Need some critics over my new project

[Ron Edwards]

Hello xechnao,

Your evolutionary theory has fallen into the trap of adaptationism - which means, you are looking for a selective explanation of every possible detail about the organism.

For instance, variation in human skin pigmentation (skin color) is more likely the result of bottlenecks than of direct selection (variations in reproductive success). Bottlenecks refer to a population is large, then small, and then large again. How this relates to skin color will take a few paragraphs at least, so I won't go into it. What matters is that you don't have to look for an "advantage" in order to explain the variation.

Now to the point. You want to apply these ideas to elfs (tall and slender) and to dwarves (short and stocky). You could, if you wanted, rely on the human parallels of, say the Masai from the savannahs of Africa and the Eskimo from above the Arctic Circle. They certainly correspond to the issues you're talking about, and in this case I think a certain weight can be given to local selective effects.

However, be wary of adaptationism. Both the Masai and Eskimo represent highly local events in extreme conditions. Human variation in these features of body size are not always so easily explained by selective reasoning regarding climate.

Best,
Ron

[xechnao]

you are looking for a selective explanation of every possible detail about the organism

That's a bit over the top.

For instance, variation in human skin pigmentation (skin color) is more likely the result of bottlenecks than of direct selection (variations in reproductive success). Bottlenecks refer to a population is large, then small, and then large again. How this relates to skin color will take a few paragraphs at least, so I won't go into it. What matters is that you don't have to look for an "advantage" in order to explain the variation.

If you wouldn't mind to explain I would appreciate.Especially I don't understand what you are saying in the frase "Bottlenecks refer to a population is large, then small, and then large again". You see I am not english and have some problems with the language.

Now to the point. You want to apply these ideas to elfs (tall and slender) and to dwarves (short and stocky). You could, if you wanted, rely on the human parallels of, say the Masai from the savannahs of Africa and the Eskimo from above the Arctic Circle. They certainly correspond to the issues you're talking about, and in this case I think a certain weight can be given to local selective effects
However, be wary of adaptationism. Both the Masai and Eskimo represent highly local events in extreme conditions. Human variation in these features of body size are not always so easily explained by selective reasoning regarding climate.

Hey I was talking about the desert. Desert is extreme isn't it. I think dwarves would have a hard time over there if they carry their beards and with their sturdy stock. That's why I put elves there and the dwarves away. But now I am thinking that also hobgoblins could fit into the desert.
What do you think or like most?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think the best answer is for me to recommend you to this thread: Mike's Standard Rant #2. There are a lot of ideas to consider there.

Regarding your game in general, I think it might be interesting for you to ask yourself, "How much setting is enough?" Imagine some people playing your game. How much, reasonably, do you think they need in order to have a good time?

Do you have that much already? Or do you think you need more?

Best,
Ron

[xechnao]

I think I need more. But even this one I have I am not sure how to fix it together avoiding most possible problems from further setting development.
To see what I mean:
You know dragonlance's Lord Soth that they transfered him to ravenloft and then decided that he never left dragonlance and didn't know how to cover up? I don't want to face same problems.

[Mike Holmes]

Continuity errors we call those.

Mike

[xechnao]

Continuity errors we call those.

Thanks.

[greyorm]

xechnao,

I'm trying to piece together your actual desire and effort here from what you've posted. It appears to me that you are saying you want to make a setting, but no game -- instead, it appears you desire other people are going to create games to use with your setting.

Is this accurate?

Alot of my concern comes from your statement/idea that you want anyone to be able to sit down with this material and do anything with it.

What the game is about? Well this I cannot answer at 100% yet. And this I am happy about as I want the possibilities open. Take for instance warhammer world. This serves as a basis for a strategy table top game, an rpg and some novels.

It is obvious you are trying to create a highly-detailed, internally consistent setting that when played feels like real-life on this other world.

But that still doesn't give me a reason to play; there are plenty of the same out there and their existance does not constitute a reason by themselves to play in them.

Why would I want to experience life on this world? What makes experiencing life on this world unique or interesting enough that I would want to pick it up from among the dozens of other similarly crafted worlds?

[xechnao]

The fact that is a world that is possible to exist scinetifically and that rpg talking is "hand to hand".

This fixes me personally. If there other people that also could like it I would like them to enjoy my world.

[Palaskar]

Hi there. It looks like you're developing an interesting setting, albiet with help coming slowly, due to the language barrier.

Let me make one suggestion, though.

Instead of thinking "D&D in an alternate world", and having replacements for fireballs, stinking clouds, etc., let the physics and natural resources of the world guide you when creating weapons, armor, vehicles and other technology.

For example, it this world I'd expect zepplins and balloons to be used, due to the availability of light composites and cermanics, and no rule against generating hot air for lift.

Pal

[xechnao]

I will iclude zeppelins and hot air balloons but also airplanes and maybe helicopters. Those won't have laser guided missiles and stuff like this. They will still have some weaponry but nothing tremendously efficiently destructive. I am also designing some sky beasts and predators like giant bats, giant pteranodons and many other.
I hope you like it.

[xechnao]

Instead of thinking "D&D in an alternate world", and having replacements for fireballs, stinking clouds, etc., let the physics and natural resources of the world guide you when creating weapons, armor, vehicles and other technology.

I make this comparison to give examples of the possible gaming atmosphere as D&D stands as the most known rpg. But I am not thinking only D&D. I also think of movies, comics, other rpgs and fantasy novels and even art.
This is an example that I would love to say: When I saw an image of Gandalf's figure outside Bilbo's house I asked myself how could I implement this fantasy figure of the old wizard with the white beard?
Then I figured out :
Older persons could have more experience but less might for action, it's true. There could be the possibility to replace some parts of your organism with gadgets but you could lose some things by doing this. Eg replacing your skeleton-muscle system could make you more forcefull in certain moves but also limit your potential of moves in some ways. But making this could make you need some drug treetment to stay alive or to use your implements as efficiently as you like. This use of drugs could be highly risky and having very low propabilities of any success. (for instance different activities or tasks might need different doses). One to use some drug therapy properly might need lots of self-experience and self-wisdom and more he posseses better he can do.
From this pattern I could design some old figures being important in action, even old enough that they have not their eyes anymore but still with their gadgets in their condition being able of certain fantastic tasks only due to their experience.

[Palaskar]

Oh I see.  D&D was just an example.

On your idea that with age comes experience, there was an article awhile back on rpg.net on this very subject. Does anyone remember it? Marco?

Anyway, from what I can remember, it pointed out that beginners will tend to have high abilities (statistics) while older characters will have higher skills.

There was a lot more, though, which is why I'm asking for help.With a

[xechnao]

Now I am not saying that elder definately have more experience or skills than the younger. I just say that somebodies could incorporate the figure of the important white beard wizard and those who could the would have manage or achieve so efficiently and well through experience or "wisdom" if you like.

News about the project: Right now I am working in some hand to hand combat analysis focused on "species". Eg dwarf vs dwarf, human vs dwarf, human vs human etch the way you hear it in some wild life animal documentaries. I also conjuct different speciality situations such as armour and weapons and terrain.