Should the world be a Low Fantasy setting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 70.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 30.0%

  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .

[X] [LEAD] Have the elders return to leading the People in practice.

[X] [LEGACY] Arth and Vryn made sure that the People prepared for the future and it was Arth's strict management of the food that made it possible for starvation to be all, but wiped out.
 
[X] [LEAD] Have Varth take over from Vryn as leader of the People.
[X] [LEGACY] While Arth and Vryn ruled above the People as their leaders, they did not see themselves as being inherently better, instead earning their positions through hard work and their actions.
[X] [LEGACY] By keeping an open mind and open hand, Arth made it possible to see for the Outsiders to join the People, gaining many of today's people as well as Vryn herself. Even if they are not People, people should be considered people.
If you do, it isn't going to be that good as that is effectively increasing the chances of getting a Hero by five times.



You can get either double Heroes or a Genius on a 100, but due to it being early in the game, I am defaulting a Hero generation roll of 100 to a double Hero because I want newcomers to get used to what Heroes are before Geniuses get introduced.
I'm not sure that a Genius would be even visible before urbanization, they just don't have the tools or specialization to leverage their skills.

Incidentally, do you roll anything for Heroic Flaws?
If you don't die, you can live forever.
10/10 argument my friend. Perhaps now we can talk about why neither injury or disease killed them earlier.
Do take into account that disease kills the very young disproportionately, if you make it to 30, you probably won't die to disease unless there is a famine(and we prevented that).
Injury disproportionately kills young men in hunting and women and childbirth. Since we weren't at war, once they stopped being active hunters and took up a leadership/advisory role(that'd be around 40s-50s), they are unlikely to die of disease.

Average life expectancy is horribly misleading. Median life expectancy DID change over time(a lot of the stone age median is going to be skewed by hunting deaths), but well fed, fit individuals can live as long as modern people with luck.
 
[X] [LEAD] Have the elders return to leading the People in practice.

[X] [LEGACY] While Arth and Vryn ruled above the People as their leaders, they did not see themselves as being inherently better, instead earning their positions through hard work and their actions.
[X] [LEGACY] Arth and Vryn made sure that the People prepared for the future and it was Arth's strict management of the food that made it possible for starvation to be all, but wiped out.

Let's not go down the king route.
 
Given that life expectancy in this time period is 40, was this enabled because of low Fantasy?

I was under the impression that the life expectancy was about 50-60 years if you made it to adulthood so I started rolling for death after Arth and Vryn hit 50. Arth got a couple of good rolls before his luck ran out while Vryn just kept getting lucky.

So the life expectancy is 50-60 years for the People and sometimes people, especially those I keep track of such as Heroes, live longer than that. That said, the long longevity of Vryn, and to a lesser extent Arth, is seen as something special and some kind of favour by the People.

I'm not sure that a Genius would be even visible before urbanization, they just don't have the tools or specialization to leverage their skills.

Incidentally, do you roll anything for Heroic Flaws?

What do you mean by Heroic Flaws? I do roll for personality of a hero if I haven't thought of one which fits them.

Do take into account that disease kills the very young disproportionately, if you make it to 30, you probably won't die to disease unless there is a famine(and we prevented that).
Injury disproportionately kills young men in hunting and women and childbirth. Since we weren't at war, once they stopped being active hunters and took up a leadership/advisory role(that'd be around 40s-50s), they are unlikely to die of disease.

Average life expectancy is horribly misleading. Median life expectancy DID change over time(a lot of the stone age median is going to be skewed by hunting deaths), but well fed, fit individuals can live as long as modern people with luck.

I was pretty much going by this when looking at the life expectancy of the People. Survive the rigours of your early life and you can make it quite long. Get lucky like Vryn did and you live very long.

Additionally, due to Arth's strict policy of letting your prey go if it means avoiding getting hurt, there isn't much hunting injury amongst the People as Arth decided out that getting hunters getting hurt and often dying for something that is no longer strictly necessary is bad for the People.
 
Do take into account that disease kills the very young disproportionately, if you make it to 30, you probably won't die to disease unless there is a famine(and we prevented that).
Injury disproportionately kills young men in hunting and women and childbirth. Since we weren't at war, once they stopped being active hunters and took up a leadership/advisory role(that'd be around 40s-50s), they are unlikely to die of disease.

Average life expectancy is horribly misleading. Median life expectancy DID change over time(a lot of the stone age median is going to be skewed by hunting deaths), but well fed, fit individuals can live as long as modern people with luck.
Yes but this is an age where splinters could get incurable gangrenous infections.
I know that living above the age is 40 is very possible and I think we've found neanderthals and early homo sapians that were over 60. However 100 is a hell of a lot older than 60. When you or I probably has a 1 in three chance of living to that age her chances are much lower.
I don't know if she's rolled three nat 100s. That might be what happened however given that our only other data point doubled what the average person lives I'm inclined to believe that probably its far more likely than that.
This isn't the only strange thing about the time line here, if a 16 year olds grandmother died at age 100, then that means that I'd expect the grandmother and mother to have both given birth in their 40s. Given that the likelihood of a complication in birth rises with age and the number of prior pregnancies this was another case of them getting really lucky or starting strangely close to menopause.

Oh I guess also her father could be very old and her mother not. Kinda icky but I guess that can work.
E:
was under the impression that the life expectancy was about 50-60 years if you made it to adulthood so I started rolling for death after Arth and Vryn hit 50. Arth got a couple of good rolls before his luck ran out while Vryn just kept getting lucky.

So the life expectancy is 50-60 years for the People and sometimes people, especially those I keep track of such as Heroes, live longer than that. That said, the long longevity of Vryn, and to a lesser extent Arth, is seen as something special and some kind of favour by the People.
Thanks for clarifying the mechanics. I still think its strange but its understandable in terms of mechanics.
 
Last edited:
@Oshha how is the final count going to be tallied? We have two strong lead choices. A third that is three fourths to the lead, and a dead choice.

With the option being an unlimited max selection, but minimum two selection.... What if we only want 2 choices selected?

Edit: Or if we want only 3 choices selected in the final tally?
 
Last edited:
[X] [LEAD] Have the elders return to leading the People in practice.
[X] [LEGACY] While Arth and Vryn ruled above the People as their leaders, they did not see themselves as being inherently better, instead earning their positions through hard work and their actions.
[X] [LEGACY] Arth and Vryn made sure that the People prepared for the future and it was Arth's strict management of the food that made it possible for starvation to be all, but wiped out.

go for the better management to help against starvation, that is one of the main rason why nations fall apart in this time and should be critical to keep us going if we are hit by harsh wether or bad harvest over several years.
 
Thanks for clarifying the mechanics. I still think its strange but its understandable in terms of mechanics.

Think of it as Heroes being special so if improbable things like living an extremely long time are more likely to happen to them than anyone else.

@Oshha how is the final count going to be tallied? We have two strong lead choices. A third that is three fourths to the lead, and a dead choice.

With the option being an unlimited max selection, but minimum two selection.... What if we only want 2 choices selected?

For the LEAD vote, the one with the most votes win. The LEGACY vote is what stories Wyrn attempts to spread amongst the People and I will roll to see which one takes effect, with the options having modifiers that vary depending on how many votes they got.
 
What do you mean by Heroic Flaws? I do roll for personality of a hero if I haven't thought of one which fits them.
As in Flawed like Greek Heroes.
Or is that a thing that shows up later on, since in the Stone Age such Flawed Heroes tended to die before getting anywhere.
Yes but this is an age where splinters could get incurable gangrenous infections.
I know that living above the age is 40 is very possible and I think we've found neanderthals and early homo sapians that were over 60. However 100 is a hell of a lot older than 60. When you or I probably has a 1 in three chance of living to that age her chances are much lower.
I don't know if she's rolled three nat 100s. That might be what happened however given that our only other data point doubled what the average person lives I'm inclined to believe that probably its far more likely than that.
This isn't the only strange thing about the time line here, if a 16 year olds grandmother died at age 100, then that means that I'd expect the grandmother and mother to have both given birth in their 40s. Given that the likelihood of a complication in birth rises with age and the number of prior pregnancies this was another case of them getting really lucky or starting strangely close to menopause.
As in, anyone who survived to their 40s likely had already suffered a potentially gangrenous injury in their life and their immune system could take it.
You're mistaking broad death rates for absolute death rates.

The highest death rate occurs in children between the ages of 1-3(or even the first month after birth is dramatically more lethal than the three years after combined), where the weather turning, a slight famine, or any accident can give them an infection they can't recover from.
Once past that age, every surviving child has either avoided, or acquired immunity to every minor disease endemic in the community.
The next spike comes when they can walk and do stuff on their own. At this juncture they are at much higher risk of infection from injury, accident or predators, as they would venture out from safe places and interact with more people, picking up whole new diseases. Also eating random crap is something that can easily cause a child not listening to parents to shit themselves to death. By the time they survive to their teens they have internalized several important survival lessons about not wandering where they can be eaten and their immune system had largely taken common local pathogens into account, reducing the fatality of injuries.

Then you have their puberty years(taking into account that poor nutrition means that puberty can be delayed as far as 5 years sometimes), where they get initiated into trades, and the risks of injury goes up further, as they are now more likely to be injured hunting, or in raiding, which tends to kill from wound infections, or for the women, pregnancy.

When they hit age 40 or so and become elders, they no longer hunt, fight, or give birth. Theres no reason to pick up a gangrenous injury if they don't do anything more likely to injure them than making the evening meal. They no longer venture out far from other people where animals can get at them, and well...raiders aren't going to bother maiming or kidnapping elders compared to the actually useful captives of young men or women.
So to map it out crudely:
-Age 1-3 - 80% fatality risk per year
-Age 9-14: 10% fatality risk per year
-Age 15-30 - 40% fatality risk per year, doubled in times of famine or strife as they take higher risks
-Age 30-50 - 30% fatality risk per year
-Age 50+ - 10% fatality risk per year
 
Last edited:
[X] [LEAD] Have Varth take over from Vryn as leader of the People.
[X] [LEGACY] While Arth and Vryn ruled above the People as their leaders, they did not see themselves as being inherently better, instead earning their positions through hard work and their actions.
[X] [LEGACY] By keeping an open mind and open hand, Arth made it possible to see for the Outsiders to join the People, gaining many of today's people as well as Vryn herself. Even if they are not People, people should be considered people.
 
As in Flawed like Greek Heroes.
Or is that a thing that shows up later on, since in the Stone Age such Flawed Heroes tended to die before getting anywhere.

I won't be rolled for Flaws in Heroes. They might have flaws depending on what personality they end up with or cultural biases, but I won't be directly rolling for any flaws.
 
Gotcha. No defects either until Geniuses?

Yes. I'm following PoC in that regard. Heroes are pretty great without drawbacks unless you are going up against them while Genius are even better than Heroes, but come with the chance of risking instability or overspecialisation.
 
[X] [LEAD] Have Varth take over from Vryn as leader of the People.
[X] [LEGACY] While Arth and Vryn ruled above the People as their leaders, they did not see themselves as being inherently better, instead earning their positions through hard work and their actions.
 
Tally time
Adhoc vote count started by Raptor580 on Dec 23, 2018 at 10:45 AM, finished with 48 posts and 32 votes.
 
I would have had one out last night, but it got deleted when I was halfway through it so I had to start again at not quite the beginning, but close to it.
*sympathy*

[X] [LEAD] Have the elders return to leading the People in practice.

[X] [LEGACY] While Arth and Vryn ruled above the People as their leaders, they did not see themselves as being inherently better, instead earning their positions through hard work and their actions.
[X] [LEGACY] By keeping an open mind and open hand, Arth made it possible to see for the Outsiders to join the People, gaining many of today's people as well as Vryn herself. Even if they are not People, people should be considered people.

I was under the impression that the life expectancy was about 50-60 years if you made it to adulthood
I believe you are correct here.
 
Vote closed.

Vote Tally : Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest - Original | Page 11 | Sufficient Velocity [Posts: 271-319]
##### NetTally 1.9.7
Task: LEAD
[x][LEAD] Have the elders return to leading the People in practice.
No. of Votes: 18
[X][LEAD] Have Varth take over from Vryn as leader of the People.
No. of Votes: 15

——————————————————————————————————————————————Task: LEGACY
[x][LEGACY] By keeping an open mind and open hand, Arth made it possible to see for the Outsiders to join the People, gaining many of today's people as well as Vryn herself. Even if they are not People, people should be considered people.
No. of Votes: 24
[x][LEGACY] While Arth and Vryn ruled above the People as their leaders, they did not see themselves as being inherently better, instead earning their positions through hard work and their actions.
No. of Votes: 22
[X][LEGACY] Arth and Vryn made sure that the People prepared for the future and it was Arth's strict management of the food that made it possible for starvation to be all, but wiped out.
No. of Votes: 22
[X][LEGACY] Arth and Vryn were born special, the greatest of the People and the Outsiders respectively. Born to be great, they were both fated to be the grand leaders that they were.
No. of Votes: 1
Total No. of Voters: 33
 
What was the first Genius we got in PoC? And when we're they introduced?
I may be wrong, but the first Genius seems to be Yenyna the Dragon General, because the previous update of PoC has an author's note "Genius is Hero+", explaining what a Genius is.
She was introduced when the Ymaryn were the defenders against three separate enemy polities (Highlanders, Khemetri, Thunder Horse) and despite bad war rolls, were only gaining manpower due to a value that had a chance to absorb military stat hits. The most famous moment of Yenyna's career was probably during the Battle of Bloodvalley, where Yenyna fought the Heroic Martial Khemetri heir to a standstill.

but we had the unique situation of a Hero and a Genius both rolling Natural 100s on the same turn
 
so for legacy whats the second one if they are tied then? @Oshha
As I mentioned before, the LEGACY vote is about what stories of Arth and Vryn that Wyrn will spread and the Value that results from them will be determined via mixture of dice roll and the winning votes. With the winning vote, Wyrn will spread the top three votes equally due to how close they are in number of votes.
The LEGACY vote is what stories Wyrn attempts to spread amongst the People and I will roll to see which one takes effect, with the options having modifiers that vary depending on how many votes they got.
 
As in, anyone who survived to their 40s likely had already suffered a potentially gangrenous injury in their life and their immune system could take it.
You're mistaking broad death rates for absolute death rates.

The highest death rate occurs in children between the ages of 1-3(or even the first month after birth is dramatically more lethal than the three years after combined), where the weather turning, a slight famine, or any accident can give them an infection they can't recover from.
Once past that age, every surviving child has either avoided, or acquired immunity to every minor disease endemic in the community.
The next spike comes when they can walk and do stuff on their own. At this juncture they are at much higher risk of infection from injury, accident or predators, as they would venture out from safe places and interact with more people, picking up whole new diseases. Also eating random crap is something that can easily cause a child not listening to parents to shit themselves to death. By the time they survive to their teens they have internalized several important survival lessons about not wandering where they can be eaten and their immune system had largely taken common local pathogens into account, reducing the fatality of injuries.

Then you have their puberty years(taking into account that poor nutrition means that puberty can be delayed as far as 5 years sometimes), where they get initiated into trades, and the risks of injury goes up further, as they are now more likely to be injured hunting, or in raiding, which tends to kill from wound infections, or for the women, pregnancy.

When they hit age 40 or so and become elders, they no longer hunt, fight, or give birth. Theres no reason to pick up a gangrenous injury if they don't do anything more likely to injure them than making the evening meal. They no longer venture out far from other people where animals can get at them, and well...raiders aren't going to bother maiming or kidnapping elders compared to the actually useful captives of young men or women.
So to map it out crudely:
-Age 1-3 - 80% fatality risk per year
-Age 9-14: 10% fatality risk per year
-Age 15-30 - 40% fatality risk per year, doubled in times of famine or strife as they take higher risks
-Age 30-50 - 30% fatality risk per year
-Age 50+ - 10% fatality risk per year
I don't think you realise how large and stupid the numbers you gave me are, as in:
With a 0% fatality risk between the ages of 4 and 8 (for reasons) and a million babies being born a year, less than 5000 are expected to reach the age of 14. And two hit 30. Didn't bother running the rest of the maths.

Secondly the fact that they might have gained an immunity to disease is a further point of improbability.
I wasn't labeling gangrene because there was something special about it, it was just an example of how modern medicine and germ theory has improved our lives and removed risks that we don't often think about, I could have just as easily said Cholera or Smallpox or any random bacterial infection.
If your argument is they caught survived and got immune to every disease they ever encountered, you need to justify why that is statistically likely. My guess is that you're arguing that its possible due to small communities and the lack of domestication which means that diseases like cowpox haven't had the chance to jump the species gap? Thats a fascinating discussion in its own right however I would like to hear you actually argue it and your own ideas rather than just state it at me.

Finally you totally disregard the negatives of ageing somebody aged 90 is far more likely to die over the course of the same year as someone who is 51.
I was never saying its impossible just that it was so statistically unlikely that it broke my SoD and I was looking to understand why this happened.
 
Back
Top