to vote for something which is against the interests of the whole city but civil conflict is fuelled by factional struggles. If the demes tried to fuck with democracy literally nothing mechanically stops players from stopping them except me saying 'no' for no real reason given the premise. However, outside the city the ekklesia isn't doing the really exciting work; various characters are on its behalf and so there's less ownership of the victories.

And yet I really do love the shtick a lot, and it's one of my fave parts of the quests. So what to do?
 
Last edited:
Thinking about it I think part of the issue is that it's harder to do internal issues because of the 'players as ekklesia' shtick. There's necessarily a foreign policy focus because within the city player agency is pretty dominant; it doesn't seem fair to, say, have a situation where a majority of citizens are angry about an ekklesia policy, because the ekklesia are the citizens, literally. It makes it more challenging to have big internal narratives because players aren't going to vote for something which is against the interests of the whole city but civil conflict is fuelled by factional struggles. If the demes tried to fuck with democracy literally nothing mechanically stops players from stopping them except me saying 'no' for no real reason given the premise.
Ah. I see the issue. And I can't really see how to fix it. A schism among the playerbase of similar magnitude/split/emotion that leads to the internal conflict is... well, you've been on the inside and seen quests/threads melt down that badly. This part of the problem may need to involve fiddling with less direct, more conventional, votes over policy. Here's another 'strictly my opinion' thing: The QM is the absolute dictator of the story. They just choose to give the dice/players the appearance of control. Like a DM with dice and the monster manual behind the screen, they can make up whatever shit they want and the players have only a handful of options for recourse.

Now, this is an especially difficult thing to fit to this quest because while I would argue you do still have the ability to do whatever the hell you want, the social contract is indeed far more explicit in putting all the players in some measure of control. You go out of your way to include ramblings of players about meta-stuff as the local town nutjobs. An overall attitude towards a winning option can change how its viewed in-universe. Similarly, you can't really invent true NPC domestic factions because that'd mean there's now a political class making moves to shift power away from the citizens. Which is a thing you could very easily choose to do, but it's very much a crisis of identity and strife that has sundered and broken IRL nations and would consume tons of narrative effort.

If the players all agree or just have minor arguments, then that has to reflect Eretria. The mechanic has limited your options for conflict without flexing some 'I am the QM now' powers, but I think the relatively different character and culture this gives Eretria is something with material to explore. And if you want political arguments and conflict, keep putting people from Athens, Sparta, and the classical world in the same room as our merry town of totally-not-21st-century-nerds.

It's not just funny, it's what mythic records are made of!:V
 
Well, maybe, but I'd prefer to keep it in-house. What I'm thinking more about is the ability to just timeskip past to get to the really good stuff in a less incremental fashion. It's difficult to figure out, though, if that would really help or if it's really just a lack of motivation.

I don't think that would be a good idea. This is a really interesting time period and it makes sense that it will take time to develop.
 
Well sure, I don't actually want internal feuding in the city to be based on player factions. This isn't a roleplaying game with characters playing. I'm just concerned about the fact that the ekklesia has absolute agency in the city but is so representative that it is functionally the citizen majority, which reduces domestic choices and options, but outside the city where the real action is meant to happen players are either reacting to others or relying on appointed characters- but then the characters get to decide the really cool stuff.

Hmm. It's a pickle. I've picked up on it before, but I'm not sure how much of a problem it is for players.
 
I mean, if we're just trying to "click through" a few turns before the real foreign hilarity blows up, the way to address this is just "let players issue a few broad directives and have them be carried out largely without incident."
 
Thinking about it I think part of the issue is that it's harder to do internal issues because of the 'players as ekklesia' shtick. There's necessarily a foreign policy focus because within the city player agency is pretty dominant; it doesn't seem fair to, say, have a situation where a majority of citizens are angry about an ekklesia policy, because the ekklesia are the citizens, literally. It makes it more challenging to have big internal narratives because players aren't going to vote for something which is against the interests of the whole city but civil conflict is fuelled by factional struggles. If the demes tried to fuck with democracy literally nothing mechanically stops players from stopping them except me saying 'no' for no real reason given the premise. However, outside the city the ekklesia isn't doing the really exciting work; various characters are on its behalf and so there's less ownership of the victories.

And yet I really do love the shtick a lot, and it's one of my fave parts of the quests. So what to do?
For me both kind off go hand in hand, so to speak.

The already interesting international developments are made even more interestings by how they affect the city and how the actions of the city affect them.

Seeing how our decisions can affect the wider world put more weight in them and really does make you care more about the matters at hand, while seeing the world around you make us take some of what we learned in consideration when we take our decisions, therefore giving our debates a whole new dimension so to speak.

As to the timeskips/getting to the fun stuff, why not simply having quiet years with few things going on? It presumably did happen in RL for greek cities and you can always put a few small, limited stakes decisions that are easy and quick to explain, to show that life keep going on in the city.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. It's a pickle. I've picked up on it before, but I'm not sure how much of a problem it is for players.

Bluntly, I like the current feel of the quest.

My only complaint is that I sometimes feel artificially restrained in responding to foreign policy issues.

I mean, I understand why we can't do multiple major diplomatic actions, and why we can't do more than one major military action, but I often feel that we could, and ought to be doing lower level preparations such as scouting, making contact with the various local tribes, etc.
 
Bluntly, I like the current feel of the quest.

My only complaint is that I sometimes feel artificially restrained in responding to foreign policy issues.

I mean, I understand why we can't do multiple major diplomatic actions, and why we can't do more than one major military action, but I often feel that we could, and ought to be doing lower level preparations such as scouting, making contact with the various local tribes, etc.
To be fair, Eretria's not that big a city and we have a pretty underdeveloped foreign policy establishment by modern standards (though pretty sophisticated by ancient standards).

Plus, we've actually voted down a few options like "create Office of Barbarian Affairs" that would give us that kind of continuous low-level intelligence gathering.
 
As Simon said, I mean except by invitation. You can't just walk in. On the rest, yes, I agree, there should be trading relations. However in most towns this is quite explicitly limited to a trading quarter. The mere fact that you trade doesn't give you that much information, and you've already gotten information from trade. It's your main source.

But it's deeply imperfect for non-Greeks as your conversations aren't likely to be very long.



I have a lot of cool plans for many different factions, but it may just be that my priorities are misplaced. I'm very deeply interested in the historical and AH component whereas other people are far less so. This might be why; I am excited in the 'plot' components but people really just want to play out the turns of the game and experience the yearly life of Eretrian citizens. This can be a common pitfall for many QMs who get too excited about long-term plots or stuff that interests them more than players.

I do agree that I like the smaller stuff. I wouldn't want that to go away. I'm just having a hard time because these updates are unmanageable for me right now. I'd like to at least move forward at a turn per update except when there's something else going on but my turns have ballooned with all the detail I like putting in, which makes things harder.
The historical and AH components are what made me interested in the original iteration of this quest and kept me interested in this quest. As for the whole update issue, what about taking more time do your research and writing? Normally I'm not a fan of long waits between updates but for this quest I wouldn't mind a longer wait between updates to make sure you don't get burned out and it would hopefully become manageable again.
 
Last edited:
It's stuff like that I find hard to believe. On the one hand the Peuketti are supposed to be a tributary and yet on the other hand our own people are forbidden to enter their land? That honestly makes very little sense to me and seems more than abit unrealistic.

This is a period where most people don't travel more than a few miles from where they were born. Even the poorest member of the Ekklesia will actually be somewhat exceptional, since as male citizens we'll at the very least have been to the walls of Taras.

And while Eretria's arrival was less atrocious than the usual Greek colony founding, we've still been fairly unpleasant neighbours to the the Peuketii, Dauni and Messapii. Awkwardly, that Eretria hasn't taken many slaves from the locals, have not stolen their women and tried to be a just overlord to the Peuketii likely means we're more isolated from them than we'd otherwise be, since few in the city will know the Peuketii language and the whole reason they fight beside us and pay us tribute is largely to stop Eretrians from wandering into their territory and stealing their land.

Also, keep in mind that much of the infrastructure that transmits news across cultural borders in the modern world haven't been invented yet. There is no common religion with a priesthood that energetically promotes diplomacy as Christianity did. The biggest international language of the age is Babylonian which is far from Eretria. There are no newspapers. The cutting edge of state diplomacy is Eretria with one guy, his deputy and some residents in a few Greek cities.

I mean I could get it if it was the opposite way, them forbidden to enter our territory (and even that would stretch my imgaination consideirng our history) but how exactly did we end up in a situation where we as the overlord can't enter their land, even as individuals.

The Peuketii are forbidden to enter Eretria itself. And before the Exoria reforms that introduced the annual cattle drive and the barbarian trade office, they don't seem to have entered our territory often, though I am unclear if they were forbidden to do so.

Also, I'd like to apologize for the slow pace of updates recently. I've really struggled with it not just because of work but because what I really want to do is pick up the pace; I'd love to be able to get to a point where we could, say, be actually dealing with Rome, and I keep imagining a scenario 5-10 game years in the future I'd like to get to. But I'm a bit trapped by the turn format and by my own design, as all the wonderful details I pack into every update also means I end up exhausted after writing them. I'm having a hard time figuring out what to do to really get the game moving again at a fast clip without burning out.

Hrm. So what I like is the alternate history combined with the low-level perspective. The Ekklesia of Eretria is not a god emperor or particularly well informed, and it is very limited in how much action it can take. Because of this, there is a sense of earning Eretria's progress in this alternate history.

For me whether we timeskip or not isn't too important. I'd prefer not to, but you've already shown that you can do timeskips in this quest that preserve what I enjoy about this story. What I find engaging is the excellent map (which is what brought me in to this leg of Magna Graecia) which allows me to place things in their geographic context, the grounding in Eretrian culture and that sense of earning Eretria's history.

I do wonder if the quest might be better with each update covering 4 years of time, instead of 1 year (with exceptions for crises and wars), with the xenoparakletor being given more autonomy. Currently, our xenoparakletors are traveling back to Eretria every year to run important decisions past the Ekklesia, which is a way of doing business that won't scale well as Eretria grows in geographic reach. It would probably save a considerable amount of words if the xenoparakletor just did what they felt was in their best judgement and the Ekklesia rather than micromanaging the xenoparakletor focused on choosing the right man for the job every 4 years after the last guy to do the job finished his report on how the last 4 years had gone. In other words, make the xenoparakletor position more like the proboulos position.

fasquardon
 
So my thoughts are:

1. I'll probably just take more time on updates. I think I put too much pressure on myself to put out updates fast which tends to burn me out and then I don't put out updates at all. Doing something like working on a turn over two weeks might be best. You as questers seem pretty tolerable of longer times between updates so long as the update itself is interesting- but that also ties into making updates longer.

2. I think I might go back to having multiple issues per update in order to have the pace pick up. I saw that when I do it issue-by-issue it can drag out a single turn by consequence and make it harder for people to combine their thoughts on issues.

3. I may rethink the way in which characters behave and how much autonomy they have from the ekklesia. It certainly makes it more important to choose a good xenoparakletor if they don't run everything they do by the ekklesia, while still giving the ekklesia the opportunity to make important decisions.

4. I will not do a timeskip or necessarily speed up turns. I think this would disrupt the flow of the quest and mess up the general progression. I appreciate the thoughts of those opposed to this because it reminds me that the players really are enjoying the current yearly pace and don't have issues with it.

5. In order to make updates shorter and more concise I will literally just edit it. If I give myself a two-week timetable per update it would probably work, and the extra time to edit can make each vote a lot more interesting. Usually I am very write-and-post in how I do things, without much editing per update. This way I also don't have to restrain myself in writing detail; I can just cut unnecessary detail out in the next draft.

6. I will think about elucidating the division of powers between the ekklesia, proboulos, and xenoparakletor a little better. I think that while the ekklesia will remain supreme, conventions will prevent players from using 'crisis mechanics' and other similar responses to an issue unless I allow it, but it also means I will make sure that in a situation where there is an internal crisis players don't feel helpless. In a lot of ways this is already in place, but clarifying it can help. What are the powers of the xenoparakletor, what can they do on the ground? Etc. Making a Xenoparakletor more autonomous can also allow much more actions per turn as not every action they do will be subject to an ekklesia vote.
 
3. I may rethink the way in which characters behave and how much autonomy they have from the ekklesia. It certainly makes it more important to choose a good xenoparakletor if they don't run everything they do by the ekklesia, while still giving the ekklesia the opportunity to make important decisions.

The issue I see with that is that it will likely lead to even less "experimentation" when it comes to those posts since newcomers will rarely matches up to known quanties. And that seems like a real loss in my opinion. That said this is already the case and such a situation would make some sense from a political perspective.
 
The issue I see with that is that it will likely lead to even less "experimentation" when it comes to those posts since newcomers will rarely matches up to known quanties. And that seems like a real loss in my opinion. That said this is already the case and such a situation would make some sense from a political perspective.

Well if I make that change then the xenoparakletor choices will almost all be quite respected people. They just might not have come to the players' attention before, but they will be war veterans, elder merchants, men of renown, etc- the key is just that Eretria is bigger than what the ekklesia is zooming in on at any given moment, to avoid inundating players with a massive number of names.

Or I could build a whole repository of names and big figures in each faction so they feel more interesting :V
 
Also, I'd like to apologize for the slow pace of updates recently. I've really struggled with it not just because of work but because what I really want to do is pick up the pace; I'd love to be able to get to a point where we could, say, be actually dealing with Rome, and I keep imagining a scenario 5-10 game years in the future I'd like to get to. But I'm a bit trapped by the turn format and by my own design, as all the wonderful details I pack into every update also means I end up exhausted after writing them. I'm having a hard time figuring out what to do to really get the game moving again at a fast clip without burning out.
Obviously you have to do what keeps the quest fun for you Ceta, because if you're not having fun then eventually you'll want to stop and then none of us will be having fun!

I have to admit though, I wouldn't be keen at all to see a timeskip. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is because progress in Eretria during a timeskip seems to only be a fraction of what it is when we're actively playing. When I look at the accomplishments of Eretria during the 34 years before Titanomachia they stack up very poorly when compared to the 11 years we've been playing.


As for Rome... we'll if you say you've some great stuff planned then what I'm about to say is probably wrong. But here we go anyway.

I don't really see how the introduction of Rome is going to cause such a huge difference in the quest. Rome will no doubt be a fascinating and unique faction; but so is every other faction we've interacted with, and I assume those we haven't are as well.

Rome has a certain appeal because OOC we know historically it came to dominate Italy and then the Mediterranean. But in the quest I'm more interested in Rhegion right now and how they expand. And how Taras pivot to a polis more focused on trade. And on and on, is there any faction that isnt interesting right now?

The 5-10 year period kind of confuses me as well given that - if I'm remembering correctly, and you're keeping to history - then Rome should be spending the next 5-10 years at war with the Etruscan city of Veia. That war that takes 7 years, and once it's over they spend the next 30 odd years subjugating their neighbours, the Volsci, the Sabini etc. It's not until 380BC when they've done that and they first go to war with the Samnites that I'd really care to spend time on them. I'm not even sure why we would interact with them before that?

After all Eretria just isn't mighty enough right now that we can ignore the immediate threats we face and put aside the things we need to get done to instead spend time on Rome. I would much rather finally deal with the Dauni, continue to colonise the Adriatic, manage the situation in Sicily, get the existing Adriatic cities into the league... Any of those things seem more important than Rome.
Well, in that case, stepping back a bit and having a four-year term where we basically just pick the xenoparakletor and let them run along on their own doing their best, without presenting the city with an endless pile
Im not a big fan of the idea. The elected officials in Eretria are already incredibly powerful, we even had a situation just recently where the power of the Demoi was curtailed because we, the citizens, were increasingly limited in what we could do. I'm not sure how you then have the citizens surrender even more authority to the elected officials?

I can also see it causing problems where decisions made by NPCs then come back to cause trouble for us. Take for example the situation with Epidauros and Melaina Kerkyra, is the Xenoparakletor had taken the executive decision to let them swear a modified oath that didn't include the Divine Marriage and in the future it caused problems the player base would be considerably more annoyed than a problem brought about by our own decisions.

The Xenoparakletor is already incredibly powerful, almost unreasonably so for the time, I'm not seeing how it could be a good thing to surrender even more power to him.
Thinking about it I think part of the issue is that it's harder to do internal issues because of the 'players as ekklesia' shtick. There's necessarily a foreign policy focus because within the city player agency is pretty dominant; it doesn't seem fair to, say, have a situation where a majority of citizens are angry about an ekklesia policy, because the ekklesia are the citizens, literally. It makes it more challenging to have big internal narratives because players aren't going to vote for something which is against the interests of the whole city but civil conflict is fuelled by factional struggles. If the demes tried to fuck with democracy literally nothing mechanically stops players from stopping them except me saying 'no' for no real reason given the premise. However, outside the city the ekklesia isn't doing the really exciting work; various characters are on its behalf and so there's less ownership of the victories.

And yet I really do love the shtick a lot, and it's one of my fave parts of the quests. So what to do?
That's definitely an issue. I've been thinking for a while that, for example, the only reason the Metic reforms haven't caused greater unrest is because of this.

Maybe you could play with the numbers? We, the voters, are the citizens, but not all the citizens.

edit - started writing this before @Cetashwayo last couple of posts. Glad to see there'll be no time skip. And as for the changes to the Xenoparakletor I'm sure he'll make it work well, though I'll continue to advocate for Ekklesia involvement in-character and OOC! :V
 
Last edited:
So my thoughts are:

1. I'll probably just take more time on updates. I think I put too much pressure on myself to put out updates fast which tends to burn me out and then I don't put out updates at all. Doing something like working on a turn over two weeks might be best. You as questers seem pretty tolerable of longer times between updates so long as the update itself is interesting- but that also ties into making updates longer.

2. I think I might go back to having multiple issues per update in order to have the pace pick up. I saw that when I do it issue-by-issue it can drag out a single turn by consequence and make it harder for people to combine their thoughts on issues.

3. I may rethink the way in which characters behave and how much autonomy they have from the ekklesia. It certainly makes it more important to choose a good xenoparakletor if they don't run everything they do by the ekklesia, while still giving the ekklesia the opportunity to make important decisions.

4. I will not do a timeskip or necessarily speed up turns. I think this would disrupt the flow of the quest and mess up the general progression. I appreciate the thoughts of those opposed to this because it reminds me that the players really are enjoying the current yearly pace and don't have issues with it.

5. In order to make updates shorter and more concise I will literally just edit it. If I give myself a two-week timetable per update it would probably work, and the extra time to edit can make each vote a lot more interesting. Usually I am very write-and-post in how I do things, without much editing per update. This way I also don't have to restrain myself in writing detail; I can just cut unnecessary detail out in the next draft.

6. I will think about elucidating the division of powers between the ekklesia, proboulos, and xenoparakletor a little better. I think that while the ekklesia will remain supreme, conventions will prevent players from using 'crisis mechanics' and other similar responses to an issue unless I allow it, but it also means I will make sure that in a situation where there is an internal crisis players don't feel helpless. In a lot of ways this is already in place, but clarifying it can help. What are the powers of the xenoparakletor, what can they do on the ground? Etc. Making a Xenoparakletor more autonomous can also allow much more actions per turn as not every action they do will be subject to an ekklesia vote.

I've been thinking about it, and I think one of the problems is that right now the position of Xenoparakletor is almost always determined by the actions they are advocating for. We might prefer the qualities of a certain Xenoparaletor more than the others, but if his proposed actions are lower priority there just isn't anyway we are going to vote for him.

We've bent the connection a little by forcing them to allow us to choose a third action from the losing Demoi proposals, but if the Xenoparakletor is going to have more autonomy, then maybe we need to go further in that direction.

Basically allow each Demoi to propose three foreign policy actions, and the ekklesia picks any three policies that it prefers, while then also picking which candidate will carry out the policies. This would allow us to pick the Xenoparakletor we think is best suited for the position, but not tying us to also following all their proposals. This would come along with the understanding that in their independent actions the Drakonia will prioritize trade and Adriatic colonies; while the Antipatria will prioritize alliances and interactions with other Greek cities (Sicily, the rest of Italy, Hellas); while the Exoria will prioritize relations with the tributaries, barbarosi, and Hellenization.

So that way, we might pick two of the Antipatria policies, and one of the Drakonia policies as the highest priorities, but selecting an Exoria Xenoparakletor beacuse we think he's the best candidate and qualified to carry out the actions (perhaps it involves negotiations with the barbarians in the Adriatic), and also ensuring that the Xenoparakletor will spend his independent time on the barbarosi (perhaps we want to focus there on the following turn, and want the ground work laid or something).
 
Last edited:
4. I will not do a timeskip or necessarily speed up turns. I think this would disrupt the flow of the quest and mess up the general progression. I appreciate the thoughts of those opposed to this because it reminds me that the players really are enjoying the current yearly pace and don't have issues with it.
I'm really happy to hear that you've decided not to do a timeskip. It just felt weird to have one at the moment when the quest started with a big timeskip from the last quest.
 
A little something I wrote up on the basis of these thoughts to try and elucidate the political system a bit more. Note that the families do not perfectly coincide with the demoi, as although it's obvious where these families might fit in, it's somewhat complicated. I think that this could be used as a basis to alter the deme system to be a little less static and more fluid than it is right now.



The Founding Families

Emerging from the founding years of Eretria until the thirtieth year since landing, the great families of Eretria, some older and more prominent than others, jostle for power and influence in the great political contest over the city's future and destiny. Though there are many more aristocrats that have emerged from the rise of Eretria, these are among the most prominent families.

Most of the city's candidates for proboulos and xenoparakletor have been drawn from this group, though the adopting of adult members of less prominent families has been a path of social mobility for those eager to succeed and ambitious enough to aim for the top. In Eretria's society, these are the names which inspire respect and veneration even among the poorer citizenry, who see the founding families as guarantors of their prosperity and freedom. Now, whether the founding families agree with such an interpretation of their role is altogether more complicated, but they certainly insist as much.

Drakonids

Family founded by Drako the Elder, its vast wealth has been gained through both the grain trade and its involvement in the salt and anchovies trade. The Drakonids are among the most powerful and well-connected aristocrats in the city and are universally known in Eretria and even abroad, and many of Eretria's institutions are indelibly stamped with the legacy of their founder.

Family Head: Athenagoras Symmachos

Prominent Members: Phaidon Athenagoras (son), Korydon Morys (adopted)

Anaxonids

Family founded by Timaeus the Golden, named after his father Anaxonis. A merchant family that has made its wealth off luxury goods and the discovery of the Byssos Cloth, they own olive plantations outside the city. They have struggled in the past with a poor reputation as mere money-grubbers, but Epiketos Linos has transformed their image.

Family Head: Linos Hippoklates

Prominent Members: Epiktetos Linos (son), Admetos Linos (son)

Antipatrids

Family founded by Antipater the Elder. Its wealth has been gained through the vastness of its olive farms and the grain trade to Athenai. The second wealthiest family after the Drakonids, the Antipatrids are patrons of culture and art throughout the city as well as contributors to the ranks of the Hieros Ekdromoi. Their close ties to Metics have gained them a mercantile element, but they still present as gruff and rough spun.

Family Head: Antipater Antipatros

Prominent Members: Arkas Argenor (nephew) Obander Eupraxis (adopted)

Gongylids

Family founded by Gongylos the Black. Wealth gained through the sacking of Iapygian cities and the purchase of serfs and wine plantations. Count many members in the Hieros Ekdromoi. Always a secondary player in the city's offices, they have a great reputation of military bravery as hoplites and marines that few can challenge, and they seek the city of Eretria's expansion abroad.

Family Head: Zosimos Glaukias

Prominent Members: Theron Zosimos (son), Kyros Gennadios (nephew)

Eutropids

Family founded by Eutropios the Brave, with wealth sourced from its frontier lands and Carthaginian gold. The Eutropids are the greatest standard-bearer of the legacy of Herodion and are great advocates on behalf of the goddess Artemis which they especially venerate. A martial group, they are among the most athletic of the great families and count multiple victors at the Olympic Games.

Family Head: Laios Eutropios

Prominent Members: Menandros Laios (son), Theron Archippos (nephew)

Kleanderids

Family founded by Kleander the Rider, famed as horse breeders across Eretria and with extensive serf estates on the boundary with the Peuketii. Rough and brash, they have never been known for their great love for culture or their attraction to city life. Instead, they have devoted themselves to contributing men to the Kleos Exoria and building ties with the barbaroi.

Family Head: Mnemnon Keylonos

Prominent Members: Demetrios Keylonos (brother), Adrastos Isodemos (cousin)

The Limitations of the Ekklesia

Although theoretically representing all of Eretria's adult male citizens, the ekklesia is disproportionately the preserve of the prosperous, the rowers, and those wealthy enough to be able to afford the cost. Even if the city subsidizes participation, the requirement of kleftes to speak restricts speaking to those able to gather friends and supporters and the social capital to address others. Small farmers who cannot leave their fields for the ekklesia's session, or simply those who cannot reach the assembly at that given time may find decisions made without their agreement.

Voting is swayed by the opinions of the eloquent and charismatic, which tends to trend towards those more educated in the art of rhetoric, with lands and wealth to call their own, though there have been times when the poorest have forced their way to speech through the rallying of harbor strongmen able to lift great and mighty rocks. What this means is that the decision of the ekklesia may not be agreed upon by the majority of citizens, but simply a majority of those who have been able to come to the ekklesia that day. This is especially pertinent on the field of battle, where the ekklesia is formed out of the citizens who have taken up arms and organized by the proboulos, and whose decisions may have consequences for citizens left at home that not all may agree with.

That is to say that although the ekklesia is an institution that is surprisingly representative, it is still deeply imperfect as a perfect reflection of the male citizenry's views, even if it still holds sacred legitimacy even among those too poor or too preoccupied in their day's work to participate.
 
Last edited:
Also, I'd like to apologize for the slow pace of updates recently. I've really struggled with it not just because of work but because what I really want to do is pick up the pace; I'd love to be able to get to a point where we could, say, be actually dealing with Rome, and I keep imagining a scenario 5-10 game years in the future I'd like to get to. But I'm a bit trapped by the turn format and by my own design, as all the wonderful details I pack into every update also means I end up exhausted after writing them. I'm having a hard time figuring out what to do to really get the game moving again at a fast clip without burning out.

This may be a bit late to the party, but although I understand the impetus I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot with the shorter updates.

There are fixed costs to writing an update in terms of blocking out time and getting started, so multiplying those by six by splitting a longer update into parts can bring its own costs even if they're individually shorter. The gap between the short updates also seems to have been roughly as long as that between the longer ones, which is course understandable as I'm sure you're busy with real life, but does tend to drag things out somewhat.

I recall you saying you'd actually gotten the writing time down to a fine art for the longer updates in an earlier post, so I think if you want to keep the pace up, they may be the best way to go.
 
@Cetashwayo How do you explain the presence of less prosperous or poor members in this schema? I know that we've had poor player characters earn cameos in the past. Are they just that well-liked?
Also, how much would it cost to boost the compensation for the poorest citizens so that they might attend?
 
@Cetashwayo How do you explain the presence of less prosperous or poor members in this schema? I know that we've had poor player characters earn cameos in the past. Are they just that well-liked?
Also, how much would it cost to boost the compensation for the poorest citizens so that they might attend?

These members may be carried by their fellows or by those more prosperous members willing to support their speaking. Often doing so is a reflection of the virtue of the wealthier citizen, willing to assist their fellows.

Boosting the compensation is beyond your means and has diminishing returns; many citizens cannot really spare their labor, and in Athenai as @Erandil noted even with the 4th century subsidy politics remained heavily aristocrat-dominated. Sometimes citizens simply cannot attend because they are busy working, and the labour involved in an ancient farm is truly extraordinary (with many citizens being smallholders).
 
These members may be carried by their fellows or by those more prosperous members willing to support their speaking. Often doing so is a reflection of the virtue of the wealthier citizen, willing to assist their fellows.

Boosting the compensation is beyond your means and has diminishing returns; many citizens cannot really spare their labor, and in Athenai as @Erandil noted even with the 4th century subsidy politics remained heavily aristocrat-dominated. Sometimes citizens simply cannot attend because they are busy working, and the labour involved in an ancient farm is truly extraordinary (with many citizens being smallholders).

Would it be reasonable to suggest an extraordinary session around a festival where labourers would be expected to be free so that they can at least participate some amount of the time? I could see a post harvest festival having most people catch a break and be available for a short duration. Maybe it could be dedicated to reviewing the decisions taken since the last one and see if they are still approved by the people?

Or since the election of proboulos and xenopraector are some of the most important sessions, try to place them around the time where labourers are the most likely to be available in the same way?
 
Have regular sessions and emergency sessions and schedule time off such that most people have an ability to attend those regular sessions. The limitations of our existence would prevent our emergency sessions from having everyone.
 
Have regular sessions and emergency sessions and schedule time off such that most people have an ability to attend those regular sessions. The limitations of our existence would prevent our emergency sessions from having everyone.

Scheduled sessions don't solve the issue though? People still need to travel to the city from their farms.

Pretty much everyone will be here around festivals though, because they're commercial opportunities for small farmers as much as richer people.
 
Back
Top