Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63
  1. #21
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    Why not consult Highlands which not only has considerable text on the Rjurik settled vs nomadic question, but should be considered a more authoritative text on the Rjurik.
    Oops- yes, i meant Highlands. Didn't mean to say Havens. I notice i did that a couple other times in this thread too, (which i've now edited). Doh.

    -Fizz
    Last edited by Fizz; 12-25-2006 at 04:39 AM.

  2. #22
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    The Molgols are recognized as having a very low level of technology. They are also known to have captured advanced Chinese, and later Persian, &c objects and loot. Using this analogy, its captured Brecht and Anuirean loot and even craftsmen they have in service.
    Yes, but they forged their own arms and armor too. Technologically still low, just like the Rjurik, but quite effective obviously.

    Nomadic transhumance doesn't imply livestock, but rather herds which are followed.
    But it does.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transhumance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumance

    Don't get me wrong- i understand the point you're making here, and transhumance isn't a completely wrong term for it. Doesn't seem like a word a Rjurik would use though.

    If the Rjurik have their own metal working and weaving (hence forges and looms) they must have settlements, because you can't move these things every couple of months as nomads do. These things stay put.
    I agree- those things stay put. The wandering Rjurik can use them again when they return for the winter. I never said the nomads were crafting their gear while they were roaming- i said the exact opposite in fact.

    So, either we have to abandon the Rjurik as nomads and migrants, or we have to abandon the Rjurik as chain mail (and improved chain mail) wearing peoples, confining these heavy crafts either to foriegners (like the mongols) or to a small portion of settled people.
    But we don't, because we have BOTH migratory AND settled Rjurik. This is the point you seem to be missing- the settled Rjurik are the ones who DO make the crafts, etc. The migratory Rjurik don't have to do that- they can get more advanced gear from the settled Rjurik via trade, whatever.

    Going on attempting to save the appearances of a few lines in books which never attempted to make a serious social analysis is requiring increasingly absurd efforts.
    It's not absurd at all. It's pretty simple actually.

    Earlier, we established that it is numerically possible for the Rjurik lands to support the entire population as nomads. (Our 3 people per square mile.)

    So there is ample food. The distibution of people doesn't matter because there is trade. In the extreme case, the Rjurik nomads getting all the food via hunting/gathering, and the settled Rjurik doing all the crafting, forging, weaving, etc. The two sides then trade with one another- food for supplies, gear, shelter, etc. It's sustainable.

    That's the extreme case of course. There wouldn't be an absolute distinction of duties between the nomads and settled. Some nomads will craft while they're holed up for the winter, and some settled Rjurik will herd sheep, year-round. But since we've shown the extreme case can work, the hybridized case is possible too (more likely in fact).

    The very last thing we should do is cling to some phrases in the published materials when they are contradicted by other parts of the same materials, are hard to justify in terms of in-game principles (like the domain system), and make no sense in terms of normal game economics.
    Well, i've not seen any contradictory statements. The contradictions you suggested earlier are premised on the notion either an entirely nomadic culture, or an entirely settled culture. But in Rjurik, you have sizable quantities of both, and they co-exist and interact, and end up having a symbiotic relationship.

    To me, the setting comes first. The mechanics can be tweaked.

    The books themselves leave much of this open-ended. When it reads "many Rjurik still live in the traditional lifestyle", what does "many" mean? It never says anywhere that X% of Rjurik are nomads. It could be 10%, 50% or 75%. I suspect such vagueness is deliberate, if only to allow for different tastes, such as we have.


    -Fizz

  3. #23
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    You're right, the books are vague to allow for different interpretations. The problem isn't a right or wrong reading of the books, the lend evidence to a variety of approaches.

    But from my point of view the question isn't an aesthetic question of which I find most desirable for a setting, the question is, given that I want a world that makes the most sense, so characters can interact with it, what makes the most sense.

    Since nomadic peoples produce no surplus (and checking up on the Mongols, all I find is leather and hide armors, captured Chinese, Arab, or European metal tools and weapons, and their own native bow) they are effectivly invisible to the domain system. Even if I assume they are only nomadic part of the year, if I imagine that proportion is 33%, I need to increase populations by a third to get the same results I would expect from Anuire.

    And if hunting is competative with agriculture, I have to wonder if there is any suprlus in Rjurik lands at all, and perhaps prohibit any but light taxation.

    And then what do you do with Rjuvik, "where traditional Rjurik nomadic life has almost completly died out," except in the province of Hjarrsmark?

    Any attempt to estimate the productivity of people based on real world analogs (and without them, how do you value a PC action like building a mill?) show such a radical difference between intensive agriculturalists and other forms of economies that hunters, pastoralists, and hortaculturalsts are, as I mentioned, invisible to the domain system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    To me, the setting comes first. The mechanics can be tweaked.
    I don't know what this means. The setting is meaningless unless it can be expressed in mechanics so the characters can interact with it.
    Last edited by kgauck; 12-25-2006 at 08:48 AM.

  4. #24
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    If the Taelshore tribes are migratory across the continent, presumably they spend winter in the Taelshore and summer in the northlands – on the grounds that the northlands are a tad chilly and prone to storms in winter.

    Now on the grounds that the Taelshore tribes cannot fish in the north (boats take time to build, any boat left unattended over a northlands winter will not be usable when the tribes return, even if it had not been stolen) they are presumably hunting. That makes a some sense since summer is the best time to hunt – most animals give birth in spring, and the young animals will be both in their prime growth phase and too inexperienced to avoid hunters by late summer. Unfortunately given that the White Witch is hostile, that makes for a lot of hunters in Hogunmark during summer.

    Further this means that in the winter, the tribes are in the Taelshore, so either the tribes plant in spring before migrating north and the harvest on their return or they are stuck with hunting and foraging in the south as well, with no agriculture at all. This is because farming takes constant attention, herds of domesticated animals cannot simply be left to tend to themselves, and they will either disperse, or if confined, deplete the local resources and require moving. Crops need to be planted, tended, guarded and harvested.

    So I would say that if many Rjurik still migrate, they probably don’t migrate very far – certainly not the hundreds of miles between the Taelshore and the North (particularly given that the direct route through the Bloodskull barony is unhealthy). So when considering population levels the different areas of the highlands should be considered separately.


    I would say that I disagree philosophically with the idea that the Rjurik are settled half the year and migratory the other half, settled people worry about theft, both of land and of moveable property. A craftsman who leaves their tools, stock, etc behind will find much of it gone when they return – even in a very honest area, someone will take the easy route to wealth, similarly fortifications must be constantly be guarded or become a haven to enemies.


    I would also note that settled people produce more food (farming is far more efficient at producing food – that’s why civilisations do it), produce more, better goods (they have specialised tools and buildings to produce the goods, the nomads have to make do with what they can find/carry) and have a very different perspective on land ownership. The nomads may have some furs, etc but only what can readily be carried, that may buy some tools, and a few weeks food, but won’t last the nomad half a year plus in the Taelshore.

    The nomad can’t hunt on settled land (game is absent, herds are property), can’t forage on settled ground (this is called theft by farmers), they can get by in provinces with a small population as these have a fair amount of wild unclaimed land – although this is also hunted by the locals, but in general the nomads are so impoverished compared to the settlers that co-existence is not a viable strategy long term – either the nomads settle down, or the settlers – who breed at twice the rate and have far better survival prospects – push the nomads to the marginal areas. You only have to look at the attitudes towards gypsy's to see how settlers and nomads get on in the world.

    This suggests to me that nomads are fairly rare in the more populated areas, although as they travel a lot and stand out from the settlers they probably have a much higher visibility than their numbers would indicate.

  5. #25
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Originally Posted by Fizz
    To me, the setting comes first. The mechanics can be tweaked.
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    I don't know what this means. The setting is meaningless unless it can be expressed in mechanics so the characters can interact with it.
    What i mean by this is that i'll first create the setting that i want, and adjust, rewrite or create the mechanics to support it.

    It's like the Rjurik Musters rule in Highlands. In most domains, when you muster troop you get levies. But since all Rjurik are trained in combat from an early age, they are allowed to raise units of irregulars instead. This is the case of a rule being adjusted to account for the setting.

    And then what do you do with Rjuvik, "where traditional Rjurik nomadic life has almost completly died out," except in the province of Hjarrsmark?
    Fair enough- i hadn't seen that part. Still that's only 1 realm out of the 5 along the Taelshore, and Rjuvik is pretty sparsely populated except for Yvarre.

    Since nomadic peoples produce no surplus (and checking up on the Mongols, all I find is leather and hide armors, captured Chinese, Arab, or European metal tools and weapons, and their own native bow)
    Well, the Mongols must have had their own forges for some things- hard to maintain a campaign if you can't repair arms and armor. Regardless, i think most Rjurik would wear leather and hide most of the time too. Wearing chain mail for hunting is awkward and noisy, after all.

    But Page 10 of Highlands explains where they get their gear: "... settle down in their ancestral wintering grounds ... reclaim existing structures or build new ones ... including tribal longhouses, larders, sweatlodges ... Fabric and clothing are loomed and sewn during the winter, and most of the Rjurik's arms and armor are forged during this time."

    Even if I assume they are only nomadic part of the year, if I imagine that proportion is 33%, I need to increase populations by a third to get the same results I would expect from Anuire.
    You don't need to worry about the surplus, nor competing with Anuire. The province levels take care of that already. Everyone is contributing something year round. No one said Rjurik has to produce as many arms and armor as Anuire. What matters is that the economy is being driven by something. It's something different during the winter than it is during the summer, but it's being driven. Levels and the domain system as a whole are very abstract- they can support a lot of variations.

    (particularly given that the direct route through the Bloodskull barony is unhealthy).
    Actually, some do. "... then moving to hunting grounds in Jankaping, Hogunmark, and even the hazardous Blood Skull Barony ... ". Dangerous though it is, much of it is sparely populated.

    There is no doubt that settled Rjurik and farming are becoming more prevalent though. I think an agricultural revolution would be great inspiration for many plots and stories.

    Ah well... good discussion...


    -Fizz

  6. #26
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    What i mean by this is that i'll first create the setting that i want, and adjust, rewrite or create the mechanics to support it.
    My problem with this model is that too often this boils down to DM fiat, which is a violation of my gaming contract.

    Well, the Mongols must have had their own forges for some things- hard to maintain a campaign if you can't repair arms and armor. Regardless, i think most Rjurik would wear leather and hide most of the time too. Wearing chain mail for hunting is awkward and noisy, after all.
    Actually they distinctly did not maintain items, they took new items from dead soldiers and captured places. As long as the Mongols were advancing, they had no supply problems. However they were unable to stop their conquests or their army would dissolve.

    But Page 10 of Highlands explains where they get their gear: "... settle down in their ancestral wintering grounds ... reclaim existing structures or build new ones ... including tribal longhouses, larders, sweatlodges ... Fabric and clothing are loomed and sewn during the winter, and most of the Rjurik's arms and armor are forged during this time."
    And if the Highlands said it rained peppermint? This material is utter nonsense. You keep trying to explain it as if some social order could be constructed around these statements, but what this all comes down to is that you're just willing to ignore the effeciency of medieval labor and simply declare that these things are possible in the numbers you want them to be. But, that's a statement, not an argument. I know what you want, I just don't believe its remotely possible without inventing a whole new BR economics.

    You don't need to worry about the surplus, nor competing with Anuire. The province levels take care of that already. Everyone is contributing something year round. No one said Rjurik has to produce as many arms and armor as Anuire. What matters is that the economy is being driven by something. It's something different during the winter than it is during the summer, but it's being driven. Levels and the domain system as a whole are very abstract- they can support a lot of variations.
    That something has to look like something on the ground, in towns, in camps, in fortresses, in guildhalls. For the life of me I can't imagine what you think it would like on the PC level where the game spends nearly all of its time. No surplus? So the ruler of Halskapa is taking food from the mouths of babies? Either there is something left over to pay taxes with, or the taxes come from something required for survival for someone. This something left over is the surplus, and if it doesn't exist, then either the taxes don't exist (ditto temple incomes, guild incomes, &c) or people are dying. Maybe that's why BR populations are one tenth what they ought to be?

  7. #27
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    And if the Highlands said it rained peppermint? This material is utter nonsense.
    Oh come on kgauck, that's overly harsh. By that statement you're declaring everything in the entire setting to be disposable if it doesn't hold up to `realistic' expectations. Now, if you want to do that, fine (please don't ever take anything i say to mean you have to play a certain way). But do you keep magic, do you keep the gods? I presume so, but it's utter nonesense too as far as `realism' goes. Anything i've described isn't nearly as farfetched as characters and monsters with the blood of the gods.

    You keep trying to explain it as if some social order could be constructed around these statements, but what this all comes down to is that you're just willing to ignore the effeciency of medieval labor and simply declare that these things are possible in the numbers you want them to be. But, that's a statement, not an argument. I know what you want, I just don't believe its remotely possible without inventing a whole new BR economics.
    No, i have explained how the books can be consistent with a real-world situation. You agreed earlier in the thread that the low-ball population counts could make an entirely nomadic society plausible.

    Now, if there is enough food to feed everyone without any farming or fishing at all, then there's enough food to feed everyone if only a significant percentage are nomads, because you've got the added benefit of some farms, significant fishing, etc. Once you've fed everyone, the settled folk take care of their crafts on their own.

    Case A:
    Completely nomadic
    No farming

    Case B:
    Completely settled
    Farms everywhere

    Case C:
    Some nomadic, some settled, some semi-nomadic
    Some farming

    If Case A and Case B are both viable (as we agreed) then Case C can also work because it lies in the middle of the two extremes. There is nothing inherently implausible about this, and it is consistent with the books.

    That something has to look like something on the ground, in towns, in camps, in fortresses, in guildhalls. For the life of me I can't imagine what you think it would like on the PC level where the game spends nearly all of its time.
    Depends on the type of game being played. If it's primarily a game of rulers, a huge portion will be at the domain level. If it's more of a typical adventuring game, then the details of level holdings aren't as important.

    No surplus? So the ruler of Halskapa is taking food from the mouths of babies?
    I didn't say that. I said you don't have to worry about it- it'll take care of itself. The level-domain system is deliberately vague as to what each holding type does. Law can be `thievery' or `the kings guard'. Guilds can be `arms and armor' or `fresh game'. The system is sufficiently vague so you can add the flavor of what each holding actually does on your own.


    -Fizz
    Last edited by Fizz; 12-26-2006 at 12:02 AM.

  8. #28
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    Oh come on kgauck. By that statement you're declaring everything in the entire setting to be disposable if it doesn't hold up to your `realistic' expectations. Which is fine- it's your game. But do you keep magic, do you keep the gods? They're much less realistic than anything i'm proposing. At what point of disposing pieces is it sufficiently realistic? More importantly, at what point is it no longer Birthright?
    You make a common mistake. My standard is "is it internally consistant, hence I can plausibly extrapolate from known data to new conditions" not, can I find one in the real world.

    This reveals that you are unfamiliar with this approach to gaming. The approach I advoce does not simulate the real world, but rather attempts to construct a model that will predict conditions anywhere, rather than having to invent them. So I construct rules that govern how towns are formed, what happens there, why they exist, and then when players go to a new town, I don't have to figure this out, I just apply the model. A lot of work up front, much easier to adjudicate during play.

    There are good reasons to use real world data if the setting doesn't call for an alternative. The players are reasonably familiar with the real world. I have seen DM's invent new names for common items, like foods, tools, &c, but then players either substitute or they have to learn an entire nomenclature for mundane items. So, the sun plus water plus fertile soil yields plants familiar to players in approximatly the same conditions and proportions that you will see in reality. This allows me to estaimate how much a farm produces or how many deer are in a forest of given size, climate, and so on.

    This is much easier than back calculating from the BR materials because you end up with radically inconsistant numbers and various kinds of paradoxes.

    When I employ a fantastic element, such as magic, divine power, or the Shadow World, I look for analogs in mythology, literature, or natural philosophy. This works so well because often players are also familiar with these things (what portion of players has never heard of a druid before playing RPG's?) and because they have often been systematized by theologins, philosophers, or authors attempting to make sense of the real world or their fictional world.

    The bottom line is that the magical system, divine cosmology, and Shadow World has to make as much sense to me as the economics of farming or selling Khinsi spices. They have to make sense internally, and they have to make sense with each other. So magic, divinity, sources, bloodlines, the shadow world, all get rationalized so that I can predict what happens when a player does something unexpected. It may be fantastic, but I know how it works.

    I have explained how the books can be consistent with a real-world situation. You agreed earlier in the thread that the low-ball population counts could make an entirely nomadic society plausible.
    You explained how one part of a real-world situation is consistant with the books (and ignored how it impacts other parts of the books). The population density makes an entirely nomandic socieity plausible, but only at a stone age level of technology. Since the Rjurik are not at that levek of technology, but rather at a high medieval level of technology, they cannot be entirely nomadic. The effecieny of work and thus the avialability of tools, techniques, and raw materials is only possible with new explanations (ore is summoned by druids?) or a generally high medieval society.

    Now, if there is enough food to feed everyone without any farming or fishing at all, then there's enough food to feed everyone if only a significant percentage are nomads, because you've got the added benefit of some farms, significant fishing, etc. Once you've fed everyone, the settled folk take care of their crafts on their own.
    The last sentence doesn't follow. If the settled portion (say a third or a quarter of all Rjurik) are high medieval in our expectations of labor and productivity, then the surplus they create can support a craft base for a third or a quarter of all Rjurik. Since its far more plausible (give other parts of the setting) to import tools from Anuire or Brechtur in exchange for timber, fish, and other unprocessed raw materials, some of the shortfall can be made up by making Rjurik a huge importer of craft goods. What doesn't follow is that the settled folk can take care of the craft needs of the Rjurik on their own.

    Depends on the type of game being played. If it's primarily a game of rulers, a huge portion will be at the domain level. If it's more of a typical adventuring game, then the details of level holdings aren't as important.
    I disagree. Just as players will min/max their characters, they will min/max their realms. Since historical rulers also did this, I find this to be a perfectly reasonable activity, and a normal part of the game. But to do that I need to know how small incremental efforts at improving the realm and its revenues work.

    If players are just adventuring, the holdings still describe the most important institutions of human activity: temple, market, fortress, court. I can only ignore what goes on here if my gaming style were dazzle players with attentions to some other part of the game. My preference is to create a game where the players go and do as they please, and I can relate consequences from known and explicit principles and rules.

    [regarding the nature of a surplus] I said you don't have to worry about it- it'll take care of itself. The level-domain system is deliberately vague as to what each holding type does.
    That's handy for using the same set of domain rules throughout Cerilia, but its useless for decribing the actual domain of a ruler, and in my experience this kind of question peaks their curiosity.

    "What are my holdings in Sonnelind?"
    "They are amorphous economic activities which generate 1d4+1 gold bars per season."

    Not satisfying. Instead, if I have a PC guilder who is running Northern Imports and Exports, I locate all of his holdings, assign a NPC guild master to every province, an assistant for every holding (so the Guild 2 in Sonnelind has a guildmaster and two assistants). I run every realm through a demographic analysis and tweak it based on the PS descriptions or the trade section in Ruins or Highlands (or whatever) and figure out what each of these holdings really does. Then I locate these in the various towns, give the NPC's and locations names and descriptions, and backgrounds. And generally by the time I've done this, I've noticed patterns and circumstances which suggest many other additional details to color in the holdings still further.

    Recently I've been adding the followers and cohorts of province level leaders too.

    Each organization is given its own ideological position in relation to all of the other organzations it comes in contact with, and frequently I detail cleavages between ideologies within an organization so I can have junior NPC's argue with each other and give the PC conflicting advice.

    My goal is to have a Player's Secrets for every domain that has a player, and for each of the rival organizations as well.

    3rd edition, and especially 3.5 has been producing rules for organizations in abundance. Using these is much easier when the organziation, that is domain, in question is detailed as opposed to being astract.
    Last edited by kgauck; 12-26-2006 at 01:13 AM.

  9. #29
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    You make a common mistake. My standard is "is it internally consistant, hence I can plausibly extrapolate from known data to new conditions" not, can I find one in the real world.
    I am familiar with the concept of an internally consistent setting. I have no problem with that (in fact, i try to do that myself, but i doubt i put in as many details as you do). I just felt that your `utter nonesense' was overly harsh considering that we are dealing with a fantasy world here. A fantasy world allows for a pretty big fudge factor. Since much of what we have been debating is right on the edge of plausible in a real-world case, making the stretch to a fantasy world ought not to be considered `utter nonesense'.

    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    You explained how one part of a real-world situation is consistant with the books (and ignored how it impacts other parts of the books). The population density makes an entirely nomandic socieity plausible, but only at a stone age level of technology. Since the Rjurik are not at that level of technology, but rather at a high medieval level of technology, they cannot be entirely nomadic.
    Ah ha! Maybe here is where our disagreement lies. The BR core rulebook says the Rjurik are at a `middle ages' level technology. `Middle ages' is a very wide stretch of time, almost a 1000 years. I picture the Rjurik as being closer to the Dark Ages than the Late Medieval / Early Renaissance that the Anuireans and Khinasi are at. If you see the Rjurik as being more in the High or Late period level of technology, then much of what you're saying makes more sense. Certainly the mongols were above the stone age level of technology as a nearly entirely nomadic society. Our hybrid nomadic-seminomadic-settled Rjurik lands ought to be higher than that, but certainly not near Anuirean levels.

    The last sentence doesn't follow. If the settled portion (say a third or a quarter of all Rjurik) are high medieval in our expectations of labor and productivity...,. What doesn't follow is that the settled folk can take care of the craft needs of the Rjurik on their own.
    Given the difference in our envisioned timeframe (my early medieval period to your high), and if you allow the semi-nomadic Rjurik to do some of their own crafting when they settle in for the winter, that situation ought to be more plausible to you. I think high medieval could still work, but it's certainly easier if they're closer to Dark Ages.

    That's handy for using the same set of domain rules throughout Cerilia, but its useless for decribing the actual domain of a ruler, and in my experience this kind of question peaks their curiosity.

    "What are my holdings in Sonnelind?"
    "They are amorphous economic activities which generate 1d4+1 gold bars per season."
    I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that you shouldn't add that level of detail. My point was merely that because the system is vague at a high level, you are free to tweak and add the flavor at the low level. Basically, you can take the high level view (domain levels, many Rjurik are nomads, etc), and turn that into something specific for your PCs and important NPCs.

    "During the winter, your province produces 1d4+1 gold bars worth of arms and woolens. During the summer, many families have gone north so your primary income comes from fishing and farm production totalling 1d4 gold bars."

    Or whatever works for you. Nothing says domain income (or anything else domain-related) can't be adjusted for a semi-nomadic people. I think that would make running a domain here much more interesting with a unique set of challenges.


    -Fizz
    Last edited by Fizz; 12-26-2006 at 02:00 AM.

  10. #30
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    I am familiar with the concept of an internally consistent setting. I have no problem with that.
    I didn't mean just an internally consistent setting, I meant a setting where internal consistancy is the first criteria, and everything has to pass that test before moving on. I think all settings aspire in one degree or another to be internally consistent, some just put that priority higher than others. For me its the highest priority and we worship at the alter every saturday evening from 6-10, vistors welcome.

    I just felt that your `utter nonesense' was overly harsh considering that we are dealing with a fantasy world here.
    Point taken. My objection isn't that anything is out of place in a fantastic setting, its that I object to justifying fantastic elements from real-word examples. Fantastic elements should be constructed from fantastic examples. But that's neither here nor there, as we shall see...

    Ah ha! Maybe here is where our disagreement lies. The BR core rulebook says the Rjurik are at a `middle ages' level technology. `Middle ages' is a very wide stretch of time, almost a 1000 years. I picture the Rjurik as being closer to the Dark Ages than the Late Medieval / Early Renaissance that the Anuireans and Khinasi are at.
    Indeed! Because goblins and gnolls, and I think the Vos (rulebook not handy), are explicity described as Dark Ages, and the Rjurik and (is it the Orogs?) are described as middle ages, I apply a high medieval to them.

    Given the difference in our envisioned timeframe (my early medieval period to your high), and if you allow the semi-nomadic Rjurik to do some of their own crafting when they settle in for the winter, that situation ought to be more plausible to you. I think high medieval could still work, but it's certainly easier if they're closer to Dark Ages.
    Certainly if we take the Franks or Saxons, or any other of the Germanic tribes (or the Huns for that matter) invading the Roman Empire, migrating from ancestoral homelands and so forth, as our model for what we might expect to find in the hands of the Rjurik we can easily set them at a Dark Ages technology and reliably estimate what they could and could not craft. We would still end up abandoning a few items attested to in pictures or descriptions (which could be the kind of luxury imports which scions might still purchase from Anuire or Brectur) but as is evidenced, I have no problem eliminating things from the published materials if I think they don't fit something I have elected to keep.

    Maybe under the influence of more advanced neighbors, the settled Rjuirik are high middle ages in terms of what technology is available, what price lists look like, and what's a martial or an exotic weapon. While in terms of labor effeciency and so forth they are between middle ages and dark ages (would we call that Carolingian)? Interesting to consider.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.