[Low-Tech][Social Engineering] Social gaming in nomadic societies

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by muduri

I can't deny also, could be acquired tastes - and 80 years old, though I don't think superseded for actual social structure.

If the OP is attempting to model a nomadic/pastoralist society native to a specific biome (e.g., tropical rainforest, Arctic) there are loads of old-school cultural anthropology books from the 20th century which are great "snapshots" of different "primitive" cultures.

While these works are badly dated by modern anthropological standards and sometimes have flawed assumptions or research methodologies, they're "good enough" to get a sense of what various cultures were like before they became more closely integrated into the larger local culture. Margaret Meade on the pre-WW2 Samoans, Napoleon Chagnon on the Yanomami, etc.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

One game-mechanical option that crosses my mind is to determine loyalty normally but interpret the results differently. Situations that might lead to a revolt into a sedentary society may simply result in people leaving.

Honestly, foot voting is plenty present in more sedentary societies as well, it's mostly about how available an alternate place is and how much it costs you to move. As for revolts, it might change the number of failed revolts but I doubt it would much change the number of successful rebellions.

[Michael Thayne]

(Ignore this, double post.)

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The problem is that there's safety in numbers. Individuals or small groups who strike out on their own are likely to become breakfast for some predator or get picked off by members of a rival tribe. Groups big enough to form a small tribe can keep the predators at bay, but will be at a serious disadvantage if a larger tribe decides to attack them.

This is true but my understanding is that it did not always prevent fragmentation in practice. In some societies, as I understand it, groups tend to fragment (often along family lines) after reaching a certain size. Others may fragment when a leader dies and his property is divided up among his sons. For societies that practice some form of elective monarchy (e.g. the Irish system of tanistry), you might apply the rules for electoral politics in Social Engineering pp. 63-64, but have a tied roll indicate fragmentation rather than the need for a recount.

Handling fractures along family lines may be tricky, particularly because GURPS tends to treat a lot of relationships as binary, making it hard to model systems where, say, cousin relationships are important but almost always get trumped by sibling relationships. Maybe you could do something with Loyalty mechanics, or maybe a Rank-like mechanic? I'm not sure.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

Take for example some of these ideas could give some mundane reasons why the Elves could form forest kingdom without extensive agriculture. Rather than handwaving it because it all magic. Instead, the Elves garden their forest. It may look wild but it is a carefully managed garden providing food and resources for the Elves.

Aren't they just horticulturalists then? They might make small-scale moves as part of a system of fallowing. But mostly seems handled well by Matt Rigsby's work used as-written (I'm particularly thinking of LTC3 and certain Pyramid articles).

Originally Posted by robertsconley

Likewise a great city could exist within the territory of a nomadic culture, but it is only occupied seasonally for two or three months out of a year. Everybody brings enough food and resource to "camp out" together. Work on large scale projects for those two month. Perhaps live under completely different form of government for those two months. Then scatter to live out the rest of the year and to gather what they need to live there next year for another two months.

Now that's interesting. Maybe you could have social advantages that take say a -30% or -35% limitation for only applying during those 2-3 months in the city? That's assuming the advantages don't help at all outside that time window, rather than merely working differently.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Honestly, foot voting is plenty present in more sedentary societies as well, it's mostly about how available an alternate place is and how much it costs you to move. As for revolts, it might change the number of failed revolts but I doubt it would much change the number of successful rebellions.

Oh absolutely, but it tends to cost nomads less to move. As a very crude solution I've thought about something like taking Matt Rigsby's rules for city population change in that one "City Management" Pyramid article and just doubling the size of the changes. Though that probably understates how easy many nomads find moving.

[muduri]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

If the OP is attempting to model a nomadic/pastoralist society native to a specific biome (e.g., tropical rainforest, Arctic) there are loads of old-school cultural anthropology books from the 20th century which are great "snapshots" of different "primitive" cultures.

While these works are badly dated by modern anthropological standards and sometimes have flawed assumptions or research methodologies, they're "good enough" to get a sense of what various cultures were like before they became more closely integrated into the larger local culture. Margaret Meade on the pre-WW2 Samoans, Napoleon Chagnon on the Yanomami, etc.

Agreed - and could be worth adding there might be a spectrum of old-school anthro, from romantic (and often most popular because of that; susceptible to comprehensive critique; granted also probably fun and easy for Dungeon Fantasy!) to rigorous (part of anthro's self-critique for epistemology but less so for social structure). Castaneda and Harner at one extreme, with Chagnon, Turnbull, Malinowski and Benedict not too far behind; and at the other end Evans-Pritchard, Gellner, Leach, Tambiah, Crapanzano, early Geertz and early Turner maybe? Seems useful to allow for differences between The Forest People and Religion of Java!

[muduri]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

...https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everythi.../dp/0374157359

...A good book and I highly recommend reading it for ideas even if you don't wind up agreeing with it's conclusions.

Based on your recommendation I re-read Dawn of Everything more thoroughly over the last couple weeks and should admit I wrote it off too quickly. No denying there's polemic and shaky speculation in there (which Michael Thayne may be related to what bugged you) but also very useful counterpoints to traditional models of state, semi-state, non-state and anti-state social systems.

Splitting up authority into three axes (not just violence monopoly but also bureaucracy and competitive charismatic nobles) that expand differentially from the Shilluk or Olmec through Pharaonic Egypt; cities supported non-exclusively by farming; dialectics of violence and care, kinship and sovereignty.

In game terms, I'd endorse Status (Seasonal) and Legal Enforcement Powers (Seasonal), Claim to Hospitality (Bear Clan) and Legal Immunity (Ritual King) if they go into this hypothetical LTC4!

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by muduri

Based on your recommendation I re-read Dawn of Everything more thoroughly over the last couple weeks and should admit I wrote it off too quickly. No denying there's polemic and shaky speculation in there (which Michael Thayne may be related to what bugged you) but also very useful counterpoints to traditional models of state, semi-state, non-state and anti-state social systems.

Splitting up authority into three axes (not just violence monopoly but also bureaucracy and competitive charismatic nobles) that expand differentially from the Shilluk or Olmec through Pharaonic Egypt; cities supported non-exclusively by farming; dialectics of violence and care, kinship and sovereignty.

In game terms, I'd endorse Status (Seasonal) and Legal Enforcement Powers (Seasonal), Claim to Hospitality (Bear Clan) and Legal Immunity (Ritual King) if they go into this hypothetical LTC4!

Yeah, I went and got it, and I'm 80% of the way through it. The Authors are arrogant, abrasive, political, and appear to be cherry-picking what to present, but its also got a ton of information. The book's best parts appear to be mostly towards the back. It was also the ONLY book recommended here that I found in my library system. Which was frustrating.


But there is good information, though it seems focused less on nomads and more on recent nomads.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by muduri

I think this is a really interesting thread. I agree both that I'd love to model nomadic ads/disads and social engineering confidently and that the references are fragmented as it stands. The economics of nomadism - what wealth level or cost table do you use if you have 100 cattle but little else? - and prestige-comes-from-giving-away-wealth for the (non-nomadic) Kwakwaka’wakw or the Atlas Berbers I would personally advocate for also.

I read a cute point in wikipedia, that often they aren't "giving" it entirely as a piece of them remains. If a chief gives a ring to a warrior or feasts him on rustled cattle the fact that it was gotten from said chief is value added if that chief is important enough.