The Fishmonger: A Personal Evaluation

Ah, the Fishmonger, what an annoying man. He was generally skeptical and had a penchant for interrupting people when they spoke. Overall, he was not a nice guy. But, he did achieve all of his victory objectives. Never once did anyone find out that he owed a metic so much money that his very freedom lie in the balance. He paid off his debt, and stayed alive. He retained his rights as a citizen. All in all, he was victorious.
I feel I played well, though I know I could have done better. I met my victory objectives and was able to differentiate between the Fishmonger’s needs and my personal ethics. I spoke loudly and frequently, though rarely at the podium and when I did stand at the podium, it was usually to support other people’s proposals. I could have done more in that regard; I had a few good speeches, but not the opportunity to make them. The topics never came up, or when they did, I was not prepared to deliver them. I could have forced the issue, but it would have been foolish. Working behind the scenes by bringing up the topics in party meetings was more beneficial to my character’s needs because he was such an annoying man that the whole group would have silenced him faster than Socrates, but individual parties needed the support of my vote, so convincing them was much easier. I guess I was kind of like a fifth century BC lobbyist. No wonder people didn’t like me.
I know I should have spoken at the podium more often. I know I should have pushed for rebuilding the Athenian empire. I also should have gotten in more with all four parties, rather than just two (the Democrats). It was nice, though, knowing exactly who I was and what I stood for. I noticed some of the “party” players really had nothing more than their victory objectives going for them. They didn’t have jobs or families to worry about like the indeterminates did. They played well; I’m not saying they didn’t, but it might have added more realism to the game if they had such matters to worry about.
I think the game could have used improvement. As I said, the “party” members were two-dimensional by design and some of the indeterminates were practically in certain parties’ pockets, even myself. Winning the game was rarely based on the speeches given, but on the victory objectives of the players. No matter how wonderfully the Socratics spoke, I could only vote with the Democrats if I wanted to win. The Moderate Democrats and the Oligarchs could reach no compromises because it was “in their best interests” to work with the more extreme parties. In this way, the game is flawed. People in real life have personal agendas, compromises are made, and people can change their minds after listening to a speech. The game may have been flawed, but at least it was fun.