Remove ads

Consumption

Reader mode
[1] A ruined stone tower.
[3] A snow-covered wasteland.
[2] A camp.

I'd like ruins and, failing that, the possibility of interacting with people to start with.
 
Hm, on second thought, I'm actually really curious about the camp. I'm pretty much alright with all of the options and it looks like tower is winning by a large margin anyway, so may as well put my hat in with the dark horse.

[1] A camp.
[2] A ruined stone tower.
[3] A snow-covered wasteland.

Nixeu said:
[2] A ruined stone town
[3] A camp
[1] A snow-covered wasteland
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You've got a typo in your tower vote, there.
 
Last edited:
Something I missed in the description of the camp: brightly colored tents. Seems unlikely a military expedition, nor even something like hunting, would do that. My thought is we may be looking at an acting troupe or a circus? Or possibly a caravan or traveling people of some sort.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Something I missed in the description of the camp: brightly colored tents. Seems unlikely a military expedition, nor even something like hunting, would do that. My thought is we may be looking at an acting troupe or a circus? Or possibly a caravan or traveling people of some sort.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, that was my first thought. Military expeditions do have colored tents, especially medieval ones, but iirc even then they're mostly mono-colored or paired with white, which I wouldn't really call haphazard or brightly-colored. The clashing metal gave me pause, though, which is why in hindsight I'm more curious about the camp than the tower.
 
Last edited:
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Something I missed in the description of the camp: brightly colored tents. Seems unlikely a military expedition, nor even something like hunting, would do that. My thought is we may be looking at an acting troupe or a circus? Or possibly a caravan or traveling people of some sort.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hm. That deals with some of what I was worrying about.

[3] A ruined stone tower.
[1] A snow-covered wasteland.
[2] A camp.
 
DeepWaters said:
Yeah, that was my first thought. Military expeditions do have colored tents, especially medieval ones, but iirc even then they're mostly mono-colored or paired with white, which I wouldn't really call haphazard or brightly-colored. The clashing metal gave me pause, though, which is why in hindsight I'm more curious about the camp than the tower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Could be a musical event of some sort, or a really raucous dinner, if the utensils and plates are metal.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
16 wasn't noted as being able to survive in the wild while 18 and 21 were. One can only presume this means we lack the skills. I've seen no indication that elementals have any particular inclination to find food, determine what is safe to consume, or build shelter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We grew up in a pre-industrial rural settlement. I do not find it at all realistic that we wouldn't have any survival training at 16 but suddenly gain enough to be self-sufficient 2 years after that. You seem to be assuming that what was written for each age is all we have, but "+/- Others" was part of every choice and our QM is Alivaril so I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

IRL, kids living in rural areas or areas that experience severe conditions learn at least the basics of finding a safe place and staying in it, and just joining a scouting organization gives kids the basics of things like making/breaking a camp, avoiding poisonous plants, tying knots, and such things. In a remote, preindustrial community of either loggers or subsistence farmers, these lessons would be that much more important for every kid living there.
 
banjo2E said:
We grew up in a pre-industrial rural settlement. I do not find it at all realistic that we wouldn't have any survival training at 16 but suddenly gain enough to be self-sufficient 2 years after that. You seem to be assuming that what was written for each age is all we have, but "+/- Others" was part of every choice and our QM is Alivaril so I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

IRL, kids living in rural areas or areas that experience severe conditions learn at least the basics of finding a safe place and staying in it, and just joining a scouting organization gives kids the basics of things like making/breaking a camp, avoiding poisonous plants, tying knots, and such things. In a remote, preindustrial community of either loggers or subsistence farmers, these lessons would be that much more important for every kid living there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There would be no point in listing wilderness survival as an explicit positive for the older ages if they didn't have a significant advantage in wilderness survival. You can try to justify the opposite view all you want but you're directly contradicted right there in the descriptions.

You're talking to a kid who grew up in a rural area. There's a massive sliding scale that starts at farm kid -> knows how to find the trail again if lost in the national park -> can start a fire with equipment -> no equipment -> can survive off the land for weeks -> can survive off a strange land forever*. Our character is not going to be in the upper end of that scale. I would say there was maybe one kid in my entire grade who was.

*Denominations just examples, not proposing this is the actual scale.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top