Steve Jackson Games Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=104821)

Kromm 02-22-2013 11:12 AM
Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Guarding caravans
Marching with arms and armor
Wish I'd stayed at home
— Some hack
The great thing about history is that while the events are long past, our knowledge of the details is always growing. Remember Pyramid #3/33: Low-Tech? Well, e23 recently dug deeper and found Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II. After carefully dusting off the artifacts, here's what turned up:
  • GURPS Low-Tech Companion 3: Daily Life and Economics went into detail on how a farmer could afford to feed his family – but what if your PCs tend toward the higher end of the economic spectrum? As Lord of the Manor, you need to know how many farms and serfs it'll take to support the lifestyle to which you are accustomed, and no one knows that better than Matt Riggsby.

  • Warriors want to be protected at all times, but there are some places you simply cannot go in full plate armor. That's why Dan Howard brings you detailed rules for Concealed Armor, complete with statistics for several historical examples. If Abraham Lincoln had worn "Judge Bradshaw's Hat" to the theater, history might have gone a different way!

  • David Pulver loves to tinker with systems, and Low-Tech Armor Design is no exception. In this month's Eidetic Memory, he offers a way to design custom armor based on the surface area it protects. And don't let the name fool you – as the tables show, these rules work as well for modern Kevlar as they do for old-school mail.

  • One of the more interesting early gunpowder weapons was The Puckle Gun. While GURPS Low-Tech covers this briefly on pp. 92-93, there's much speculation about what bores and configurations it came in. With plenty of backstory and historical information – and four different takes on the same weapon – this "fast-firing" miracle gun is begging for a supporting role in your next game!

  • GURPS offers many ways to lower your opponents' defenses: Deceptive Attack, Feint, and so on. But if you want Delayed Gratification, try the Setup Attack. Based on realistic fighting techniques, this new combat option gives you a way to launch an offensive that may cost your opponent his Hit Points and his defenses.

  • For many of us, our first GURPS adventure was Caravan to Ein Arris. Dan Howard helps us Return to Ein Arris with a detailed look at caravanserais, popular travel stops along trade routes through the desert. This culminates in the Prophet's Rest, a ready-to-use caravanserai, complete with supporting cast, map, and adventure seeds.

  • And even the lowest-tech issue wouldn't be complete without the usual features, including a Random Thought Table that aims to undercut your expectations, an Odds and Ends to help you reverse technological advances, and a Murphy's Rules that may make you rethink becoming a leatherworker.
— PK & Kromm

Ulzgoroth 02-22-2013 12:36 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Love the Lord of the Manor stuff but I'm a bit troubled by the way poultry farming blows comparable cash crops out of the water. No setup, tiny land requirement, highest revenue, no drawbacks listed.

trooper6 02-22-2013 01:05 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
We had poultry back when I lived in the mountains...and one of the drawbacks I recall was coyotes. They think poultry are tasty. I imagine other predators work as well. And illness.

Flyndaran 02-22-2013 01:14 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trooper6 (Post 1528693)
We had poultry back when I lived in the mountains...and one of the drawbacks I recall was coyotes. They think poultry are tasty. I imagine other predators work as well. And illness.
I lived on the Umatilla reservation for a while, and our chickens were plagued by feral dogs.... one "*******" rooster was gang killed by angry hens though... literally hen pecked to death.

joncarryer 02-22-2013 01:37 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Also, I would think that, as farming poultry IS so easy, in a mediaeval setting every farm is going to farm enough poultry to feed themselves in addition to whatever else they do, so any lord of the manor who tries to make his fortune by doing JUST poultry is going to find himself with a serious lack of a market. Specialised poultry farming works in the modern era because there are enough consumers doing no farming at all to provide a sufficient demand. This is alluded to in the "Distribution of Labour" box.

Kromm 02-22-2013 01:59 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth (Post 1528676)

Love the Lord of the Manor stuff but I'm a bit troubled by the way poultry farming blows comparable cash crops out of the water.
That's pretty much reality . . . crowded places with poor people have more chickens than anything else. The "hard" drawbacks are diseases that wipe out all your chooks in one go and predators, neither of which is universal. (Source: A very good friend whose dad runs a poultry farm.) The "soft" downside is that people get damned tired of eating poultry for every meal; this is a problem for any high-production food item, which is why economies that lean even vaguely toward sumptuary laws tend to place a high value on harder-to-raise food, and why a noble who tried to get rich on chickens would lose face.

Flyndaran 02-22-2013 02:07 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Tired of chicken!? Blasphemy! Fried, grilled, seasoned, soup, shredded... the list is endless. Cultural insanity, I say.

Bruno 02-22-2013 02:22 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1528715)
That's pretty much reality . . . crowded places with poor people have more chickens than anything else. The "hard" drawbacks are diseases that wipe out all your chooks in one go and predators, neither of which is universal. (Source: A very good friend whose dad runs a poultry farm.)
My mother's childhood at least matches, and locally there's a not-insignificant movement to get permission to have hens in suburbia again. Chickens are just that good a producer. To a lesser extent, I understand most well-domesticated small animals do better on efficiency than mid sized animals, and mid sized animals do better than large ones.

What large ones bring to the table are animal traction, and "secondary" products like large sections of bone, tendon, and hide (and heavier duty bone, tendon and hide) that you just can't get off a chicken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1528715)
The "soft" downside is that people get damned tired of eating poultry for every meal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1528721)
Tired of chicken!? Blasphemy! Fried, grilled, seasoned, soup, shredded... the list is endless. Cultural insanity, I say.
I'm with Flyn, and also point out eggs eggs eggs; the secondary products revolution was a revolution for a reason, people!

Joking aside, I do understand the problem. Something people with more tastebuds than I have to suffer with, I hear. Put more spices in! Problem solved! :D

DemiBenson 02-22-2013 04:08 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
I liked this issue. The first three all had direct relevance to a setting I'm building. I expect they'll be quite useful.

Kromm 02-22-2013 04:52 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528742)

What large ones bring to the table are animal traction, and "secondary" products like large sections of bone, tendon, and hide (and heavier duty bone, tendon and hide) that you just can't get off a chicken.
And with the march of time, those secondaries from large animals matter less and less relative to food. Back in the day, though, they were a huge incentive to raise cattle in particular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528742)

I'm with Flyn, and also point out eggs eggs eggs; the secondary products revolution was a revolution for a reason, people!

Joking aside, I do understand the problem. Something people with more tastebuds than I have to suffer with, I hear. Put more spices in! Problem solved! :D
Sure! I was speaking mostly as someone who cannot stomach eggs (almost literally . . . I have to watch 'em or I hurl) and who has a very sensitive palate (my wife constantly being surprised that I can taste things like the one allspice berry that slipped in with the peppercorns in four litres of curry). So I'm an outlier with my chicken indifference.

Anthony 02-22-2013 06:57 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528742)
What large ones bring to the table are animal traction, and "secondary" products like large sections of bone, tendon, and hide (and heavier duty bone, tendon and hide) that you just can't get off a chicken.
Cattle, goats, and sheep can all be grazed on land that's too rugged to farm; chickens cannot.

Rasputin 02-22-2013 07:03 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1528715)
The "soft" downside is that people get damned tired of eating poultry for every meal
Considering that peasants and serfs were often lucky to have food, I'd say that this is a problem for only a few.

Kromm 02-22-2013 07:21 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasputin (Post 1528914)

Considering that peasants and serfs were often lucky to have food, I'd say that this is a problem for only a few.
Agreed! I offered it mostly as cause for why a landowner might not want to focus on poultry.

Agemegos 02-22-2013 07:58 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
There are some interesting reflections on the price of poultry (and of pork and dairy foods) in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chapter 11, ¶202 – ¶205

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Smith
I.11.202
Thus in every farm the offals of the barn and stables will maintain a certain number of poultry. These, as they are fed with what would otherwise be lost, are a mere save-all; and as they cost the farmer scarce any thing, so he can afford to sell them for very little. Almost all that he gets is pure gain, and their price can scarce be so low as to discourage him from feeding this number. But in countries ill cultivated, and, therefore, but thinly inhabited, the poultry, which are thus raised without expence, are often fully sufficient to supply the whole demand. In this state of things, therefore, they are often as cheap as butcher's-meat, or any other sort of animal food. But the whole quantity of poultry, which the farm in this manner produces without expence, must always be much smaller than the whole quantity of butcher's-meat which is reared upon it; and in times of wealth and luxury what is rare, with only nearly equal merit, is always preferred to what is common. As wealth and luxury increase, therefore, in consequence of improvement and cultivation, the price of poultry gradually rises above that of butcher's-meat, till at last it gets so high that it becomes profitable to cultivate land for the sake of feeding them. When it has got to this height, it cannot well go higher. If it did, more land would soon be turned to this purpose. In several provinces of France, the feeding of poultry is considered as a very important article in rural œconomy, and sufficiently profitable to encourage the farmer to raise a considerable quantity of Indian corn and buck-wheat for this purpose. A middling farmer will there sometimes have four hundred fowls in his yard. The feeding of poultry seems scarce yet to be generally considered as a matter of so much importance in England. They are certainly, however, dearer in England than in France, as England receives considerable supplies from France. In the progress of improvement, the period at which every particular sort of animal food is dearest, must naturally be that which immediately precedes the general practice of cultivating land for the sake of raising it. For some time before this practice becomes general, the scarcity must necessarily raise the price. After it has become general, new methods of feeding are commonly fallen upon, which enable the farmer to raise upon the same quantity of ground a much greater quantity of that particular sort of animal food. The plenty not only obliges him to sell cheaper, but in consequence of these improvements he can afford to sell cheaper; for if he could not afford it, the plenty would not be of long continuance. It has been probably in this manner that the introduction of clover, turnips, carrots, cabbages, &c. has contributed to sink the common price of butcher's-meat in the London market somewhat below what it was about the beginning of the last century.
The point here is that poultry fatten on scraps, waste, spills, and gleanings which they collect themselves, which are produced in proportion to the production of staple foods and the consumption of the household. Poultry is virtually free up to the amount that is supported by unavoidable waste: raising less that that amount means less production with no reduction in costs and no increase in alternative production. Or looking at that from the other side, raising poultry is a terrifically cheap way to produce food up to the point that is supported by the irreducible waste of handling grain, preparing food etc. But if you try to produce poultry in greater amounts than are supported free as a by-product of agriculture and household food production, at that point you have to feed them food that you could put to other uses. You have to grow food for chickens, and food for the oxen that plough the fields where you grow the food for the chickens. And once you start doing that poultry becomes dramatically more expensive. It is an error to look at the cost of raising poultry in a system in which they are a cheap by-product of farming and to suppose that poultry could substitute for other production at the same rate of cost.

Remember that unlike cattle and sheep chickens cannot subsist on the grass that grows in the waste ground, and that unlike pigs they cannot eat the mast in beech and oak forests and woods. Cheap production of poultry is limited in proportion to the cultivation of fields.

The economics of ducks in wet rice agriculture is even more interesting (turned out into the paddy-fields they eat pests, fertilise the rice with their droppings, and actually increase production, thus demonstrating negative cost up to a certain proporition with rice production), but sadly Smith was not aware of the facts.



Anyway, the chief reason that landowners didn't specialise in raising poultry was that it is only cheap as a joint product with grain. Specialise, and it becomes expensive.

Turhan's Bey Company 02-22-2013 08:19 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
I didn't go into it here because the article was already complicated enough (though it was addressed briefly in 3/33), but the prestige of a given crop is going to be a significant economic factor. However, it's one based on culture, not technology. Luxury pricing is going to hit some of these values very hard. In a setting which looks vaguely like historical Europe, the beef and pork prices are going to be somewhat higher, and the chicken prices maybe somewhat lower. And in a world that contains something like a historical Europe paying out mad dosh for spices, those price increases can percolate back through the supply chain so that even producers see a nice price bump. But, of course, those adjustments have to be campaign-specific.

There's one other small thing I didn't factor in since I had zero data, but some things travel terribly. Spices, you can pack up in a chest and ship across the continent. Animals are different. Cattle and pigs can be driven to market, but the exercise burns off some fat, so you need to either sell animals who weigh less (and get less money) or fatten them up again (which costs you more). Then again, since they're self-propelled, you don't need to pay much to transport them, so it's probably a wash. Chickens, though, have to be carried to market and need to be fed grain along the way because they can't forage. That may be below any reasonable level of resolution when taking chickens from a village to a nearby town, but might make it less than profitable to buy chickens in Baghdad and sell them in Samarkand.

Bruno 02-22-2013 08:47 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
On a non-chicken related subject, I was home sick today and spent my conscious hours tinkering with an Excel spreadsheet for the Low Tech Armor article, although I'm not sure if it'll work in older versions or GoogleDocs.

It brought up an interesting question though: What's the connection between physical statistics, DR/inch, Max DR, and WM for various materials? If I have a fantasy material that is "as hard as steel" but "as light as <x>" I can probably throw together DR/in (not used in any calculations that I've spotted) and WM (used) but Max DR (used) I am not sure how to generate.

It seems like it should be related to density (WM) and tensile strength or hardness (DR/in?), based on my not-a-materials-engineer vague impression? I tried fitting Max DR to a cube root and a log of DR/in and can't. Does being a flexible material factor in somewhere?

Christopher R. Rice 02-22-2013 08:49 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528950)
On a non-chicken related subject, I was home sick today and spent my conscious hours tinkering with an Excel spreadsheet for the Low Tech Armor article, although I'm not sure if it'll work in older versions or GoogleDocs.

It brought up an interesting question though: What's the connection between physical statistics, DR/inch, Max DR, and WM for various materials? If I have a fantasy material that is "as hard as steel" but "as light as <x>" I can probably throw together DR/in (not used in any calculations that I've spotted) and WM (used) but Max DR (used) I am not sure how to generate.

It seems like it should be related to density (WM) and tensile strength or hardness (DR/in?), based on my not-a-materials-engineer vague impression? I tried fitting Max DR to a cube root and a log of DR/in and can't. Does being a flexible material factor in somewhere?
Uhhh I want this when it's done Bruno. >_>

Kthxbai

Peter Knutsen 02-22-2013 08:51 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett (Post 1528933)
The point here is that poultry fatten on scraps, waste, spills, gleanings, and scraps, which are produced in proportion to the production of staple foods and the consumption of the household. Poultry is virtually free up to the amount that is supported by unavoidable waste: raising less that that amount means less production with no reduction in costs and no increase in alternative production. Or looking at that from the other side, raising poultry is a terrifically cheap way to produce food up to the point that is supported by the irreducible waste of handling grain, preparing food etc. But if you try to produce poultry in greater amounts than are supported free as a by-product of agriculture and household food production, at that point you have to feed them food that you could put to other uses. And once you start doing that poultry becomes dramatically more expensive. It is an error to look at the cost of raising poultry in a system in which they are a cheap by-product of farming and to suppose that poultry could substitute for other production at the same rate of cost.
That's my thinking as well. I've never been able to wrap my head around the hens-per-acre metric from LTC3. You don't feed your chicken by giving them a plot of land. That doesn't make sense to me. You feed chicken by giving them your edible trash. Once you're out of edible trash, your only choice is to feed them grain, and that means you're feeding food to your food, which the medieval poor could not do.

LTC3 has, as I recall, a fairly good metric for how many dogs a household can feed with scrap food, based on household Status. Something like that ought to be used for chicken production as well.

zoncxs 02-22-2013 08:52 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528950)
On a non-chicken related subject, I was home sick today and spent my conscious hours tinkering with an Excel spreadsheet for the Low Tech Armor article, although I'm not sure if it'll work in older versions or GoogleDocs.

It brought up an interesting question though: What's the connection between physical statistics, DR/inch, Max DR, and WM for various materials? If I have a fantasy material that is "as hard as steel" but "as light as <x>" I can probably throw together DR/in (not used in any calculations that I've spotted) and WM (used) but Max DR (used) I am not sure how to generate.

It seems like it should be related to density (WM) and tensile strength or hardness (DR/in?), based on my not-a-materials-engineer vague impression? I tried fitting Max DR to a cube root and a log of DR/in and can't. Does being a flexible material factor in somewhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostdancer (Post 1528952)
Uhhh I want this when it's done Bruno. >_>

Kthxbai
I second this if I may <,<

also, what does WM stand for?

Bruno 02-22-2013 08:59 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoncxs (Post 1528954)
I second this if I may <,<

also, what does WM stand for?
Weight Multiple/multiplier/thingy.

I'll need to ask Steven if it's OK before I can put it up anywhere - and my preference is really stuffing it up somewhere for people who bought the Pyramid issue, since it in some ways ends up replacing the article :P

I learned how to make checkboxes go in Excel 2013 today! I should be able to back-export to Excel 2003 with relatively little problems, from what I'm seeing. GDocs is probably a no-go, I'm into features it just doesn't do. Not sure about LibreOffice/OpenOffice.

Langy 02-22-2013 09:56 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528950)
On a non-chicken related subject, I was home sick today and spent my conscious hours tinkering with an Excel spreadsheet for the Low Tech Armor article, although I'm not sure if it'll work in older versions or GoogleDocs.
Heh - I was thinking about doing the same, then expanding it for higher-tech armor. I also would like to replace the way the Holdout Modifier works so that it's based on armor thickness and flexibility, rather than just DR.

Quote:
It seems like it should be related to density (WM) and tensile strength or hardness (DR/in?), based on my not-a-materials-engineer vague impression? I tried fitting Max DR to a cube root and a log of DR/in and can't. Does being a flexible material factor in somewhere?
It should be based entirely on thickness, DR/in, and flexibility. Makes no sense for it to be based on anything else.

DemiBenson 02-22-2013 10:17 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy (Post 1528971)
Heh - I was thinking about doing the same, then expanding it for higher-tech armor. I also would like to replace the way the Holdout Modifier works so that it's based on armor thickness and flexibility, rather than just DR.

It should be based entirely on thickness, DR/in, and flexibility. Makes no sense for it to be based on anything else.
If you do, will you share? :)

zoncxs 02-22-2013 10:25 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528955)
Weight Multiple/multiplier/thingy.

I'll need to ask Steven if it's OK before I can put it up anywhere - and my preference is really stuffing it up somewhere for people who bought the Pyramid issue, since it in some ways ends up replacing the article :P

I learned how to make checkboxes go in Excel 2013 today! I should be able to back-export to Excel 2003 with relatively little problems, from what I'm seeing. GDocs is probably a no-go, I'm into features it just doesn't do. Not sure about LibreOffice/OpenOffice.
no worries, I was thinking of doing it myself too but Googledocs does not do everything I want too.

I was thinking of breaking the list down into options/stages.

1 - pick material
2 - pick design

Anthony 02-22-2013 11:39 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1528950)
It brought up an interesting question though: What's the connection between physical statistics, DR/inch, Max DR, and WM for various materials?
I don't have the issue, but 1 square foot with a thickness of 1" has a weight of roughly 5 lb * Density (so 40 lb for 1" steel). Max DR is probably empirical, realistically the reason you don't use Kevlar against rifle-class threats is because it has poor scaling (realistically, given how GURPS DR works, the DR of fiber-type armors should vary with the square root of weight) and generally performs poorly against high velocity attacks, not because it has a true maximum.

Langy 02-22-2013 11:47 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1529018)
I don't have the issue, but 1 square foot with a thickness of 1" has a weight of roughly 5 lb * Density (so 40 lb for 1" steel). Max DR is probably empirical, realistically the reason you don't use Kevlar against rifle-class threats is because it has poor scaling (realistically, given how GURPS DR works, the DR of fiber-type armors should vary with the square root of weight) and generally performs poorly against high velocity attacks, not because it has a true maximum.
The 'Max DR's are said to be chosen because any thicker amount of armor wouldn't be reasonable to wear - it'd hinder movement too much, etc. This is half of the DR/inch for most Flexible armor (except Cloth, which has it listed at a full inch of armor), greater than an inch of DR for Wood armor, and about 1/5 of an inch for most metal armors. It's 10/75th of an inch for Lead armor and 1/6 of an inch for some metals. It's about 1/2 an inch for 'stone'-type armor.

I honestly have no idea how a lot of these things were decided.

Anthony 02-23-2013 12:18 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy (Post 1529022)
The 'Max DR's are said to be chosen because any thicker amount of armor wouldn't be reasonable to wear - it'd hinder movement too much, etc.
Sounds like made-up numbers, then.

jacobmuller 02-23-2013 02:04 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1529037)
Sounds like made-up numbers, then.
It's peculiar how many things in GURPS seem like invented numbers; the authors have even admitted some numbers are just holdovers from earlier game versions with no solid basis.
What I've experienced, however, is many hours of patient/ insane number crunching and reality comparing usually end up giving you numbers sufficiently akin to those "made up numbers" such that a more complex way of doing things is, well, have you seen this bottle opener?

I'm only surprised I hadn't started putting the numbers into a spreadsheet yet myself. And for UT armor too.
Bruno & Langy: insanity is infectious - I've to go stand in the snow for 9 hours but, when I return, my Excel 2007 will be played with, bwah, ha ha! {may be watching too much ST-ToS}. Great minds think alike but fools seldom differ.

ULFGARD 02-23-2013 02:11 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Okay... Loved this issue. I'm psyched to play around with manors from Matt's article in my fantasy game. And I think some concealed armor might be in order for some gnomish bad guys inspired by an earlier Pyramid...

Meanwhile... It may be the alcohol I've consumed, but I love you all ;)

Just keep this pipeline flowing....

Mr Frost 02-23-2013 02:54 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth (Post 1528676)
...I'm a bit troubled by the way poultry farming blows comparable cash crops out of the water. No setup, tiny land requirement, highest revenue, no drawbacks listed.
Well , It's a very fowl industry ...

Rasputin 02-23-2013 05:29 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Frost (Post 1529061)
Well , It's a very fowl industry ...
Groans.

So, TBC, were we meant to think of a Harn supplement when reading your article? Because it seemed like GURPS Harnmanor to me.

Agemegos 02-23-2013 05:51 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company (Post 1528942)
There's one other small thing I didn't factor in since I had zero data, but some things travel terribly. Spices, you can pack up in a chest and ship across the continent. Animals are different. Cattle and pigs can be driven to market, but the exercise burns off some fat, so you need to either sell animals who weigh less (and get less money) or fatten them up again (which costs you more).
On the other hand, the price of meat in places distant from raising country has to cover the price of buying them plus the cost of driving them, whatever condition they tend to arrive in. In an market at equilibrium you will get more at the distant market. Meat will be dearer there; you can't figure back from a supposed universal price of meat.

I had some figures once on the prices of cattle and of pigs in Gloucestershire and London. Because cattle are easier and cheaper to drove than pigs are, the price in London is raised more for pigs than it is for cattle, proportionately.

DemiBenson 02-23-2013 08:13 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
So Matt,
I've got a few questions about urban carrying capacity.
  • Efficiency of transportation: Is "river" supposed to be used if a city sits on a river (and includes the cost of cart transport to river facilities)? Or is it for a city that somehow only gets food by river and not at all by cart? Would it be reasonable to assume that carts come from a small radius, but calculate the river portion as 10% of the difference between the river transport's radius and the cart radius?
  • Some question about sea travel. Is sea transport meant to work for a city like London (navigable from the sea, but surrounded by land)? Or are the sea efficiencies mostly for use by the imperial capital calculations?

Also, there's one extra close parenthesis in the formula.

Stormcrow 02-23-2013 10:55 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1528635)
If Abraham Lincoln had worn "Judge Bradshaw's Hat" to the theater, history might have gone a different way!
Surely one removes one's hat when one is sitting at the theater, even if one has a private box. :)

Turhan's Bey Company 02-23-2013 11:42 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemiBenson (Post 1529134)
Efficiency of transportation: Is "river" supposed to be used if a city sits on a river (and includes the cost of cart transport to river facilities)? Or is it for a city that somehow only gets food by river and not at all by cart?
The latter. This is unlikely to be an actual case. The numbers are provided as an upper limit to what an extensive system of rivers and canals can do, but it's up to the GM to decide how much benefit any given set of waterways provides. For example, a city on a river running through what would otherwise be desert (say, on the Tigris or Euphrates) would gain a modest benefit, giving it a slightly better carrying capacity than a city only supplied by cart. Medieval Pittsburgh (yes, I know, just go with it), which sits at the confluence of three rivers would do slightly better, and a city in a region with many subsidiary streams feeding into a main river, providing easy access to river transport (say, Alexandria at the end of the Nile delta) would do quite well indeed, getting close to the numbers for pure river transport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemiBenson (Post 1529134)
Some question about sea travel. Is sea transport meant to work for a city like London (navigable from the sea, but surrounded by land)? Or are the sea efficiencies mostly for use by the imperial capital calculations?
Sea efficiencies are largely for imperial capital calculations, but could be used in directly supplying an island city subsisting on fish and kelp. A city being on the sea doesn't help if your farms are all on the landward side.

Kromm 02-23-2013 12:39 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow (Post 1529208)

Surely one removes one's hat when one is sitting at the theater, even if one has a private box. :)
That was PK's line, but . . . If you're so worried about assassination that you wear an armored hat, you leave it on. Nobody is going to tell the freakin' President to take it off.

SimonAce 02-23-2013 02:11 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth (Post 1528676)
Love the Lord of the Manor stuff but I'm a bit troubled by the way poultry farming blows comparable cash crops out of the water. No setup, tiny land requirement, highest revenue, no drawbacks listed.
From experience here chicken farming really is amazingly efficient and other than predators and disease, pretty issue free.

SimonAce 02-23-2013 02:17 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasputin (Post 1528914)
Considering that peasants and serfs were often lucky to have food, I'd say that this is a problem for only a few.
In most areas of Europe that wasn't quite true. City people were lucky to have food and everyone had food issues in the winter or in the occasional famine . On the whole outside of some real horrible places, peasants ate a decent if monotonous diet . Nearer to the era of Black Death after the long summer, things did get tight. Humans kind of reached carrying capacity

There were a lot if reasons peasants usually ate , social compact, the church, peasant uprisings and just common sense. Hungry and sick peasants meant the nobles starved too.

The real awfulness started in modern times with labor specialization, urbanization and surplus population.

Lastly it is suggested that British peasants were better off than many modern Africans!

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandeve...england_twice/

Bruno 02-23-2013 03:08 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1529037)
Sounds like made-up numbers, then.
Actually, I'm not getting an exact fit but it's looking like a root function of MaxDR/WM is a reasonably good first-order approximation.

lwcamp 02-23-2013 03:27 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett (Post 1528933)
The point here is that poultry fatten on scraps, waste, spills, gleanings, and scraps, which are produced in proportion to the production of staple foods and the consumption of the household. Poultry is virtually free up to the amount that is supported by unavoidable waste: raising less that that amount means less production with no reduction in costs and no increase in alternative production. Or looking at that from the other side, raising poultry is a terrifically cheap way to produce food up to the point that is supported by the irreducible waste of handling grain, preparing food etc.
Interestingly, Guinea pigs in Andean cultures seem to follow these same economics. They are fed scraps and waste, and supply welcome meat (although not eggs). In a fantasy world, you may have Guinea pigs instead of or in addition to poultry.

Luke

Bruno 02-23-2013 03:33 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwcamp (Post 1529347)
Interestingly, Guinea pigs in Andean cultures seem to follow these same economics. They are fed scraps and waste, and supply welcome meat (although not eggs). In a fantasy world, you may have Guinea pigs instead of or in addition to poultry.

Luke
Aid organizations have been introducing guinea pigs to the most unstable areas of the Congo as a source of meat that is small and compliant enough that when the village flees before an incoming militant group, a family can stuff them in a sack and take them with them. They're also small enough and a burrowing species so if you hide them in a crisis in a dark place you can be reasonably sure they won't kick up a fuss and be found (unlike chickens, which tend to object to this sort of treatment).

Lastly there was a (strained) hope that the militants might not recognize them as a food source, or regard them as too low status to be worth stealing.

Flyndaran 02-23-2013 03:46 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1529351)
...

Lastly there was a (strained) hope that the militants might not recognize them as a food source, or regard them as too low status to be worth stealing.
Lots of people do have an issue with eating rodents, even really cute ones.

DanHoward 02-23-2013 03:54 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529357)
Lots of people do have an issue with eating rodents, even really cute ones.
That makes no sense at all. Look at the types of animals that are widely eaten in China and elsewhere in Asia. Look at how widespread the "bush meat" culture is. I think your definition of "lots" would only be applicable amongst people with a similar upbringing as your own. Personally I would have no problem eating rodents - even rats - if I knew them to be disease free.

ErhnamDJ 02-23-2013 04:02 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Squirrels are rodents. If people have a problem eating them, they've never mentioned it to me.

Kalzazz 02-23-2013 04:03 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Trying to clean and fillet a rat or guinea pig seems like far far to much effort to be worth it

Rats and guinea pigs are stuck in my mind as 'Cute pet animals', so Im not sure Id want to eat one, nor cats, dogs or horses

lwcamp 02-23-2013 04:16 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalzazz (Post 1529366)
Trying to clean and fillet a rat or guinea pig seems like far far to much effort to be worth it
No more difficult than a fish, and people happily heat crappies and bluegills which are smaller than rats or Guinea pigs. Gutting and skinning are easy, and then you can just spit them and roast them over a fire until cooked, and pick the meat off the bones with your fingers and lips.

Also on the subject of alternative animals that can thrive on kitchen waste, you could also introduce dubia cockroaches (Blaptica dubia). These roaches are large, soft bodied, not overly chitinous, cannot climb glass or smooth surfaces, do not fly, are fairly slow moving and clumsy, and reproduce rapidly. You can easily distinguish the adult males from the females (females lack full wings, males have them), so you can just eat the males (be sure to leave a few) and leave the brood females to make more roaches. Because they are cold-blooded, they should be more efficient at turning waste into meat than warm blooded animals (also, roaches have a special adaptation for nitrogen recycling that drastically reduces their protein requirements), so you should get more meat for a given amount of waste. Considering as many cultures consider insects delicious, and since dubias can form the bulk of the diet of various exotic animals, this might be an interesting and off-beat addition to let people know that they are in a different world than our own.

Luke

Bruno 02-23-2013 04:20 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529357)
Lots of people do have an issue with eating rodents, even really cute ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward (Post 1529361)
That makes no sense at all. Look at the types of animals that are widely eaten in China and elsewhere in Asia. Look at how widespread the "bush meat" culture is. I think your definition of "lots" would only be applicable amongst people with a similar upbringing as your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ (Post 1529365)
Squirrels are rodents. If people have a problem eating them, they've never mentioned it to me.
There's a big band across the central US and up into parts of Canada where even the English-descended folks think squirrels are an acceptable (if perhaps low status) food animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalzazz (Post 1529366)
Trying to clean and fillet a rat or guinea pig seems like far far to much effort to be worth it
People around here persist in cooking the little sunfish they catch (like, 6 inches long, if that). My "Joy of Cooking" has instructions on how to prepare squirrel, starting from skinning. It's much like rabbit, and frankly the rabbits around here are tiny too. And eaten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalzazz (Post 1529366)
Rats and guinea pigs are stuck in my mind as 'Cute pet animals', so Im not sure Id want to eat one, nor cats, dogs or horses
For me, there's an enormous gulf between "pet animal of any kind" and "food animal of any kind". You don't eat someone's pet lamb or pet pig or pet horse or pet dog or pet rat. It's a pet. That's somewhere between rude and creepy. Or possibly both rude and creepy.

But lamb chops and bacon and horse steaks are all very good and don't bother me a bit. I've not eaten dog or rat yet (at least, not knowingly) but that's a matter of opportunity rather that discomfort.

With wild rodents, a really big thing is to make sure your mental picture isn't "sewer rat". There's a BIG difference between an animal living in humanity's waste, and one that's living in a forest eating acorns and beachnuts (and farmer's crops). The sewer rat shouldn't be eaten because ew.

Flyndaran 02-23-2013 04:27 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Okay, I guess I do tend to overgeneralize from American/European urban culture to humanity in general.

I don't eat any mammals, so I don't quite understand the pet versus food animal mental gymnastics that many people go through.
For me, a pet is an individual member of a specific family, not a species.

DouglasCole 02-23-2013 04:30 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Yes, but if a chicken does a setup attack on a squirrel, what does the caravanserai master do?

Kalzazz 02-23-2013 04:45 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Having lived in rural areas most of my existence Ive never seen the famed sewer rat, the rats Ive seen are ones I would have no fear of eating, but are very cute and remind me much of pet rats

Rabbits are tasty, but to small for me to muster the desire to bother trying to shoot one

I dont eat fish that isn't nicely filleted, Ive done so in the past and always felt the annoyance far exceeded any value from eating fish with bones

I figure that deer and on up to buffalo represent more appropriate amounts of food to make animals worth cleaning

Of course, my cultural heritage involves tractors, trucks, chain hoists, and running water for collecting and cleaning your buffalo after you shoot it, and vacuum sealers and chest freezers for proper storage . . . . so the Low Tech applicability is rather low

ericthered 02-23-2013 04:56 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529378)
I don't eat any mammals, so I don't quite understand the pet versus food animal mental gymnastics that many people go through.
For me, a pet is an individual member of a specific family, not a species.
for me its mostly intelligence and camaraderie on the food chain. but I'm a fan of dogs, cats, and horses, regarding things like pet rabbits to be sad side effects of the urbanization of society (hint: you eat them) and pet rats to be an utter perversion.

I think for a lot of people its the idea that the animal could have been someone's pet, and they limit pets to certain species. What bothers me where some people draw the "pet species" line.

DanHoward 02-23-2013 05:29 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1529375)
For me, there's an enormous gulf between "pet animal of any kind" and "food animal of any kind". You don't eat someone's pet lamb or pet pig or pet horse or pet dog or pet rat. It's a pet. That's somewhere between rude and creepy. Or possibly both rude and creepy.
This is where I would sit too. I wouldn't eat someone's pet. I can't imagine even killing someone's pet unless it was an immediate danger. But that isn't the same as refusing to eat the same animal under different circumstances.

DanHoward 02-23-2013 05:31 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole (Post 1529381)
Yes, but if a chicken does a setup attack on a squirrel, what does the caravanserai master do?
Chicken and squirrel stew.

Agemegos 02-23-2013 05:33 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonAce (Post 1529312)
From experience here chicken farming really is amazingly efficient and other than predators and disease, pretty issue free.
Did you buy in chicken feed or grow it on your own land?

DanHoward 02-23-2013 05:38 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett (Post 1529554)
Did you buy in chicken feed or grow it on your own land?
One benefit of chicken farming is that you can put the sheds on unproductive land. The feed would need to come from elsewhere but there is no reason why you couldn't control that part of the business too.

Agemegos 02-23-2013 05:41 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward (Post 1529558)
One benefit of chicken farming is that yopu can put the sheds on unproductive land.
You can do the same with cow-byres and sheep-pens, if you have unproductive land.

Also, you can graze cows and sheep on land that isn't arable, and you can fatten swine in forests. Which is good if you have stony hillsides or uncleared forest.

Steven Marsh 02-23-2013 07:03 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1529351)
... guinea pigs [are] a source of meat that is small and compliant enough that ... a family can stuff them in a sack and take them with them. They're also small enough and a burrowing species so if you hide them in a crisis in a dark place you can be reasonably sure they won't kick up a fuss and be found (unlike chickens, which tend to object to this sort of treatment).
A serious discussion of a sackful of guinea pigs?!?

Can't... stop... laughing...

Bless this post.

Flyndaran 02-23-2013 07:10 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward (Post 1529548)
This is where I would sit too. I wouldn't eat someone's pet. I can't imagine even killing someone's pet unless it was an immediate danger. But that isn't the same as refusing to eat the same animal under different circumstances.
That depends on what pet means to you. I can't understand how one individual can be elevated to family member without also elevating others of its kind as well.

It's like die hard racists that like and consider one individual ok and deserving of respect.
Obviously, I'm not comparing animal eaters to racists in any other way, but it's the only analogy I can think of right now.

Flyndaran 02-23-2013 07:11 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Marsh (Post 1529628)
A serious discussion of a sackful of guinea pigs?!?

Can't... stop... laughing...

Bless this post.
A man with many guineas is a rich man indeed.

Agemegos 02-23-2013 07:14 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529632)
That depends on what pet means to you. I can't understand how one individual can be elevated to family member without also elevating others of its kind as well.
If I were to marry a woman, say, that would not elevate* all women to the status of members of may family.


* nor lower, dependingly.

Flyndaran 02-23-2013 07:26 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett (Post 1529636)
If I were to marry a woman, say, that would not elevate* all women to the status of members of may family.


* nor lower, dependingly.
But would you continue to hunt and eat people?

It's more an issue of degree of elevation.

Agemegos 02-23-2013 07:29 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529641)
But would you continue to hunt and eat people?
I wouldn't stop.

Quote:
It's more an issue of degree of elevation.
That's where you go wrong. It is actually a matter of being able to discriminate between individuals. I can tell my girlfriend from a burglar, so to speak.

Flyndaran 02-23-2013 07:32 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
[QUOTE=Brett;1529645][QUOTE=Flyndaran;1529641]But would you continue to hunt and eat people?
Quote:

I wouldn't stop.


That's where you go wrong. It is actually a matter of being able to discriminate between individuals. I can tell my girlfriend from a burglar, so to speak.
Maybe it's an issue of lowest level of value given to a stranger of X species. I think most people if in theory if not in practice place a lower limit on human value, but don't on other species.

But sorry for the thread-jack.

Agemegos 02-23-2013 07:35 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529648)
I think most people […] in theory if not in practice place a lower limit on human value
Perhaps, but it may be negative. When you are a soldier in battle, or an armed policeman interrupting a heinous crime, there are people whom it is good to kill.

Flyndaran 02-23-2013 08:28 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett (Post 1529651)
Perhaps, but it may be negative. When you are a soldier in battle, or an armed policeman interrupting a heinous crime, there are people whom it is good to kill.
Yes, but most people, I think, don't handle it perfectly even when it's without a doubt the necessary thing to do. At least not as well as one would when killing a wild animal. Empathy and necessity don't always play well together.

malloyd 02-23-2013 11:59 PM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529632)
That depends on what pet means to you. I can't understand how one individual can be elevated to family member without also elevating others of its kind as well.

It's like die hard racists that like and consider one individual ok and deserving of respect.
Obviously, I'm not comparing animal eaters to racists in any other way, but it's the only analogy I can think of right now.
On the flipside, I know people who are deeply emotionally attached to their rosebushes, or their lucky dice. Making a special effort to protect those doesn't elevate all other roses or bits of plastic.

DanHoward 02-24-2013 12:16 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529632)
That depends on what pet means to you. I can't understand how one individual can be elevated to family member without also elevating others of its kind as well.
The pet means nothing to me. It means something to its owner. Killing it would cause distress to that person and I have no desire for that. However I don't have a problem culling feral cats and dogs. It seems a waste to bury the carcasses if their meat is palatable.

Flyndaran 02-24-2013 12:27 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward (Post 1529775)
The pet means nothing to me. It means something to its owner. Killing it would cause distress to that person and I have no desire for that. However I don't have a problem culling feral cats and dogs. It seems a waste to bury the carcasses if their meat is palatable.
To me that's very creepy. To me a pet is merely a name given to establish relationship not inherent value.
It's just weird all the things that seem to matter to you normies, so I'm always dumbfounded when faced with things that don't matter to you.

Flyndaran 02-24-2013 12:28 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by malloyd (Post 1529766)
On the flipside, I know people who are deeply emotionally attached to their rosebushes, or their lucky dice. Making a special effort to protect those doesn't elevate all other roses or bits of plastic.
Caring about specific inanimate objects strikes a very distasteful chord in me as some kind of idolatry or animistic religious belief.

Agemegos 02-24-2013 12:31 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529778)
To me that's very creepy. To me a pet is merely a name given to establish relationship not inherent value.
It's just weird all the things that seem to matter to you normies, so I'm always dumbfounded when faced with things that don't matter to you.
"Pet" is a word in just the same way that "friend" is, or "wife".

Which is not to say that I equate wives with pets, but that relationships like friendship and love are no less real for that we have concrete nouns for the objects of those relationships.

Quote:
Caring about specific inanimate objects strikes a very distasteful chord in me as some kind of idolatry or animistic religious belief.
Do you ever get tired of telling us all that you think we're creepy and distasteful? I don't say such things about you.

Flyndaran 02-24-2013 12:43 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett (Post 1529781)
...
Do you ever get tired of telling us all that you think we're creepy and distasteful? I don't say such things about you.
I'm not going to lie by omission when suddenly faced with people I thought were full of empathy admit to not being so.
I didn't realize that I'd said that before. I apologize for my poor memory and repeating myself then.

Anthony 02-24-2013 12:44 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529778)
To me that's very creepy. To me a pet is merely a name given to establish relationship not inherent value.
The thing is, the part with inherent value is the relationship. The animal itself does not have inherent value.

Flyndaran 02-24-2013 12:47 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1529787)
The thing is, the part with inherent value is the relationship. The animal itself does not have inherent value.
I disagree. I believe that all life has inherent value. The idea that say an individual human has no inherent value except in relation to me or others seems very wrong.

Anthony 02-24-2013 12:49 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1529788)
The idea that say an individual human has no inherent value except in relation to me or others seems very wrong.
I don't recall saying anything of the sort about humans, though in some cases it's true (e.g. someone in a persistent vegetative state).

Flyndaran 02-24-2013 12:56 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1529789)
I don't recall saying anything of the sort about humans, though in some cases it's true (e.g. someone in a persistent vegetative state).
I'm going to stop to avoid derailing this thread further. Suffice it to say that many posters here think quite differently that I thought. I'm going to take some time to sort it out.

DanHoward 02-24-2013 01:08 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
FWIW I have a problem causing pain or suffering to an animal - any animal. But I acknowledge that humans are omnivores and have evolved to function efficiently with a certain amount of meat in our diets. I compromise by only eating animals that I believe have been humanely killed. I also find it hypocritical to eat meat but not to be prepared to kill animals for food. So I have hunted and killed animals for food. I find it illogical for someone to say that some types of animals are ok for eating but not others. I don't really have a fundamental problem with eating human flesh either but there are a lot of medical and social reasons why I wouldn't do it. In some cultures it is an honour to be eaten by your loved ones or your enemies. If I was starving and a deceased companion was the only source of food then I'd be firing up the barbeque and I'd deal with the emotional consequences later. I would hope that my body could help save a friend's life if the situation was reversed. I don't really see how it differs from organ donation.

Flyndaran 02-24-2013 01:09 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
That is the mentality that makes the most sense to me.

Agemegos 02-24-2013 01:25 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanHoward (Post 1529797)
FWIW I have a problem causing pain or suffering to an animal - any animal.
Indeed. Sometimes, however, you have to work through problems because the alternatives are worse: shoot a quoll to save three chooks per week; even, perhaps, shoot a pet (or a friend) to save him from a protracted painful death.

Yes, there are some bad people who insincerely appeal to that fact to rationalise and excuse cruelty. It's true nevertheless.

Kalzazz 02-24-2013 01:34 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Well, if someone offered me a cat/dog/horse/rat/guinea pig steak I would accept. But I hardly think I would go out of my way to get such

But for the most part for rats, guinea pigs, squirrels, rabbits and such the hassle to reward ratio seems to much favor 'I think Ill just go buy some chicken from WalMart'

jacobmuller 02-24-2013 03:58 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno (Post 1529339)
Actually, I'm not getting an exact fit but it's looking like a root function of MaxDR/WM is a reasonably good first-order approximation.
Have you got as far as considering adding Gold and Silver to the materials tables? Lead and Copper are there already, Silver and Gold make sense to me for similar reasons (magical properties in some game worlds).

I'd love to see the tables expanded to include TL9+.

And I have been disgracefully lax in my failure to thank the authors and expound upon the joys of: Concealed Armor; Delayed Gratification; & Return to Ein Arris.
As for Lord of the Manor: I can see post-apocalypse and space colonisation applications.

Tyneras 02-24-2013 06:01 AM
Re: Pyramid #3/52: Low-Tech II
 
I wish you the best of luck, Bruno. I'll definitely read it when you finish it.

Anyway, the Puckle Gun will definitely be seeing use in the near-ish future. The Elven Empire is in dire need of a weapon that can fill the same niche but be manufactured more quickly and cheaply than their current orichalcum spring guns. Young elves are dying out there for lack of support in battle!

I'll just make it TL 3+1 (magic and alchemy FTW).

As a side note, the listed reload times seem to be far too long. Firing 63 rounds would take more than 11 minutes, not the 7 minutes claimed. I'm kinda half asleep and may be forgetting something, but bumping the reload time from 10i to 6i would give the 63 rounds in 7 minutes figure.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.