Now, lets decide tech. I want everyone, in plain words to say what they think the highest and lowest forms of tech in this RPG should be. without that decided, little can be written lorewise.
Ideally, I would like a late dark ages to late 1800s. But I wouldn't mind a Roman times or early dark ages to early renaissance.
From 500 BC, to latest 1450.
from 500 BCE to Steam.
For some reason, Agememnon cant post in this, so He pm'ed me and asked that I put in his vote, which is 500 BC To Medievalish times.
350BC - 1485 AD hopefully if the RPing takes a historical turn we could have a mini War of the Roses, with it ending in a battle like the battle of Bosworth.
Hey all, been following along the developments here with interest, but haven't chimed in until now. To clarify, are you folks planning on watching technology develop, so that when you post "350 BC to 1485 AD" it means that as the game progresses and years/decades/centuries pass by, new technologies arise, or is it meant as in some cultures may use BC techs, while others might use Renaissance techs? If its the later, I need to voice a point of dissent. I think using technology to separate cultures is a really cheap cop-out and rather uninventive. A fictional world would probably embrace technology in the same ways that our real world did. It doesn't make any sense to have a nation fighting like Vikings and another stringing out Thin Red Lines of musket-armed infantry. A Viking culture might still have berserker types who charge in their horned helmets and beards (we had Highlanders doing that into the mid-18th centure), but ultimately if gunpowder is developed enough to be a proper weapon, every culture would be using it. Thing about a gun is that any peasant can fire it just about as well as any other guy on day one, when it takes them extended training to become proficient at archery or melee fighting. Even if you have magicians flinging lightning bolts and knights wearing mithril armor in the world, the gun would transcend culture. I think gunpowder and steam-punk stuff can be very cool, but if you choose to implement that tech I think every culture should use it. The different uses and different implementations of that tech would create the differences between your cultures, not the presence or absence of that tech. Just my pair of pennies
delete, double post
Hmm no cultures don't follow along tech wise in our own world. The Americans still used stone spears and such, the Eastern countries used very different technology under the crusades and when Rome conquered the world they met many people in different stages of technology, look at Japan it took a long time for them to come out of medieval times because that was how their culture was, so not to be rude, but Tech following Culture is VERY, VERY likely. And I'd rather not have guns and stuff. Plus we can't draw paralles to our own world as we only have a single prominent species, we don't know how strong culture effects different races as they are entirely different than humans. Its fantasy, and drawing parallels to our own world does not work, Warhammer does not share tech, LOTR does not and Narnia doesn't either.
As soon as each of those spheres gained access to the best technology, they embraced it, did they not? Native Americans took to horsekeeping and gunpowder, the Japanese took to gunpowder (I concede the point that culturally many Japanese resisted it though). I might not have been clear enough, but the Roman example doesn't apply to the point I'm trying to make - different designs for catapults, different methods of smithing, and different vehicles for launching arrows/bolts isn't the tech disparity I take issue with, and that's the only kind of tech disparity the Romans would ever have encountered - someone using phalanxes while someone else shoots at them with steam-powered sniper rifles is a bit wonky. It begs the question that I actually should have asked at first - are there multiple continents in this game world? If so, you could most certainly have different tech disparities, but it would be much more immersive to keep them geographically isolated. Maybe one continent had a tradition of being ruled by wizards, and they silenced technological advance in order to preserve magic as the single dominant force - that continent might not have gunpowder. Another continent could be the birthplace of clockwork gears, and that spread to the point that each nation on that continent features some sort of mechanical component. The points I was making really matter in a connected landmass - I really just don't find it plausible, even in a magical world that doesn't obey earthly physics, that on a single island with the free overland exchange of people and ideas wouldn't see a homogeneous technology distribution. Now a fantasy "suspension of disbelief" that I find very intriguing would be those continental separations - sure you have folks traveling and trading (so you'll have instances of unique techs in each continent), but if one continent doesn't overly influence any other, then tradition would rule over the march of technology. As a side note, I don't see any tech disparities in LOTR. Can you point out tech disparities in Narnia for me? I don't doubt you, I just can't recall any off the top of my head. Warhammer does have tech disparities, but I find it completely uninspired and generic. That's a whole 'nother debate though.
True, on one continent Technology would be shared between the Kingdoms, if the Different Kingdoms allowed sharing this edge in technology. This is also a reason why I do not want any steam-punk or renaissance in this, as it would , admitted spread to far more places than fun is, In Narnia, I do not remember the book, but we follow two kids to a dessertish land which have gunpowder, while not guns they do have bombs, I may blend it together with something else but that is what I remember, In LOTR, we take the movies and there's some, Gondor have more advanced smiting than most, Rohan is behind with about 100 or 150 years, and Isengard is advanced in areas like explosives because of their Wizardy backbone, as-well as crossbows and iron ladders, its small things, but it IS difference in Technology. To answer if there is many continents.. Yes. There's ALOT, this was done to always have something to discover, so that we would not run out of uncharted land, and so that if people want to create nations, we have a place to put them. We would place it relatively close to the other already existing countries to have a fast "first contact". There is also the thing about the resources that each country put into the technological advancement. If a country would rather invest on a better financial sector or simply a LARGE military rather than a well armed one, well then they won't have as good tech as the smaller but better armed army in their neighbour country. To create balance and unique'ness. Yes?
Hey kip. its great to hear your input after you being part of the group for a while. As this RPGS functional leader, I have kind of detached myself from details like tech so that I may avoid partiality. So I really dont care one way or the other quite enouph to argue about it. If I had to vote, I would vote No Guns and everyone within a century or two of oneanother. that said, Tech could be interesting, and so I would be just as happy with the other options.
Not even a musket? Early guns were not that overpowering and bows still outrange them. Not to mention that gunners usually did not wear much armor. Also they could go boom in your face due to misfires or not work. ..and just so you guys know..if you say no guns, I'll find a way to have a gun-like projectile. We can limit the spread of this type of technology as nations like Ristacia are very protective of their technology, not wanting to let the enemy get their hands on it willingly. That and it's basic guns- Short range, effectiveness is not guarenteed, may not kill every shot or even pierce armor if not aimed properly. Also wet powder weakens it. Naturally a large army can annul a technological advantage. Islandawa for example- The superior armed British were defeated by the Zulu. Naturally there were several circumstances leading to that, but it happened. But we don't have to ban guns entirely just to achieve balance..the map is huge. If we place a continent of renaissance nations across a massive ocean from others, maybe they'll never meet. Maybe a New World colonization scenario will happen. But balance can happen as although the less advanced one may lose more men, if they hold the field at the end of the day, they win.
I said that I didn't really care, and that I would enjoy it just as much if there was higher tech. notice I never voted, and I wont either. If people would vote it in, I would be happy with friggin steam tanks. so the best of luck to ya, haha/
Many good points Rosen two things tho, one personal another practical, I DO NOT Want a peasant with a gun to kill my shiny human Knights trained from childhood, I'd really dislike that. It CAN be balanced, but it wil create unbalance too, if not mechanic wise, then play wise, and saying that you'll create a Gun like projectile, may be much better, Magic whatever you can come up with that limits it to a single Race/Nation More than just them being all protective about their tech, as that can leak. The other thing is the possibility to place another hub of nations far, far away With a higher tech level which you spoke about, this is impractical for reasons I don't think I need to say and will split up the player-base.
The first is personal opinion and therefore invalid. If not guns, then it's crossbows and stakes that the peasants can use to kill knights. Or bodkin arrows. So that is invalid and knights were killed by peasants before guns. But here is the thing- The gunman sucks in melee. If the knight is not killed by a well aimed shot, same for his horse, he potentially could charge through their lines and take down a good number of them before they manage to strike at his armor's weak spot or be reinforced by pikemen. So it seems you want knights to be somewhat invincible and just be able to kill everyone and only be countered by other knights. Personally I think that is very unfair. As to the nations..I don't believe this was going to be a one-nation focused game..so that could work and splitting players up would happen anyway as I doubt everyone wants to be a human in a medieval kingdom for example.
ok guys......Not going to take a side on this, but let me comment. so, here's the thing. this game was originally intended as being a character based fantasy rpg at the INDIVIDUAL level, with lots of player interaction whenever feasible. this is not going to be an alliance game. no one will start very powerful in any nation, let alone in any real control, so without allot of Good RP and pacience at no point will anyone be saying "my Pikemen" or "my knights". Nations are supposed to populate the world and provide interesting and detailed backdrops for whatever the charecter decides to do, (hopefully adventure, because that sort of thing will make this the most unique).
Indeed, agreed. I do not wish for knights to be invincible, just to clear it out, that's putting words in my mouth i haven't said. But I do not want them to be easily killed either. I don't think we have different idea on what a knight is, of-course he can be killed by a pike or a lucky arrow, as to crossbow and such, I have been fiddling with an idea which is a mix of Heart of Iron and Civilizations that the different nation research things and then have the possibility to use this tech if they invest the resources in said tech. Never-mind. As to the Nation Game, When a World Origin story have been made and agreed on we can REALLY start making nations and back-story for races, and sites of importance ect and eventually a event all can gather around to have a "start event" I think that would be the best solution.
That's what I thought this was, Knight. The nations just serve as a mechanism for rp to happen and may one day be run by a player who rps their way up the ranks of that nation. It's IMPLIED you want something like that though. Can they be difficult to kill? Yeah, espically ones with ridiculously high armor and are slow moving tanks on massive horses. But then each noble, race, culture, whatever can have different views on knights so not all knights are equal in every way. A longbowman armed with bodkin arrows could bring down some of the heaviest armored knights or their mounts, but would every arrow be a kill? no. *eye-roll* Not every race or nation will adhere to one story. There has to be divergence. But whatever.
I never imply anything else than what I specifically say. I agree different nations= different knights, I honestly don't think we disagree, lets move on from the knight shall we? The thing I wished to say with the tech is that for example a bodkin arrow would be something a nation would have to develop(Like a Crossbow or Gun would be), and so forth as in the real world. Where did you get that from, of-course they won't adhere to one story(Your putting words in my mouth) but we need a origin that all can start their individual stories from.
