(1) Alien Gods and Greyhawk. I'm going to get this out here, even though I know some people see matters starkly contrary - I like the "alien" nature of the Olman gods as in spacemen or other beings from another dimension or uberbeings of a different nature than the usual divine. St. Cuthbert is from Earth, the British Isles, after all. Mayan spacemen or whathaveyou do not throw me. Using them as part of the Olman identity does not bother, but rather intrigues, me.
(2) The Fallacy of Medieval Fantasy. Let me get this right out there - per canon - Oerth is not some purely medieval fantasy world that is stalled at a medieval level forever. However much some may want it otherwise, Greyhawk has a number of elements that the leaven the "medieval fantasy." Spaceships, technology, Earthly saints, cowboys, Alice in Wonderland, etc. Predominently medieval? Yes. Exclusively medieval? No. Should it be? No. Why? Because that is not the Greyhawk that has so successfully developed to have people arguing over it. One of GH's greatest strengths is in its diversity, IMO.
(3) Guns, Germs and Greyhawk. And another thing. The current fashion is to look to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel and see a blueprint for how a world should or might realistically develop. Bull feathers. GGS works right up to about 5,000 BC, or around the time of the beginning of recorded history, and then the model begins to unravel. The author himself notes this, making brief but telling references to the Sahara not being so much a barrier in the past and in the "Eurasian" designation being unhelpful in its overbroad nature. GGS is brilliant for half its length, from the last Ice Age up to the time of the dawn of recorded history. Thereafter, it makes huge leaps through history that become increasing less proveable by the central thesis.
For those unfamiliar with GGS allow me to summarize: Some civilizations enjoyed advantages over others because of:
a) More domesticate-able food crops occurring naturally in their area of habitation;
b) More domesticate-able large animals occurring naturally in their area of habitation;
c) Allowing for larger populations to develop, which in turn -
d) Allows for animal diseases to infect the populations which become immune, whereas other populations will not enjoy such immunity and be devastated by these diseases upon first contact;
e) Allows for, as well, populations to produce a food surplus that allows the society to sponsor non-food producers like leaders, scribes (inventing language) and inventors, giving the society an advantage or others; and
d) When coupled with a lack of geographic isolation on continents oriented east/west rather than north/south, which allows easier plant and animal diffusion along similar latitudes, as well as an easier sharing or transfer of discoveries, then -
e) These societies will have a head start toward becoming more “dominating” later in history.
If you are a Civilization player, you already knew all this. Diamond’s genius (GGS won a Nobel Prize) is in his able writing and the wealth of detail on the plant, animal, disease and latitude issues. But once recorded history begins, GGS hops skips and jumps through and over history, avoiding at least as many issues (actually many more) as it tackles, not the least being the “Eurasian” over generalization and the altering of the climate in the Sahara which would not have early posed the barrier Diamond initially makes out (only to carefully backtrack later on).
So, while GGS is a great book, it is useful mainly looking at prehistory, not recorded history itself, except in a highly superficial way that relies as much on faith in Diamond’s thesis as any actual proof of the continuing viability of the prehistoric factors in later history.
So, bring on the "alien gods." They fit right in. And nothing keeps them out.
I'm with you, and I add how can the Hawk conform to any glimmer of "reality" with grigs drinking your beer and bulettes (sp? I mean land sharks) eating your oxen. GGS barely hold up here (on Earth), but certainly not in a world of faeries, dragons and flying carpets.
I find that GGS and other handy historical/economic/scientific references ARE a good place to mine for ideas...
FL _________________ Nixiespixies and grigs OH MY!
Hear, hear! I've always said that a game is just that - a GAME! You can put whatever you want into a game, with as much realism or fancy as you and your players enjoy. That's why my WoG differs a lot from canon; everyone has their own take on things, and that's fine.
1) Sure, and every other race is just as alien. In fact, there are no natives Oerth. It is not more than the Beyonder's Battle Planet, made up of random chunks from across the multiverse, and settled by races plucked from elsewhere at random, or created by an unending series of all-powerful racial creator deities, with compounding contradictory cross-referencing creation myths, until there is no rhyme or reason to the overall structure.
That may be appealing to some people, but it is absurd and destroys the sense of immersion into another reality for others.
2) The issue is not whether Greyhawk is exclusively medieval or not. The issue is whether there is a way to relate to Greyhawk, or any other fantasy setting, in a familiar manner. The medieval content provides that link for Greyhawk. Destroy it, and you remove any means of understanding and anticipating the setting.
"As you cross the hill, the gleaming spires of the city of Anacrhonus soar into the sky, a mile high and more."
"Huh? A mile high? What?"
"Yes, Anachronus has skyscrapers made of vanadium-steel alloys. What is the problem?"
"What do you mean they have skyscrapers? How do they build them?"
"Oh shut up! This is a fantasy game. They don't have to do just medieval stuff. Now get to playing. The city guards are coming at you on the contra-gravity sleds, and they have their Psi-pistols trained on you. What are you going to do?"
Find a game with a rational basis I say!
3) As a Civilization player, I can say categorically that it does not model Diamond's thesis in the least. There is no accounting for specific, superior food crops, or animals, enabling advanced civilization development, disease is purely a function of terrain, not animals, and food surpluses enabling specialists are only relevant after the Industrial Revolution begins. Geographic isolation and diffusion are extremely minor, and apply more to advanced than initializing technology and resources.
So right there your analysis falls completely short.
On a developmental basis, despite jumping back and forth, the examples used highlight each individual element in relation to the other elements, allowing them to be isolated and understood as individual elements, thus supporting his thesis significantly more than you suggest.
But most telling, and most damning against your counter-analysis, is that his theory hold true not merely up to a neolithic to bronze age transition, but all the way through until the transition to a post-Renaissance industrial revolution, which is precisely the point Greyhawk, and most other fantasy worlds, are at!
Even more, given that the calendars of Greyhawk go back at most 5,000 years, it covers precisely the period from the starting point of recorded time to the explosion into a technological and industrial revolution, again directly related to the time frame covered by Greyhawk's pre-history.
So do not be so quick to dismiss concerns of realism, or historical and quasi-historical parallels. They are significantly more relevant than might be first thought. What they really are is difficult to learn and use. But the return, in a coherent, consistent, and internally sound setting, are worth the effort.
I think the main point here is that, while Greyhawk is a predominantly medieval fantasy setting, it does have a bit of whackiness thrown in here and there. Whether you choose to throw in that wackiness is a matter of personal taste. If you want hokey "Xena-esque" combat in your game go right ahead. If you want technology or zaniness, then go right ahead.
There is no need to rationalize anything, such as with GGS- the game world simply is what it is. Unless somebody plans to write the campaign history of Greyhawk from the current date until C.Y. 10,000 I don't see much of a point to arguing about real-world technological development vs. fantasy world development, mainly as I don't see the comparison as being even remotely similar.
When people have druids and nature priests to increase crop yields, why would anybody even think of creating hybridized crops in the first place? With divine healers, why would anyone have the inclination to develop medical science as we know it? With magic available to create or shape metal and stone, or greatly aid in doing so, why would anyone have a need to create some industrial behemoth of a machine to so in the place of magic, or create anything like the earliest ironworks? As it has been said "Necessity is the mother of invention." In a fantasy world full of magic, there is much less "necessity" to foster any sort of technological advances or "invention".
You can introduce technology and an industrial revolution. Or you might say that magic is so inherently involved in everything that even technology is irrevocably intertwined with magic, and without it technology cannot move forward whatsoever. Or you could go the way by having both technology and magic coexist side by side.
Magic makes it easier to mimic technological advances mirrored in the real world where there is no magic, but instead of fostering a technological development, the use of magic actually greatly slows it down. Technological advancement is fostered as much as advancement in magical applications is. The division between the two will slow down the advancement of technology, as magic fills in the gaps where developing and understanding technology would normally be necessary. Magic is this case is its own form of "technology". I will illustrate how this works, with the help of my friends the Underpants Gnomes:
The Master Plan(a' la Underpants Gnomes):
Phase 1: Steal underpants.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!!!
Compare that to the following.
The Master Plan(a' la Magical Medieval Fantasy Setting):
Phase 1: Supply raw materials(crop seed, iron, wood, etc.)
Phase 2: Magic!!!
Phase 3: End result- higher crop yields, magical constructs, skyscraper towers, etc. Profit!!!
What we see above is that the Underpants Gnomes failed to realize that all they needed was MAGIC to realize Phase 2 of their "Master Plan" and get the "Profit!!!" that they wanted, because MAGIC would supply the solution to turning their raw materials into what they wanted- "Profit!!!" Alas, there is no magic in the real world.
As to the second example, the "?" of Phase 2 of the Underpants Gnomes "Master Plan" has been replaced with "Magic!!!". To the average person in a Medieval Fanstasy Setting, magic might as well be a "?", but the end result is instead the desired "Profit!!!".
Does it really matter what you decide to do? Other than to yourself and the other people you play with, NO. But developmental comparisons between a fantasy world vs. the real world(regarding which we have the added benefit of a rather huge amount of hindsight) are not going to parallel each other whatsoever.
If you don't agree with this, that is OK too! _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Samwise: “But the return, in a coherent, consistent, and internally sound setting, are worth the effort.”
Not to everyone; and not to everyone to the same degree. Everyone differs in ability to have their belief suspended. Your skyscraper example illustrates that. The hypothetical DM thought it was reasoned out enough, the players did not. Poor players; they walked out of Eden a long time ago and have the wrong DM.
I do not think any fantasy settling can fully achieve a coherent, consistent, and internally sound setting. That is doubly true for GH with its spattering of things without a medieval feel.
I think reality checks are good as long as they do not kill the setting you want. If someone wants flying unicorns, they should not disallow them because wing size could not create enough lift or such morphology could exist with what we understand about embryology, evolution and dietary constraints. If someone wants something that is completely realistic, fantasy is not the way to go. If someone wants to rationalize fantasy, great, but at some point they have to say “it magic,” even if it is just a whisper, or it is not really fantasy.
Spaceships for the Olman god? An impossibly revived Olman culture? Why not? Clearly given tSB, and the comments on these board, those are not thing that are so irrational and so unrelated to GH that they should never be mentioned again. The only valid answer I can see to the questions is: “I just do not like it.”
I am sure that just about everyone on these boards could, IF they wanted to, come up with rationalized explanations for those things sufficient for their tastes and those of their players. That is all anyone should be asked to do. Some would likely have to work harder than others, or whistle louder through the graveyard of reality, to suspend their disbelief.
I, for one, was never crazy about the medieval culture-space age connection seen in Barrier Peaks. But there is something about combining space age with Mesoamerican culture that is intriguing me. Not that I want it to include mile-high skyscrapers, even if the city guards wear feather headdresses.
Maybe Quequay will have a hightec quipu to go with his dredlocks and tatoos.
There is, IMO, a place for "reality" in a fantasy game - in service to the fantasy. If "real" elements can make the fantasy more exciting or engaging or believable - great! The "reality," however, should not be the foundation for the fantasy for that compromises the fantasy. Why? Fantasy is fantasic and thus can "accept" doses of reality. Reality, on the other hand, has rules that cannot abide the fantastic. E.g., D&D dragons? Thus, a foundation in reality for a fantasy, if there is any meaning to be had for the "reality" at all, will always work to create something less fantasic and more "real." Accept, in this context, such reality does not mean "believable," it means non-fantastic. A non- or less fantastic fantasy. Thus, at best, IMO, grounding a fantasy in reality creates a pseudo-scientific or pseudo-realistic fantasy that does neither the fantasy elements nor the "reality" justice. Ultimately, one cannot fully or even mainly rationalize a fantasy of elves, undead, dragons etc. Reality in a fantasy is, IMO, just one more fantastic element bound only by the laws of the fantasy, not the reality. Fantasy is ultimately corrosive of reality.
How then to use realistic elements? IMO, in service of the fantasy, as another element of the fantasy. Rather than look to say "that is precluded" by "reality," I think it better to say, "how might we include" this or that element and "rationalize" the resulting fantasy, perhaps with some reference to "reality."
This said, fantasy can have its own logic and reality. Thousand foot skyscrapers? Not even remotely a problem. Eberron, say what you will about the rest of it, "rationalizes" such skyscrapers by means of an elemental "manefest zone" wherein the air element (arguably the earth element) "permits" such skyscrapers to exist. Greyhawk could allow such a thing with ease without "going Eberron." It hinges on the elemental "reality" of the D&D fantasy.
Consistent? Yes. Coherent? In the terms of the fantasy melieu of D&D, yes. Internally sound? Absolutely. It is not just happening "because." It happens for explainable reasons consistent with what has gone before. Importing real "reality" is by no means the only way to achieve a consistent, coherent and internally sound setting.
The "alien Olman" option is a note in a minor key after the major divine key has already been sounded. Iuz? Zagyg? Murlynd? Wastri? How much more "odd" is the notion of "alien" beings of godlike character? And no resort can be had to the idea that "aliens" break Greyhawk's proscenium arch because Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and similar Greyhawk canon introduced "aliens" long ago. Now, it is only a matter of degree and taste.
As for GGS, the notion that it deals with recorded history at all in anything approaching a meaningful way may be addressed in a manner I think everyone can agree with - go read the book. It is a great book, despite its shortcomings, that everyone can profit by and, I think, enjoy reading. It is entertainingly written and full of information most probably did not know in detail and which will give you much food for thought. Just don't expect to hear progressively much about Egypt, Rome, the Dark Ages or the Renaissance etc. - except in the most conclusory manner.
This said, I think, GGS has a great deal to add to GH or any fantasy setting. I caution, however, that it is not GGS the RPG, and Greyhawk nor any setting need not be beholding to GGS or any other "real" source material beyond what best serves the fantasy. IMO.
Greyhawk is eclectic, of this, I can think there will be little argument. Greyhawk is not dominated by any one concept to the exclusion of any other. I think this includes magic. Magic in Greyhawk is not all pervasive nor all encompassing, at least not in canon. Magic, then, is not a substitute for or retardant to tecnological advancement necessarily. It remains, I think, an open question how technology, of which Greyhawk has its demonstrated share already, will develop alongside magic. Will technology fulfill magics potential in a way magic cannot because it is not so prevalent as in other settings? Will technology encompass or harness magic creating a mago-technology? Will magic "fade" and be replaced with technology? IMO, the only certainty is that magic will not preclude technology because it is simply not common enough; it is not mass produceable; it is not a consumer product nor even substantially/reliably a significantly civic or military commodity. It remains, fundamentally, elusive for the vast bulk of the populations of the Flanaess. This is not to say that technology will be commonplace overnight or even within the millenium, but its march is inexorable, even if its ultimate form is unclear.
When people have druids and nature priests to increase crop yields, why would anybody even think of creating hybridized crops in the first place? With divine healers, why would anyone have the inclination to develop medical science as we know it? With magic available to create or shape metal and stone, or greatly aid in doing so, why would anyone have a need to create some industrial behemoth of a machine to so in the place of magic, or create anything like the earliest ironworks? As it has been said "Necessity is the mother of invention." In a fantasy world full of magic, there is much less "necessity" to foster any sort of technological advances or "invention".
Except when examined closely, this doesn't work.
For the sake of having a starting point, let us look at the DMG. According to that, a thorp (20-80 people) or hamlet (81-400 people) has only a 5% chanc of having a druid high enough level to cast plant growth. A village has a 1-in-6 chance. A small town a 2-in-6 chance, and a large town a 5-in-6 chance.
Of those, the towns aren't supposed to have that significant an agricultural component. So if you intend to rely on druids for your food supply, you had best enjoy starving on a regular basis.
Clerics are similar, so don't expect to survive a plague in any of those places either. You get a bunch more in cities, but then there are a lot more people there to keep alive, so it evens out. And of course, that doesn't include paying for all that spellcasting.
So where is the incentive to develop agriculture?
In ever thorp, hamlet, village, and small town without a 5th level druid.
Where is the incentive to develop medicine?
In the same without a 5th level cleric.
And it extends to other technologies as well. Everyone can always benefit from crop rotation, not everyone always has a druid they can pay to cast plant growth.
I do not think any fantasy settling can fully achieve a coherent, consistent, and internally sound setting. That is doubly true for GH with its spattering of things without a medieval feel.
I think reality checks are good as long as they do not kill the setting you want. If someone wants flying unicorns, they should not disallow them because wing size could not create enough lift or such morphology could exist with what we understand about embryology, evolution and dietary constraints. If someone wants something that is completely realistic, fantasy is not the way to go. If someone wants to rationalize fantasy, great, but at some point they have to say “it magic,” even if it is just a whisper, or it is not really fantasy.
Have you tried to fully achieve that? If not, how do you know?
And you seem to froget that unreality checks kill the setting even more dramatically.
As I said, I know the research is hard. I've done a bunch of it. If you don't even want to try that is your decision. Leave those who do alone.
Not to everyone; and not to everyone to the same degree. Everyone differs in ability to have their belief suspended. Your skyscraper example illustrates that. The hypothetical DM thought it was reasoned out enough, the players did not. Poor players; they walked out of Eden a long time ago and have the wrong DM.
Addendum:
That still misses the point.
The players had already suspended belief enough to play a fantasy game. They had accepted elves, and dragons, and magic, and more. They had bought into a fantasy setting paradigm based on certain assumptions. What happened was the DM broke those paradigms in his quest for the "fantastic", and in doing so destroyed the creation already built, and the paradigm already mutually accepted.
I think people are more familiar with this from sci-fi TV series and movies. The sudden appearance of a subplot, or a radical disconnect in the established technology or background. That is what destroyed the Gil Gerard Buck Rogers TV series, and has done major damage to the Star Wars franchise, particularly with the director's cuts. (Never mind Greedo suddenly shooting first, midi chlorians?) The same applies to fantasy when the previously agreed upon suspension of belief and acceptance of a variant paradigm is suddenly upset.
And note, even you acknowledge where the fault lies - with the "wrong" DM. Indeed, it is the DMs responsibility to craft that alternate paradigm, and then to remain true to it. He is the one most subject to failing in that regard, and most responsible for its maintenance.
There is, IMO, a place for "reality" in a fantasy game - in service to the fantasy. If "real" elements can make the fantasy more exciting or engaging or believable - great! The "reality," however, should not be the foundation for the fantasy for that compromises the fantasy. Why? Fantasy is fantasic and thus can "accept" doses of reality. Reality, on the other hand, has rules that cannot abide the fantastic. E.g., D&D dragons? Thus, a foundation in reality for a fantasy, if there is any meaning to be had for the "reality" at all, will always work to create something less fantasic and more "real." Accept, in this context, such reality does not mean "believable," it means non-fantastic. A non- or less fantastic fantasy. Thus, at best, IMO, grounding a fantasy in reality creates a pseudo-scientific or pseudo-realistic fantasy that does neither the fantasy elements nor the "reality" justice. Ultimately, one cannot fully or even mainly rationalize a fantasy of elves, undead, dragons etc. Reality in a fantasy is, IMO, just one more fantastic element bound only by the laws of the fantasy, not the reality. Fantasy is ultimately corrosive of reality.
How then to use realistic elements? IMO, in service of the fantasy, as another element of the fantasy. Rather than look to say "that is precluded" by "reality," I think it better to say, "how might we include" this or that element and "rationalize" the resulting fantasy, perhaps with some reference to "reality."
Indeed. That is very much it. On a certain level we are simply incapable of truly comprehending the fantasy milieu. And so we look for anything even remotely similar, and construct elaborate structures to equate the two. And indeed, that is how "reality" serves in "fantasy", and the way I seek to use it.
I can not comprehend how the Flan did not have civilization able to stand up to the Oeridians and Suloise. There is no reasonable explanation why, above and beyond the setting says so. For me, without a reason, it is nothing but a "because its magic" explanation. And that is unsatisfying. So I look for ways to explain it. Many ways are suggested by GGS. Seeing those ways as reasonable, I can either select one and copy it directly, or create one of my own. But as you note, selecting one and copying it would be unsatisfying as there is no way the situations could be considered equitable. So I create one of my own. This takes time and effort. And, because I am not in fact fashioning this particular interpretation on my own, I must solicit additional input before making a final decision, and crafting a final structure. But more than that, I still recognize several limits I have on creating such a structure, so I avail myself of the input, skill sets, and points of views of others. This entails soliciting multiple opinions, and trying out multiple alternatives. It also entails dismissing multiple opinions for various reasons, and giving those reasons while doing so. That may become repetitive, and seem onerous to those not directly involved, or catching the fringes. That is unfortunate, but that is a side effect of the process. So it might be tedious, for example, to hear me rant about Olmans and corn. But that is a critical element to be resolved in developing an alternative history for them, using both the sole active connecting element we have, the Meso-american cultural package, and what is known about them.
The whole is an integrated product. To attempt to analyze one piece in isolation will produce results like the 5 blind men touching one portion of an elephant, and thinking it 5 different beasts. Look for the whole.
"Except when examined closely, this doesn't work.
For the sake of having a starting point, let us look at the DMG. According to that, a thorp (20-80 people) or hamlet (81-400 people) has only a 5% chance of having a druid high enough level to cast plant growth. A village has a 1-in-6 chance. A small town a 2-in-6 chance, and a large town a 5-in-6 chance.
Of those, the towns aren't supposed to have that significant an agricultural component. So if you intend to rely on druids for your food supply, you had best enjoy starving on a regular basis."
Except that it does work.
Where are most crops grown? On large tracts of land conveniently located near large cities, cities with a population able to consume said crops. In the modern world, crops can be grown large distances from population centers due to the availability of modern transportation, which is unavailable in a medieval setting. Where would technological advances of any kind take place? Certainly not in your average small thorpe or hamlet. Would such advances be made in cities? Bingo! But yet again, cities are where you will always find those mid-level and higher spellcasters that can supply that all important missing ingredient- MAGIC.
And in any event, you don't always have to have a resident 5th level druid to cast plant growth. Druids watch over VAST AREAS. The various Archdruids send out minions to administer to the flock, including those worshipers who live in those small rustic towns, hamlets, and thorpes. They even send them to the outlying lands surrounding larger cities, even though they are not too keen on such metropolises.
And then there are always those special rituals that generally have the desired magical effect. These would be such things as communal prayers and offerings to a deity, that when properly enacted gains the favor of said deity, who might then "bless the crops" of the community. Magic inherently thinks outside of the box. Magical effects need not always be categorized or even codified by a recorded spell in a rulebook. Imagination- it's a useful tool. It can be as varied as that all important thing in a medieval fantasy setting- MAGIC.
The only way that MAGIC doesn't work in the above ways is if you play in a campaign where magic is EXTREMELY RARE. If this is the case, then you should state that you are coming at the topic from that point of view. You mention crop rotation, but that is nothing new. Important certainly, but not very new.
A world with a moderate presence of magic simply operates under different laws that the real medieval world. Does this mean that food is plentiful and that nobody starves? Hardly. Druids and nature priests can make crops grow more productively, but evil cults of disease, famine, and death can just as easily create hardship, and that is where our heroic adventurers step in. Forces of evil aside, magic easily steps in and solves many technological problems that might normally have plagued the people of the real medieval world.
My point is, magic is sort of a "deus ex machina" with regards to technology in a medieval fantasy setting. Magic can accomplish many great and varied things. While magic might be somewhat rare, it is still common enough to curtail significantly the advancement of technology among the not so magically inclined. From this perspective, it is easier to believe that it is possible to have a more gradual development of technology in its varied forms in a medieval fantasy setting. Multiple by five or more the amount of time it took in the real world to develop our current level of technology and apply it to Greyhawk.
People will still be beating on each other with swords and axes in C.Y. 1,000. Styles of armor or weapons might change, magic may flourish or decline, inventions will certainly even be made, but the advancement of technology, being so ingrained with magic in such a setting, will inevitably develop according to what solutions to problems are available. Magic, being a really good cure-all, tends to remove the need for a technological solution for most problems. If magic declines, technology will advance according to the need. If magic rises, technology will advance at a much slower rate, as magic is able to fill the need.
Magic "hedges the bet" on all things, but does not replace them. It is a significant factor always. A certain level of realism is desirable in a medieval fantasy setting, but advances in technology at a pace equivalent to the real world isn’t really one of them. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
While magic might be somewhat rare, it is still common enough to curtail significantly the advancement of technology among the not so magically inclined. From this perspective, it is easier to believe that it is possible to have a more gradual development of technology in its varied forms in a medieval fantasy setting. Multiple by five or more the amount of time it took in the real world to develop our current level of technology and apply it to Greyhawk.
Very well said. I can easily agree with the above. Magic slows the rate of technological advancement but does not halt it. I like the multiple of 5 as a good number, preserving the "medievalism" but allowing for technological change.
In this way, the technology that has cropped up may be explained as the product of genius or some such ahead of its time - the Antikythera clock/mechanism, the Phaistos disk, the Baghdad battery etc. Or even a Da Vinci "invention" made real in one place or another.
And as this is a fantasy, perhaps some society makes more than "one off" use of some technological tidbit. An large scale example might be the development and widespread use of armor types from widely variant historical periods and the weapons responsive to that armor.
At the risk of provocing someone, gunpowder could well be a "precursor" technology then that sees more than "one off" but still limited use. The Paladins of Muryland article in Dragon lays a potential foundation for that priesthood becoming something like the "Templars of Gunpowder" - a monopoly on a valuable commodity/service - in their advancing ability to create gunpowder and gunpowder weaponry, albeit under a clerical guise.
I like that thought as well - the Church of Murlynd controls and sells access to gunpowder technology. On the one hand, this is the "Templar" scenario, if it is just a matter of chemistry/alchemey, but it could be taken further and the Church of Murlynd might have an unassailable lock on gunpowder if Murlynd's divine power is a necessary component to make it work. That would raise the profile of Murlynd and his church considerably. You pick'em. _________________ GVD
I think reality checks are good as long as they do not kill the setting you want. . . . If someone wants to rationalize fantasy, great, but at some point they have to say “it magic,” even if it is just a whisper, or it is not really fantasy.
Samwise wrote:
For me, without a reason, it is nothing but a "because its magic" explanation. And that is unsatisfying. So I look for ways to explain it.
I agree with both thoughts. "Just because" is inherently unsatisfying, IMO. "Because its magic" is better but not much and could quickly get out of hand if overused. However, I agree with Wolfsire that at some irreduceable point one must say "its magic," "even if it is just a whisper." I really like that last turn of phrase - "whispered" magic - magic but not "beat you over the head magic." _________________ GVD
My take is as long as the world is internally consistant - then you're doing fine. If GGC helps that - cool. Ultimately, any fantasy world (except perhaps Kalamar) is going to wilt under a 100% rational analysis. The Flanaess should have radically different weather patterns than it does. Is that a problem? Not really, provided you have some sort of consistant reason for it.
And just to comment about GGC not teaching much about Grece, Rome, Dark Ages etc - in fairness, that's not its scope. At the scale JD's looking at things, specific civilisations are irrelevent. He's looking at broader causes for why Old World (and specifically Eurasian) civilisations (who ever they might have been) had boomsticks, bugs and bayonets when the New World civilisations didn't.
Where are most crops grown? On large tracts of land conveniently located near large cities, cities with a population able to consume said crops. In the modern world, crops can be grown large distances from population centers due to the availability of modern transportation, which is unavailable in a medieval setting. Where would technological advances of any kind take place? Certainly not in your average small thorpe or hamlet. Would such advances be made in cities? Bingo! But yet again, cities are where you will always find those mid-level and higher spellcasters that can supply that all important missing ingredient- MAGIC.
Well, no. They aren't. They are grown on small tracts of fertile land, divided up among small landholdings.
That is where the vast majority of the population lives.
Sure you can sustain your cities with magic. That is only 10% of the population or so. The rest would be left to starve.
Quote:
And in any event, you don't always have to have a resident 5th level druid to cast plant growth. Druids watch over VAST AREAS. The various Archdruids send out minions to administer to the flock, including those worshipers who live in those small rustic towns, hamlets, and thorpes. They even send them to the outlying lands surrounding larger cities, even though they are not too keen on such metropolises.
There is still a limit on how many there are, and how much territory they can cover, while still casting those spells on every single plot of land. Unless they are teleporting everywhere, they aren't going to be able to manage.
You are also not considering the corollaries that degree of widespread and massive magic use. Very simply, at that level, magic will be the default for everything. Street lamps will be ubiquitous and magical. Magical trinkets will abound. There will be assembly lines of magical items. Most people reject that harshly for Greyhawk.
Quote:
And then there are always those special rituals that generally have the desired magical effect. These would be such things as communal prayers and offerings to a deity, that when properly enacted gains the favor of said deity, who might then "bless the crops" of the community. Magic inherently thinks outside of the box. Magical effects need not always be categorized or even codified by a recorded spell in a rulebook. Imagination- it's a useful tool. It can be as varied as that all important thing in a medieval fantasy setting- MAGIC.
And now magic becomes even more ubiquitous, and we have people with ice-elemental powered refrigerators and air conditioners, along with fire-elemental powered central heating, magical roads, teleport networks, and more.
You've just replaced the Greyhawk magical-tech paradigm with something between FR and Eberron.
[quote] The only way that MAGIC doesn't work in the above ways is if you play in a campaign where magic is EXTREMELY RARE. If this is the case, then you should state that you are coming at the topic from that point of view. You mention crop rotation, but that is nothing new. Important certainly, but not very new.[/unquote]
Not extremely rare, just not so abundantly casual, with people having integrated it into their lives like the internet.
And crop rotation is nothing new NOW, in 2005 AD. It was pretty dang new in western Europe in 1005 AD, and still not universally practiced in 1505 AD.
Quote:
A world with a moderate presence of magic simply operates under different laws that the real medieval world. Does this mean that food is plentiful and that nobody starves? Hardly. Druids and nature priests can make crops grow more productively, but evil cults of disease, famine, and death can just as easily create hardship, and that is where our heroic adventurers step in. Forces of evil aside, magic easily steps in and solves many technological problems that might normally have plagued the people of the real medieval world.
And so you see your magical paradigm is quickly spiraling out of control. In order to prevent million person cities you MUST have routine evil plagues. Necromancers raise armies of thousands of skeletons and zombies weekly. The Twin Cataclysms were only unusual because two happened in the same week.
[quote] My point is, magic is sort of a "deus ex machina" with regards to technology in a medieval fantasy setting. [/unquote]
Yes, I know. And my point is, a "deus ex machina" is as unsatisfying in a game as it is in Greek Drama.
[quote] People will still be beating on each other with swords and axes in C.Y. 1,000. Styles of armor or weapons might change, magic may flourish or decline, inventions will certainly even be made, but the advancement of technology, being so ingrained with magic in such a setting, will inevitably develop according to what solutions to problems are available. Magic, being a really good cure-all, tends to remove the need for a technological solution for most problems. If magic declines, technology will advance according to the need. If magic rises, technology will advance at a much slower rate, as magic is able to fill the need. [/unquote]
And yet the biggest problem you've identified is . . . magic!
So the technology to develop will be focused on eliminating or functioning around and without magic. In other words, our basic technology.
As for using swords in 1000 CY, of course they will. But that is hardly a significant indicator of other technological development. People were using swords and axes from 3000 BC to 1500 AD and beyond. You would hardly suggest that no other technology developed during that time, would you?
Quote:
Magic "hedges the bet" on all things, but does not replace them. It is a significant factor always. A certain level of realism is desirable in a medieval fantasy setting, but advances in technology at a pace equivalent to the real world isn’t really one of them.
And yet you have very much suggested that it do replace them. And that is the problem. You've made everything dependent on magic, and now nothing can be considered without first accounting for it..
Very well said. I can easily agree with the above. Magic slows the rate of technological advancement but does not halt it. I like the multiple of 5 as a good number, preserving the "medievalism" but allowing for technological change.
But that isn't needed.
If the Suel Calendar starts back around the time of the Egyptian dynasties, then the Twin Cataclysms come during the early Roman Empire (with Emperors, following Julio-Claudian Principate), and the current equivalent is around 1200-1500 AD. That fits the time frame and the tech frame perfectly. The one major change you need is a significantly earlier development of the printing press to account for most of the default elements presented, that despite assertions otherwise, really do tend to assume a large stock of printed books.
GVD, thank for trying to find the common ground. I know it is there.
Samwise “Have you tried to fully achieve [a coherent, consistent, and internally sound setting]? If not, how do you know?”
Tried? Fully, for everything, no. I usually give up rationalizing when I am satisfied. Occasionally I go farther for others. My players are almost always satisfied. Occasionally, I go forward for their sake, even when I am not. Occasionally, overly rationalized systems break things down, like complex combat tables.
How do I know? I do not “know,” as I said, it was about what I think. Well, I have never been to China either, but I am pretty sure it is there. I do know from experience that one person cannot know everything but can always learn something, that there is always someone smarter, that it is easy to take pot shots, and for every answer concerning a complex system there is usually at least two follow-up questions.
Samwise: “And you seem to forget that unreality checks kill the setting even more dramatically.”
I am not 100% certain what you mean by “unreality checks” or “even more dramatically”, but I do not think I forgot what you are getting at. A taste of honey is worse than none at all? Better no game than a bad one? Maybe. I guess it just depends on how much I know about a fault, and how bad the DM messes up. Rules lawyering can kill a game too. I have never gamed with a DM who messed up so bad that I could not get over it and be thankful for the opportunity.
Samwise: “As I said, I know the research is hard. I've done a bunch of it. If you don't even want to try that is your decision. Leave those who do alone.”
I have seen and appreciate your hard work. My writings are substantially fewer than yours, but I hope they are not so bad that it does not even look like I tried. If they do to you, I am sorry for my mistakes, I hope someone else finds them interesting, and I hope there is some writer out there, besides yourself, that can live up to your standards.
As far as leaving anyone alone, what exactly do you want? Are you saying that you can say something wont work because of x, y and z, but I am not free to say, you are getting bogged down in minutia, when you are poking holes in other people’s ideas that I find interesting? I know you are capable of presenting arguments better than “mind your own business.” Poking holes in other people’s ideas is not only fair game here, it is often, but not always, actually helpful. But the street goes both ways.
Samwise: “That still misses the point [about the skyscraper example]”
Samwise: “And note, even you acknowledge where the fault lies - with the "wrong" DM.”
No, it does not miss the point. Even I understood you were making a point about mixed genres, rather than necessarily a satisfyingly complex rationalization. Suspension of disbelief is related to both of them. Yes, there are certain assumptions. The eclectics of GH in is one of them, although it is certainly less so that elves in fantasy. Done right, the DM might have been able to include even a mile high skyscraper in the fantasy setting by changing the paradigm incrementally and laying the proper foundation. Plopping it down suddenly in the middle of things is going to be bad for most people. There may be some 11 year olds who would dig it, though. They would not be far from Eden, when everything is new and they don’t know any better. An old fart like me would just be disappointed.
Samwise: “Not extremely rare, just not so abundantly casual, with people having integrated it into their lives like the internet.”
Yeah, that internet, that is what I need for an alien quipu. Thanks. I apprecate you help. But I don’t think there are going to be too many of those.
Yeah, that internet, that is what I need for an alien quipu. Thanks. I apprecate you help. But I don’t think there are going to be too many of those.
LOL! "Great" minds think alike. I love cyberpunk literature and I am still a big fan of R.Talsorians Cyberpunk RPG. For the longest time, I've been toying with a fantasy "Net" made up of a number of Tolkien-like Palantirs. So far, I've introduced it into my campaign but have yet to have characters "netrunning" through the palantir network. I haven't got all the kinks worked out. So. "Alien quipu" indeed! _________________ GVD
Tried? Fully, for everything, no. I usually give up rationalizing when I am satisfied. Occasionally I go farther for others. My players are almost always satisfied. Occasionally, I go forward for their sake, even when I am not. Occasionally, overly rationalized systems break things down, like complex combat tables.
And I go even further in development of background.
I'm missing how that's bad.
Quote:
How do I know? I do not “know,” as I said, it was about what I think. Well, I have never been to China either, but I am pretty sure it is there. I do know from experience that one person cannot know everything but can always learn something, that there is always someone smarter, that it is easy to take pot shots, and for every answer concerning a complex system there is usually at least two follow-up questions.
If you view every critique as taking pot shots, then why participate in forum discussions?
I am well aware that I don't know everything. That is why I put things out for consideration by others, and solicit input for things I may have forgotten or gotten wrong.
Quote:
I am not 100% certain what you mean by “unreality checks” or “even more dramatically”, but I do not think I forgot what you are getting at.
An unreality check occurs when something is presented in the game that defies the normal range of knowledge of the specific players but that has not been previously defined as being altered for the paradigm being used.
As an example: an LG core module featured a mother bear carrying her dead cub, accompanied by her mate. A player at one table was an experienced hunter, and well aware that female bears do not travel or even stay with male bears when they have their cubs. That unreality check nearly broke his ability to enjoy the module. He was no longer playing a fantasy game "just" with magic and dragons, he was now in a world with bizarre bears, and he was not prepared for that. And all it would have taken was a few minutes of research, or some minor knowledge, to avoid that.
Quote:
I have seen and appreciate your hard work. My writings are substantially fewer than yours, but I hope they are not so bad that it does not even look like I tried. If they do to you, I am sorry for my mistakes, I hope someone else finds them interesting, and I hope there is some writer out there, besides yourself, that can live up to your standards.
I only have one standard I expect people to live up to -
Try.
As I said, research is hard. But if you want to be more than just a very casual writer, you have to be willing to make that effort. If not, I can't make you, but I won't shrink from pointing out errors.
[quote]As far as leaving anyone alone, what exactly do you want?[quote]
What I am saying is that if you want to critique something, pick something else to find fault with than "It shows too much effort in research and detail."
If you don't want to do such research, fine. Don't try and diminish others for doing so.
Lot's of people criticize my material on grounds other than that, or the ever difficult area of canon interpretation. And I welcome such review. That most of that does not appear here does not mean it isn't happening, just that people aren't seeing it.
Quote:
No, it does not miss the point. Even I understood you were making a point about mixed genres, rather than necessarily a satisfyingly complex rationalization.
But I wasn't making a point about mixed genres, so yes you did misunderstand.
Genres mixing is simply another paradigm to be established and agreed upon. Gamma World is a prime example of something like that, or the Urban Arcana setting. It is not mixing the genres that is the problem, but rather not making it clear that is the paradigm from the start. Those are two very different things.
My commen ts are being taken to the extreme as a method of argument apparently.
The level of magic I describe comes nowhere near close to Ebberon, and the higher level of magic existing in FR over GH is in its proliferation among people of stature, and of how openly they make use of it. FR does seem to have many more organizations detailed than GH, and each has its own level of magic. GH has its Mages of Power and Priest-Kings, while FR has its Netherese. What they have in common is that such ultra powerful magic wielders are long gone, and are a thing of the past. All that being said, magic is slightly more prolific in FR than in Greyhawk, but not by much. FR falls in between GH and Ebberon.
Let me clearly state my meaning.
The presence of magic in a medieval fanstasy setting will influence the level of technology without greatly altering, for better or for worse, the general quality of life. Those in a postition to have a neccessity to come up with technological advancement can usually find a short-cut through magical means. If the magic goes away, or the secrets of that magical usage are lost, then the "technology" is lost as well. Such lost magics(and technologies) are hallmarks of almost every fantasy world (and most every sci-fi world) ever written about.
You can have the planting ritual without having the magical icebox. Are all communities lucky enough to have the ability to conduct the planting ritual? Probably not. Some communities weather hardships better than others. Another community might rely on the sea, and conduct rituals to protect the ships of their sailors and fishermen. Magic might be used to strengthen such ships. People are more often willing to put their faith in the power of magic or the gods over the technology of the fallable mortal races. This would be a common belief, though not always a correct one, in a medieval fantasy setting. The end result is that said setting has a better chance of putting out a magically strengthened ships than a ship of a higher technological level.
How does one make the leap from the presented idea of a communal ritual to bless crops to suddenly everyone in the Flanaess having magical "ice boxes" to store perishables in? Beats me. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
"How does one make the leap from the presented idea of a communal ritual to bless crops to suddenly everyone in the Flanaess having magical "ice boxes" to store perishables in? Beats me."
I'm guessing what Sam's getting at is a question of scale.
There's no problem with planting rituals - everyone has these.
Not everyone is going to have a ritual that makes the plants actually grow any better though.
If they did - to the scale where it makes a significant impact on the populace of a nation or of the Flanaess, then you're looking such a proliferation of magic that you'd have to wonder if there was so much around, then why aren't there continual flame light bulbs, lightning rails and elemental iceboxes.
Or to put it another way - if there was such a proliferation of druids/nature priests casting plant growth - then you'd have more crops, right? More crops feed more people - so you'd except to see huge populations in the Flanaess - which you don't. Compared even to medieval Europe - the Flanaess is woefully underpopulated.
Going further, these huge populations would be dependent on the druidc magic to sustain themselves. So there would have to literally be a druid/priest of sufficent level in every hamlet to make sure the spells get cast so that the crops grow so that there isn't an enormous population crash.
We don't see that in the WoG as presented in canon either - which is a powerful argument against that kind of magic being that widespread.
So yeah - here and there, you get the odd priest/druid type casting plant growth (though why druids would support agriculture and the destruction of wild nature is a question worth asking), but it's obviously not to the scale where you'll get a kind of magical Green Revolution.
I only have one standard I expect people to live up to - Try. . . . As I said, research is hard. But if you want to be more than just a very casual writer, you have to be willing to make that effort. If not, I can't make you, but I won't shrink from pointing out errors. . . .
What I am saying is that if you want to critique something, pick something else to find fault with than "It shows too much effort in research and detail."
If you don't want to do such research, fine. Don't try and diminish others for doing so.
"Standard" to "live up to?" Um. Er. I mean . . . No. There is no "standard" that anyone has to "live up to."
"Research" A) It is not necessary to get a good result. B) It is not "hard" but is as easy as getting a book and then imagining possibilities. C) Or just making it up!
"More than a _casual_ writer?" Ouch. I was unaware a caste system had been inaugurated. In fact, there is no such caste system.
"Pointing out _errors_?" Errors? With reference to a fantasy game? Ouch, again. A difference of personal taste or opinion or even application of some "real world" fact is not an "error." This is Greyhawk not History 306.
"Diminish others" for doing "research?" I'm not seeing that. I am seeing a critique, which any writer must take in stride on the terms the critic chooses because a writer does not get to choose his or her critic or the basis for their critique.
Sam, you do good work and you take justifiable pride in what you do and you are tenacious in expousing your views. No problem. I think, however, the above goes a bit far. It _could_ be read as an arrogant, belittling tirade that amounts to - "How dare you offer a critique of my deathless prose - SHUT UP, Untouchable!" I do _not_ think you mean it in that way but for a good writer, your above reads significantly ugly to me.
That this is as may be in the heat of the moment or otherwise does not lessen the potential negative message which if widely taken to heart would leave only yourself and those with thickest of skins or the hardest of heads left on Canonfire.
Winning an argument or discussion is not everything. Bludgeoning the otherside is unnecessary, particularly in your case, because you can express yourself effectively without the need to do so.
Now look what you made me do! I sound like a scold, so I am going to shut up now. _________________ GVD
Samwise: “And I go even further in development of background. I'm missing how that's bad.”
I apologize if I was not clear.
Usually it isn’t, but it can be counter-productive. You can paint yourself into a corner. That could mean never running with an idea you like because it conflicts with what you have decided before, or think is appropriate, or because you cannot figure out a satisfying explanation for it.
Lets go back to Olman revival. If I understand you, you are reluctant to go along with it because you cannot find a satisfying explanation for the long delay: “IF we take it as a given that they possess the elements that the Meso-Americans (the Mayans in particular) were missing, particularly the alternate food sources and the large animals, but also a return to a more favorable environmental situation, then I think I would have to conclude that the 1,000 year continued collapse is in fact absurd.”
I will accept revival after the long delay as a given because that is what I want, working off historical canon to the present I want. I will welcome looking at all the reasons to justify. Filling in details will be fun. Defining how and why will add to the satisfaction of the scenario. But I will not avoid it because I cannot find such an explanation. All the reasons to reject it will just be raining on the parade. I also will have to balance just how much defining and explaining is done. I want it believable, I want answers to direct further development, but I don’t want to unnecessarily limit my options or have to later contradict myself later.
"How does one make the leap from the presented idea of a communal ritual to bless crops to suddenly everyone in the Flanaess having magical "ice boxes" to store perishables in? Beats me."
I'm guessing what Sam's getting at is a question of scale.
"Standard" to "live up to?" Um. Er. I mean . . . No. There is no "standard" that anyone has to "live up to."
Yes there is. Otherwise you mights as goods gots enythin to bes given as stuff to read.
Quote:
"Research" A) It is not necessary to get a good result. B) It is not "hard" but is as easy as getting a book and then imagining possibilities. C) Or just making it up!
A) Yes it is.
B) Not it isn't.
C) Only if you don't care about consistency.
Quote:
"More than a _casual_ writer?" Ouch. I was unaware a caste system had been inaugurated. In fact, there is no such caste system.
In fact, there is just such a caste system.
Isn't that why you review books the WotC publishes, and have trashed several of them?
Quote:
"Pointing out _errors_?" Errors? With reference to a fantasy game? Ouch, again. A difference of personal taste or opinion or even application of some "real world" fact is not an "error." This is Greyhawk not History 306.
Really? Then why you are saying I am in error over this difference of opinion?
Quote:
"Diminish others" for doing "research?" I'm not seeing that. I am seeing a critique, which any writer must take in stride on the terms the critic chooses because a writer does not get to choose his or her critic or the basis for their critique.
And yet this entire rant is based on people apparently doing too much research.
And I thought there were no standards to live up to? If so, then what is the relevance of the critique?
Your own thread refutes you.
Quote:
Sam, you do good work and you take justifiable pride in what you do and you are tenacious in expousing your views. No problem. I think, however, the above goes a bit far. It _could_ be read as an arrogant, belittling tirade that amounts to - "How dare you offer a critique of my deathless prose - SHUT UP, Untouchable!" I do _not_ think you mean it in that way but for a good writer, your above reads significantly ugly to me.
I'm sure it does. But that still begs the question - what is wrong with having high standards?
I'm sure you don't read every bit of published material, and that you consider some to be of higher quality that other. As such, I might categorize any of your negative reviews of WotC products as nothing more than arrogant, belittling tirades, that amount to - "How dare you publish such garbage and expect me to pay my hard earned money for it? SHUT UP purveyors of substandard garbage!"
Quote:
That this is as may be in the heat of the moment or otherwise does not lessen the potential negative message which if widely taken to heart would leave only yourself and those with thickest of skins or the hardest of heads left on Canonfire.
When I went to school, if I spelled a word wrong I was told it was wrong. If I wrote with poor penmanship I was told it was poor. If I wrote an incomprehensible paper I was told it was incomprehensible. And if I took a test and didn't understand the material I was given a poor grade and told to learn the material better.
At no point did I take any of it as a negative message, suggesting that I might leave the pursuit of knowledge solely to those with the thickest of skins. Sometimes in order to learn you need to be told directly and forcefully that something is in fact wrong, or not up to acceptable standards.
Given the long years of the decline of TSR, and the vast array of less than quality material being published even today, I feel no guilt at supporting a higher standard of quality in material, or in advocating for such loudly and continually.
Quote:
Winning an argument or discussion is not everything. Bludgeoning the otherside is unnecessary, particularly in your case, because you can express yourself effectively without the need to do so.
Now look what you made me do! I sound like a scold, so I am going to shut up now.
And yet my responses are only on the line of the ones laid to me. I make my points as passionately as those directed against me, and support them as fully and completely as possible.
Are you suggesting that my counter-arguments not be so supported? That I should rely solely on "Well I think this is better because I do.", so as not to be seen as "bullying" from the bulk of the examples I can offer in support of my position?
It sounds like what you want me to do is accept any criticism, not defend my positions, and praise material despite the quality. I trust you realize that won't be happening.
Usually it isn’t, but it can be counter-productive. You can paint yourself into a corner. That could mean never running with an idea you like because it conflicts with what you have decided before, or think is appropriate, or because you cannot figure out a satisfying explanation for it.
That is correct. Otherwise the Sheldomar Millenium Sourcebook would have been finished five years ago.
The problem, and thus the demonstration of skill, is in finding the balance between the completion of the product and the amount of perfect detail included. Note - not how much quality can be sacrificed to meet a deadline, but how much detail of the quality needs to be included. That is why I often have so many background notes explaining my development decisions that aren't included in the essays.
Quote:
Lets go back to Olman revival. If I understand you, you are reluctant to go along with it because you cannot find a satisfying explanation for the long delay: “IF we take it as a given that they possess the elements that the Meso-Americans (the Mayans in particular) were missing, particularly the alternate food sources and the large animals, but also a return to a more favorable environmental situation, then I think I would have to conclude that the 1,000 year continued collapse is in fact absurd.”
Nope. You misconstrued that comment.
The full context of that, and the other comments I made, encompasses that the overall structure of a collapse and a revival after a 1,000 year period is not reasonable. That while a collapse is possible, the revival must have begun within a much more reasonable time frame, and that must be explored to give a properly integrated and developed view.
And in fact, that is what is being developed. And the superiority of the quality with such detail is obvious. At least to me it is. So however irritating it may have been to have me constantly nagging about every bit of detail, it appears to have had a positive end result. I suppose if I were truly as arrogant as people seem to think I am, I would take credit for that. The only problem is, I know that all I did was ask the irritating questions, and it was other people (well, other person mostly - Chiribias) who did the actual work. That's OK with me, I've already got a credit as pain in the butt instigator on something, I can be happy with that because my goal is not to get credit, but to get quality.
Yes, I do demand I get my way. But people keep missing what I want to get my way about. But again, that's OK as long as I . . . get my way.
Samwise: “Yes, I do demand I get my way. But people keep missing what I want to get my way about. But again, that's OK as long as I . . . get my way.”
If your “way” is to get Chiribias to develop an Olman revival acceptable to you, given that there was a 1000 year delay, by calling the overall structure “not reasonable” and “absurd,” and by telling me that I should mind my own business, because it was messing up your Machiavellian reverse psychology … hey, whatever tickles your pickle and doesn’t haunt your conscience.
If you are practicing deception, no wonder people keep missing your point.
BTY, I am rather slow but I have finally figured it out that you are Randy Richards. Although I enjoyed it when I though you were undertaking a public service, why would you want to trash your alter ego like that on Greytalk? Was it to establish your Samwise persona as credible or for the kicks of deception? My guess is both, which is sad on many levels. You are a talented and insightful writer, I think you should try to earn the trust of your audience.
Samwise: “Yes, I do demand I get my way. But people keep missing what I want to get my way about. But again, that's OK as long as I . . . get my way.”
If your “way” is to get Chiribias to develop an Olman revival acceptable to you, given that there was a 1000 year delay, by calling the overall structure “not reasonable” and “absurd,” and by telling me that I should mind my own business, because it was messing up your Machiavellian reverse psychology … hey, whatever tickles your pickle and doesn’t haunt your conscience.
If you are practicing deception, no wonder people keep missing your point.
Nope, still missing it. How I'm not sure, as I state it very clearly.
"My way" is high quality material. Whether I like the particular take or not is irrelevant. With the development Chiribias is doing, I wouldn't be able to have Keoland just walk in an annex the Amedio, that's what I want for my personal use.
And I didn't tell you, or anyone else, to mind their own business.
I said that if your sole area on which to attack my requirements was that I was looking for too much quality, then you could do me the same courtesy you are insisting on for yourself, and not just attack me because I want something different.
I've never had to be deceptive about what I want. I've been extraordinarily clear that what I want is a higher standard of quality in gaming products. Just because I don't preface every comment and critique with that doesn't mean I am trying to be mysterious about my intentions.
Quote:
BTY, I am rather slow but I have finally figured it out that you are Randy Richards. Although I enjoyed it when I though you were undertaking a public service, why would you want to trash your alter ego like that on Greytalk? Was it to establish your Samwise persona as credible or for the kicks of deception? My guess is both, which is sad on many levels. You are a talented and insightful writer, I think you should try to earn the trust of your audience.
ROFL!!!!!
Unfortunately for your theory, pictures of myself and Randy Richards both exist, and they do not match. Further, I am well known in NYC, just as Randy is (was?) in Lousiana and down south, and you can find many people to attest to the fact that we are not the same.
So if you want to try and be that rude, you will have to do a lot better. That is simply too absurd to be taken as anything but an exceptionally poor attempt at humor.
So...Greyhawk is actually portrayed as having a population LESS than what was around in medieval Europe? And this is so even with the exisitance of magic such as plant growth, cure disease, and other helpful magic? Magic whatseover, that could solve at least some of the problems that such folk had in eeking out a living?
Once again, while every community wouldn't have access to the same level of magic, if at all, wouldn't you think that magic might tip things a bit more in favor of the common folk surviving and populations increasing, even if only slightly? And don't you think that the populations of Greyhawk would reflect that?
While I can see the populations of long-lived races as not fluctuating too much, except in periods of large historical wars(such as the Hateful Wars) where they are killed off much more quickly than they can reproduce, you'd think that shorter-lived humans woulde do much better. That the predominantly human realms are actually listed at sub-medieval population densities(as somebody stated earlier- I'll rely on whatever research they might have done) seems to me very odd.
I any event, I'd find it hard to believe that any medieval census was even remotely accurate, due to the travel and communication restritions of the time. manay people were probably simply not counted, or total were made up, or "estimated". Plus, who knows if governments actually pumped up such "official" countings and released such results to the public to deter their enemies from thinking about invasion. I'd say any census numbers from that time, if they survived in any form, are greatly suspect. Extrapolation of population densities based on modern methods at least gives a baseline number to go off of. That number serves as a guide, not a hard figure that for some reason cannot be altered to suit the magical realm in which it is being implemented.
Irregardless of this, researching probable numbers is just fine, but you know, you can vary the results you choose to portray somwhat in a fanstasy world you are writing about. I myself am of the opinion that that error should be in the ways of adding a little extra population(and the resources to support it), due to the existance of magical aid in the main. As to the "SCALE" of things, if the "real world" is white, and the ultra-supplied "magical world of plentiful everything" were black, I'd espouse a "light Greyhawk" color, rather than a "medium Greyhawk" or "dark Greyhawk" color; a world where magic has its influence, but is held somewhat in check by various factors that usually result in adventure plots of some kind.
And besides, all such ultra-violent worlds need a little extra population to either save or kill off every now and then. If anybody hasn't done this already, then you eventually will in all probability.
It all serves a purpose. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Once again, while every community wouldn't have access to the same level of magic, if at all, wouldn't you think that magic might tip things a bit more in favor of the common folk surviving and populations increasing, even if only slightly? And don't you think that the populations of Greyhawk would reflect that?
You might have thought so, but that's not the way the numbers fall out.
There's a couple of reasons for it - the main one, IMO, being lack of research on the behalf of the original creator (if that's not the most heinous of blaphemies). :)
The population density thing was discussed on Greytalk back around 2000 or so. It mainly comes from this website (which I assume is roughly correct in its model):
From the middle link above, here's a choice figure - the estimated population of Europe in 1340 was 73.5 million people (see link for source). Now go though the LGG and add up the totals. I'll tell you right now that it's less than 73.5 million. I think there's only a half dozen realms in the Flanaess that have over a million people - Ahlissa, NK, Nyrond, Keoland, perhaps Furyondy and Zeif (IIRC off the top of my head).
My favourite relative population stat is that Ahlissa has more men of fighting age than Sunndi has total population. :)
Samwise … and I thought Randy Richards was a made up name like “A. Morris Cox.” I did not intend to be rude or humorous in the prior post. I was being forthright. Good luck to you with ensuring a higher standard of quality in gaming products, it is a worthy goal.
GVD, I am glad you like the idea of an alien quipu. I have a rough draft and will share it when I get it cleaned up. I will be trying to straddle that thin line on the “alien” issue so that on one hand, there will be nothing about it that requires acceptance of advanced technology from outer space, but on the other hand it will be there for anyone who wants it. I hope that is a good approach.
Well Woesinger, Pluffet Smedger must have been wildly off in his rough estimations of populations as put forth in his famous/infamous C.Y. 998 document. He must have been a bit too far removed(more than 400 years) from his topic of study- the typical armchair historian.
The above doesn't mean that those other sages, being more contemporary to and acquainted with the time(as perhaps they are writing about a time in which they actually lived), might not better reflect more accurate population numbers.
EGG's 83' folio has been bashed and thrashed by various folks for various reasons; some well deserved and others only a matter a opinion. I find it extremely odd that the very people who bash the apsects of the 83' folio's "realness" do not make much of an effort to correct such errors in their own writing, but rather will choose to explain it away.
Nope! The population numbers of the Flanaess cannot be close to or even greater than that of real world medieval Europe. And even though there is magic to benefit the common folk in ways beyond what is possible in the real medieval world, its benefit is so meager as to be unnoticeable and might as well not even be there- magic has no such effect in a medieval fantasy world. Besides, who am I to correct the aggregious mistakes of the setting's author?
The Ahlissa-Sunndi numbers are rather amusing by the way. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Actually, I think this link demonstrates quite a bit about population and trends. Note how population drops by a third from 500 to 650, quadruples through to 1340, then drops by a third again to 1450.
What if Greyhawk is still recovering from the last bout of major warfare which ended about 150 years ago? (With the collapse of the Tavish Imperium, and the full breakup of the Great Kingdom.) If so, we could first begin by surmising that Greyhawk should have a population about half again what it currently is. Naturally that is still thoroughly anemic, but it begins to set the stage for further population analysis.
And if a second series of wars erupted too "soon", it would degrade the population even more. So yes, IF the Flanaess started out at around 18 million people at the time of the Twin Cataclysms, that number should have doubled 3 times to around 150 million by now, UNLESS they had some major wars reducing it by a third during that time as well. Greyhawk can point to the initial migrations, the expansion of the Great Kingdom, the collapse of the Great Kingdom in Furyondy, Nyrond, and the Iron League, the migration of the Brazen Horde, the expansion of Keoland, the collapse of Keoland, and the recent Greyhawk Wars as events to look at. With such a contraction coming at less than the 800 year period in Europe, it would wreak havoc with the growth model. Conisder:
500 27.5 M
650 18 M
1000 38.5 M
1050 26 M
1400 52 M
1450 35 M
And that is just with a contraction coming every 400 years instead of 800 years, while the doublings still 350 years. If the contractions show up every 200 years, then you'd wind up with a pretty flat line population model.
And then of course you get dragons.
So are the numbers too low? Probably. How high would people tolerate?
If the Sheldomar Gaz I'm doing with Gary Holian stays at 653 KC (near the Keoland millenium), should the population be 3% higher? 10%? 20%? (With a doubling every 350 years or so, since the growth rate is compounded, after 60 years or so it should be between 5% and 10% I think. I don't do that kind of math though, so someone else will have to fill me in on the actual numbers.)
(Oh, and I've got tons of fun numbers like that for the Sheldomar as well. Yes, a lot of those numbers need revising. But again, will people accept it?)
Woesinger's cited sources are about the best we will get for casual use. Even still, an author does make the following points:
"No complete population censuses were taken until the 18th century, thus estimates of population levels are notoriously unreliable. Estimated levels vary as a number of "multiplier" factor often have to be taken into account - estimated population density, ages of marriage, and perhaps most importantly the number of people denoted by a "hearth" in those medieval tax surveys that do provide hard numbers. Other expansions of the few hard figures we have are frequently done by using actuarial data from modern world societies with population structures like that of medieval Europe, for instance figures derived from Indian population surveys earlier in the 20th century. Josiah Russell is the historian who has stuck his neck out and made the estimates we have. The following tables are, then, quite speculative, but not insane. "
As it is, this is the best information we can expect.
It is also stated that modern extrapolations of medieval population densities are based upon modern countries with a demographic similar to that of medieval countries. I'll have to take that with a rather large grain of salt as few if any countries meet the demographic of a medieval society.
Experts in population density growth will still be only be able to give estimates based on modern observations and factoring in estimates of the effects of wars, plagues, and population explosions during times of prosperity during the medieval period. For figuring cities, it is relatively easy enough for an author to look at their own local, appropriately-sized(population-wise) rural communities to get a feel for how many people are around, how much land there is, and adjust accordingly from the point of view that a community must produce enough to be nearly self-sustaining, as there will not be highways full of trucks transporting hundreds of thousands of tons of needed products to them each year. So, you simply need to increase the amount of land dedicated to farming and industry. And that is all conjecture too, so be moderate in your estimations.
There is no need to become an expert on these subjects, just informed enough to make a somewhat "realistic" decision. I think that by reading through this thread, and the links Woesinger posted, anybody should be able to become informed enough to make such decisions. I think S. John Ross sums it up best:
"The rules here are meant to serve as a baseline, to be deviated from at need, not to cast numbers into iron - halve things, double things, or otherwise fiddle with them to suit the feel you're going for."
As even the population numbers given by experts in the field of demographic study are admittedly only the best estimations possible given the data available or based upon extrapolation from modern information, I'd say that S. John Ross's advice is very sound regarding the design of a fantasy medieval setting. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I kind of figured. It is just that I face that sort of attitude constantly in my professional work, and it is one of the things that really gets to me.
(And that is an extreme understatement. I just don't want you to say what I really feel and have you think it is directed at you.)
So I just wanted to put it out there for anyone who might question why I feel I can go tromping willy-nilly over anything and everything.
As for the rest, I agree. That's why I'm not all that dismissive of the research that produced them. At the time, that is what a lot of experts thought, that pop density was that low. Now we are learning otherwise.
Of course I'm still open to input from anyone on how much Sheldomar pop should grow in 65 years or so. So if anyone wants to let me know, feel free to start a new thread, private message me, or catch me in the chat room.
So are the numbers too low? Probably. How high would people tolerate?
. . . should the population be 3% higher? 10%? 20%? (With a doubling every 350 years or so, since the growth rate is compounded, after 60 years or so it should be between 5% and 10% I think. I don't do that kind of math though, so someone else will have to fill me in on the actual numbers.)
Ah, the population density of the Flanaess! IMO, one of its most fantastic features! The population figures are wildly low to the point that IMO the Flanaess' human population can barely sustain itself and the civilization credited to such a low number of individuals. My favorite examples are (1) an international monitized economy (common currency able to easily cross borders in sufficiently _frequent_ exchanges to be common and without currencyt conversion!), (2) the cultural artifacts that have sprung up throughout the Flanaess since the Migratons calmed down into settled states (temples, castles, city walls, guildhalls, jails, ports, universities etc. of a notable sophistication being commonplace), and (3) the preservation and indeed advancement of learned knowledge (particularly written and especially magical knowledge) from generation to generation.
The most common retort I have heard is that there "must be room for the monsters." Of course, this ignores both (1) true primeval wilderness areas such as the Barrier Peaks and (2) the vast extents of the Underdark that offer not just hidey holes but entire eco-systems that can sustain monsters and their populations without necessitating the depopulation of the surface of the Flanaess.
EGG knew nothing about populations and his followers on have preserved the "great man's" ignorance for posterity.
To address Sam's specific question - triple most urban populations and double the general populations.
Here again is something often overlooked - urban density vs rural population density. As we need not be purely "historical" with reference to medieval Europe we may look at urban models from Rome, Constantiople and the Near East and indeed entirely non-european urban populations (Islamic, Chinese, Indian, MezoAmerican) to find very, very dense urban centers that could help the Flanaess garner a more suitable population but still leave rural areas much less densely populated if that is desired. Feeding such urban populations need not involve either magic nor advanced farming technologies beyond the medieval/ancient. One merely need designate an appropriate "breadbasket," much as Rome's and Constantinople's multitudes were feed from Egypt's huge grain surplussage. _________________ GVD
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
You pick'em. 
I sound like a scold, so I am going to shut up now. 