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

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

More nuanced than what? FWIW I read a bit of the book and found some real howlers, and later learned that it's been poorly-reviewed by historians, so I'm not terribly inclined to give it another go.

I have been reading up on this stuff since I was a kid in the 70s. I have seen theories about archeology come and go throughout the decades. Beyond a few specifics it involves a lot of guesswork. The point here is whether it serves as an idea generator for a tabletop roleplaying game regardless of whether it is accepted by historians or not.

And the Dawn of Everything, in my opinion, does just that. Namely by pointing out examples of hunter-gatherers and nomads who live in areas of abundance. Examples of societies that handled the advent of agriculture differently and sometimes just ditched it. Along with societies capable of building monumental structures without the traditional hierarchies associated with the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent.

Above all it points out that humans were just as imaginative and varied in the several millennia that existed between the end of the last ice age and the dawn of written history. That it may be not century upon century of tribal bands wandering the Eurasian landscape.

Regardless of future importance or lack of it. It is useful in considering the possibilities of worldbuilding.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Inky

What does Lands Out Of Time do about this? Are the Ice Age people in that nomadic?

It seems like, it's often not clear what you're supposed to do with Contacts, Patron, etc. in circumstances where they or the PCs are likely to be travelling such long distances that they may be too far away to get to you in time, which comes up in a lot of things besides with nomads. Maybe that's just supposed to be indicated by a lower Frequency of Appearance.

Originally Posted by mburr0003

I was actually going to suggest checking Ice Age, but then I read it real quick and it's absolutely useless for this.

Not that it presumes agricultural/sedentary groups, it doesn't, but it also really doesn't delve too deeply into anything even resembling social crunch (probably an artifact of the time it was written in).

You might still give it a skim Micheal, it does talk about how migratory groups tend to operate, but eh... if you're reading other works already and don't have Ice Age, it's not worth buying (unless you want to see variant human write-ups)

I own both books, and regret to report that Lands Out of Time is similarly vague about nomadic social structures.

Originally Posted by robertsconley

I have been reading up on this stuff since I was a kid in the 70s. I have seen theories about archeology come and go throughout the decades. Beyond a few specifics it involves a lot of guesswork. The point here is whether it serves as an idea generator for a tabletop roleplaying game regardless of whether it is accepted by historians or not.

And the Dawn of Everything, in my opinion, does just that. Namely by pointing out examples of hunter-gatherers and nomads who live in areas of abundance. Examples of societies that handled the advent of agriculture differently and sometimes just ditched it. Along with societies capable of building monumental structures without the traditional hierarchies associated with the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent.

Above all it points out that humans were just as imaginative and varied in the several millennia that existed between the end of the last ice age and the dawn of written history. That it may be not century upon century of tribal bands wandering the Eurasian landscape.

Regardless of future importance or lack of it. It is useful in considering the possibilities of worldbuilding.

Can you talk about what ideas for RPG building the book has given you? I unfortunately have to be selective about what books I devote time to, and my hope in starting this thread is that people would share their ideas derived from stuff they've read, not just reading recommendations.

[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. This is partly good and partly bad from a tyrannical leader's point of view—"suppressing a revolt" may not be easy, but still less of a challenge than "stop nomads from packing up and leaving, something they do all the time". On the other hand, if they can leave easily, at least they have less incentive to murder you.

This isn't a perfect solution. Existing GURPS rules don't really seem to have much to say about groups splitting into factions—the tendency is to assume one loyalty number for the entire group. But it's a start, anyway.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

I'm interested in things on a rules level. It seems to me that a nomadic existence might impact how things like Claim to Hospitality, Patron, and Rank work, but I'm unsure of the details.

Here's my take on adopting social traits to nomadic, low tech groups.

Allies, Contacts and Patrons: Limited to individuals or small groups. They're always assumed to be around, but aren't always in a position to be helpful. E.g., if you have a Patron (Tribal Shaman) he might be busy with a ritual that can't be interrupted, tranced out on hallucinogens, or away on a spirit quest if a Frequency of Appearance roll means he's not available. Or, very simply, he doesn't want to help you. "I've done enough for you, do something for me and we'll talk."

Claim to Hospitality: You don't have to work or barter to get some or all necessities of life your group is capable of producing. For example, at a low level you might be able to cadge free meals or the occasional free tool of your fellow tribe members, at a high level you effectively don't have to engage in productive work to keep your place in the group. People with Social Regard or extremely good Reputations often have this advantage.

Debt: Unlikely, unless you're forced to pay weregeld or are paying a bride price in installments (to the bride or her family).

Dependents: Very common. The tribe will always have children, non-combatants, and/or valuable livestock nearby and someone has to look out for them.

Duty/Sense of Duty: Very common, usually focused on Family or Extended Family/Clan.

Enemies: Also very common. Enemies within the tribe are more likely to be Watchers or Rivals, rarely Hunters. Members of other tribes or clans might be feuding with you personally.

Independent Income: Doesn't exist unless you have a readily available source of bartering goods which only you can access and which are universally accepted.

Rank: Doesn't exist unless there are formal hierarchical social organizations. Use Reputation instead. Where Rank does exist, anything more than Rank 3 is extremely unlikely. Rank 1 might be the highest you can get in smaller groups, reflecting formal recognition as some sort of hunt, ritual, or war leader.

Reputation: All important, especially within your own group. Anyone without (+1, Valued Tribe member, Small Group (Own Tribe), All the Time) is going to have trouble mobilizing support from their peers.

Social Regard: Also important. Depending on culture children, the elderly, shamans, or skilled warriors might have Social Regard, usually Revered sometimes Feared.

Social Stigma:

Ignorant : Applies to tribe members or "provisional" members adopted from outside the group who haven't yet learned the full set of required survival skills for the culture.

Minor: Applies to children and physically mature tribe members who haven't yet passed whatever rites are required to count as an adult.

Minority Group: Doesn't exist within a tribe, although it might apply to slaves captured from other tribes.

Outcast: A lethal social stigma, it literally means that you are shunned by all tribes, driven away from the group if you get too close, and forced to live on your own.

Second Class Citizen/Valuable Property: Very common for females in male-dominated tribes. Second class citizen applies to widows and women who have borne children. Valuable property applies to virgin daughters in highly patriarchal societies (think Old Testament Hebrew/Israelite).

Status: Very important, but limited to no more than Status 2-3 based on the size of the group. Status 4+ is only possible if you are the leader of a nomad tribe which can demand fealty and tribute from other tribes. Titles of rank might be far more majestic than actual authority (e.g., a "High King" of a semi-nomadic group which is small enough that Rank maxes out at level 4-5).

Wealth/Poverty: Either doesn't exist or is severely restricted. Everyone is going to be at Average wealth or below, which is probably going to seem like Struggling or Poor wealth to members of more settled, higher TL, societies. Marginalized members of the tribe without the means to produce food or goods at the same level as ordinary tribe members might have a level of Poverty below the tribal norm. Leaders and respected specialists might have increased levels of Wealth, but probably nothing more than Comfortable. If they can carry around goods which are universally recognized as being extremely valuable, like gold jewelry, they might have Wealthy or better Wealth. For pastoralists, wealth takes the form of livestock. The more livestock you have, and the higher quality the animals, the greater your Wealth. (Conversely, members of settled societies will appear to have Comfortable or higher Wealth to members of most nomad groups, making them prime targets for raids.)

[Pursuivant]

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.

This is a fairly common occurrence, especially when times are bad. The group might need to split up to reduce foraging competition. If times are really bad, the group might abandon or even kill the young, old, weak or sick.

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.

Would be colonists might need to negotiate passage through lands occupied by other tribes. Even if they are granted safe passage, there's no guarantee that they aren't being lured into a trap.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Social Stigma:

Ignorant : Applies to tribe members or "provisional" members adopted from outside the group who haven't yet learned the full set of required survival skills for the culture.

Minor: Applies to children and physically mature tribe members who haven't yet passed whatever rites are required to count as an adult.

Minority Group: Doesn't exist within a tribe, although it might apply to slaves captured from other tribes.

Outcast: A lethal social stigma, it literally means that you are shunned by all tribes, driven away from the group if you get too close, and forced to live on your own.

Second Class Citizen/Valuable Property: Very common for females in male-dominated tribes. Second class citizen applies to widows and women who have borne children. Valuable property applies to virgin daughters in highly patriarchal societies (think Old Testament Hebrew/Israelite).

Is Social Stigma (Outcast) canonical? Where are you getting it from?

[muduri]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I agree. The internal governance of Nomadic peoples is fascinating to me, and looking at it from a gaming context has a way of solidifying questions.

I started looking around for resources and rapidly came to the conclusion that I needed to pick specific target societies, and that I needed proper books rather than internet research: The list you just gave is awesome. Do you know of anything beyond that good about Berbers, Bedouins, or central Asian nomads? You seem to have a fair number of resources off the tip of your tongue.

I've had the same experience with books vs internet research! Saints of the Atlas for the Moroccan Berbers and The Sanusi of Cyrenaica for the Libyan Bedouin might be the most rigorous that come to mind. I can't deny also, could be acquired tastes - and 80 years old, though I don't think superseded for actual social structure. It's been a while but I'm remembering the first as boiling down to cycles of centralization into chiefdoms and fragmentation back into extended-kinship lineages (relevant for this thread), and shrines as needed peaceful meeting points for otherwise-hostile groups.

Wish I had something as solid to endorse for Central Asia - The Tibetans is impressive so The Mongols and The Afghans would hopefully live up to that bar?

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by muduri

prestige-comes-from-giving-away-wealth

Sounds like the standard rule for societies which connect Status and Wealth. Some societies may award that Status bonus because you buy expensive cars, clothes, big houses, etc. Some societies may award that Status bonus when you're philanthropic. (Compare the US 19th century robber barons, like Andrew Carnegie or John Rockefeller, and their philanthropy, whether foundations, libraries, or museums.) The perceived Status doesn't have to be about flashy conspicuous consumption.

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Can you talk about what ideas for RPG building the book has given you? I unfortunately have to be selective about what books I devote time to, and my hope in starting this thread is that people would share their ideas derived from stuff they've read, not just reading recommendations.

1) The pursuit of farming is a choice that may or may not be rejected for a variety of reasons by hunter-gatherers/nomads. Some of them will be arbitrary.

2) Prior to the dawn of agricultural-based civilization, many human-occupied ecological regions were abundant enough that the cultures inhabiting could experiment with all kinds of social organization. That the societal collapse/change could be triggered by people voting with their feet.

3) Some regions were so abundant, that the culture inhabiting them could undertake monumental projects. Mostly in the form of various types of earth works.

4) That all of the above played out across several thousand years before the rises of the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent, Yellow River valley, Mesoamerica, and Andes.

5) Where was no "lost" civilization persay rather a succession of cultures taking advantage of what the region's resources.

6) All of this played out without one or more of the key elements that defined the early civilizations.

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.

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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Is Social Stigma (Outcast) canonical? Where are you getting it from?

It's canonical for GURPS 3E Basic Set (as Outsider), but obviously didn't get ported over to GURPS 4E Basic. I've retained it for my games because it's a bit more generic than the GURPS 4E "Monster" designation which kind of occupies the same space.

After actually looking at the GURPS 4E Basic rules, here's my take on the various official Social Stigmas, those not mentioned I've already discussed:

Criminal Record: Not applicable in a low TL tribal society. Bad Reputation (Law/Taboo breaker) replaces it.

Disowned: Only applicable if there's some sort of hereditary chieftanship or similar family transfer of power.

Excommunicated: Not applicable unless the character is physically marked in a way that everyone in the campaign world recognizes and reacts badly to. Bad Reputation (Ritually Unclean/Taboo Breaker) replaces it.

Monster: See my suggestions for the Outcast not-actually-RAW Social Stigma.

Subjugated: Not applicable. Tribal societies can't exert the level of social repression required for this sort of stigma. Tribe members might have Intolerance of people outside the tribe and/or might see nothing wrong with robbing, enslaving or killing them, but they're not going to stick around to repress the survivors.

Uneducated: Not applicable. Members of tribal societies might have this stigma if the reference culture is more advanced and settled, however.