I was thinking more she shares her findings to Abjorn or whoever is doing the speaking. Like Halla tells Abjorn that Horra has an army of Draugar so he goes to the Seeress to have her divine all she can about this grave robbing, the Seeress then tells Abjorn who then goes and tells during the Thing.
NorseQuest (A Norse Xianxia)
- Thread starter I.F. Ister
- Start date
- Original Fantasy Action
-
- Tags
- norse mythology (mythology) original xianxia cultivation western cultivation ask sirihand did your mother tell you anything? discussion pleases yggdrasil farming gloating gets people killed granary management hubris is a coward's word you will die norsemen do not die when they are killed the qm has a bad memory the qm is bad at math viking courtroom drama (legal drama) vikings
I.F. Ister
Fortifying The Thread
- Pronouns
- He/They
A Witness can only testify for things they themselves have seen or heard.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I don't really disagree, but do we need to spend an action for that? I actually asked imperial Fister that already...if we do need to do that, we'll put off the crafting for a turn and do so.
I.F. Ister
Fortifying The Thread
- Pronouns
- He/They
Nah, you do not
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I mean, it pretty much already is if anyone finds out. Norse cultivation is punishing Horra hard from what we understand, he's just doing it anyway. I don't think any cultivation system could prevent that, and no culture can entirely get rid of assholes. We absolutely want to change Norse culture for the better, but Norse culture already hates Horra's guts.
.
.
.
Now, going back to this for a minute:
I think Halla is well ahead of where she should be on average, yes, remember that the average 20 year old is in the Raider's Realm on your scale (at 40-60 Orthstirr). Halla is 18 and pretty much two Realms above that. I think she's easily on par with professional warriors several years older than her, and perhaps more dangerous than some farmers who never raided a decade her senior.
But Tryggr, for example, is probably in the same Realm as her, or pretty close to it. And he was notable among the bandits, but not even an actual leader. Halla is notable, but mostly for how young she's achieved the power she has and achieving it as a woman, not for having achieved it at all.
Not all raids are nearly as high risk as the one we went on, but the orthstirr rewards are based on loot as much as how many fights you had. And remember, I'm talking professional warriors here...you think they only go on one or two raids in a lifetime? Audrikr, for example, has probably been on half a dozen raids at a minimum, and Folkmarr and the rest of his felag may have been on another one without us already...I wouldn't be surprised.
Norsemen who go on one raid to get seed money probably mostly don't hit 244 Orthstirr, or not too much before they hit 30 anyway (at 10 per year for Farm and Feats, a likely normal amount, they do gain 100 just from that between 20 and 30), but someone who has fights every year will get there a lot sooner.
Fair. That's why I went with Warrior and Veteran.
No need, I think, the actual effectiveness bands are about right-ish, I just disagree on the names and how common they're portrayed as.
Plausible enough, yeah. Technically you can still fight up-realms with cunning and luck, but it's a lot harder as the numbers climb.
Last edited:
CedeTheBees
Probably high right now
- Location
- Somewhere
- Pronouns
- They/Them
[X] Plan Let's Go To Court
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Hm.
I'd figure on chickens being the easiest to care for (they can literally just eat bugs and as long as they have a roof over their head and the fox doesn't get into the henhouse they'll survive), but producing low Goods return on investment.
Pigs are high return on investment but you have to slaughter them to get the goods; they're not a renewable resource. (EDIT: That is, pigs breed more pigs, but everything valuable you get from a pig, you get by slaughtering it, so your income trickle requires you to breed a sustainable stream of pigs, not just take good care of the pigs you already have)
Sheep and goats are a fully renewable resources and quite productive but, yes, take a lot of attention to be fully productive.
Cows are probably less productive per unit of work investment than sheep, but they're a prestige item. I bet there are Norse who manage to get a weak Orthstirr trickle out of their reputation as a cattle rancher. No one ever got an Orthstirr trickle out of their chickens or goats, I bet.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Cows can provide a lot of food in the form of milk, I think them providing objectively the most Goods per Property if you had unlimited money (since they're also very pricey) is fine. Sheep and Goats doing better if you put in two Property may be good enough that they should also provide an Orthstirr trickle, though.
So that'd be something like the following:
-One unit of Chickens requires 1/2 Property (rounded down) but produces only 1 Goods.
That means you can get 1 Goods per turn for free (well, for the money up front), but after that it's 2 Goods per Property, so it doesn't scale well beyond that. Every farm will have a few chickens but few will have many more.
-One goat will get you 2 Goods per Property invested (max of 2 Property per Goat), but don't get sick unless you put in zero.
Not any better than chickens, but presumably cheap, and gets you full use out of your Property even with only a few.
-One sheep will get you 3 Goods per Property invested (max of 2 Property per Sheep), but don't get sick unless you put in zero.
Best per animal return rate available. Very solid. Most farms will have some extra Property at some times of year and will thus want a few of these to utilize it (we, for example, use 6 more per turn in Summer than Winter due to Fields).
-One Cow will cost you 1 Property per turn but get you 4-5 Goods in exchange, and every X Cows (probably 3 or so?) get you +1 Orthstirr a year.
Best per Property return, on par with a field (or slightly better? Maybe if Fields cap the number of animals in some way...4 Animals at most per Field would make sense) and adds a small amount of Orthstirr to boot.
.
.
.
That leaves out pigs because I'm still not sure how baby animals are being handled. If they still fall under 'Goods' then we can work something out like the above. If not, then we need a 'how much you get when you kill them' chart and Pigs provide nothing while alive, but a lot of meat when dead and breed extra fast (which lets you slaughter more of them).
That otherwise looks good, though it admittedly it's still missing anything for Animal Quality and how that would work.
The thing is that the Norse didn't actually do this. They had cows, yes, but not exclusively, so going All Cow should not actually be the optimal choice for reasons of verisimilitude.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
In practice there are a lot of reasons why this doesn't work for small-scale subsistence farmers. Cattle need grazing land, lots of it. They can't eat a lot of the forage available on the farm (roots, bugs, slops, acorns), and thus can't enable the farmer to use the land at full potential. There are probably other reasons that don't spring immediately to mind.
A rich landlord could avoid personally keeping any animals other than cattle, perhaps. But that's because he can afford to waste some of the potential of his land to support edible livestock. And some of the side-benefits of having those livestock around, because sheep and pigs can help keep fallow farmland arable or make new fields easier to bring under cultivation by eating underbrush, roots, and other things that would get in the way.
Should the Quality of the animals influence how much Goods they produce? Or how much Orthstirr per year they give (for cows)?
Otherwise having a Superior Cow be more expensive than a Decent Cow makes no sense.
[X] Plan Let's Go To Court
Otherwise having a Superior Cow be more expensive than a Decent Cow makes no sense.
[X] Plan Let's Go To Court
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, that's what I was just thinking about.
Hmmm. Quality by animal type could look something like this:
Chickens:
3 Basic Chickens count as 1 Animal Slot and add 1 Goods for 2/3 Property (rounded up at 2/3 and down at 1/3).
3 Decent Chickens count as 1 Animal Slot and add 1 Goods for 1/2 Property (rounded down).
3 Good Chickens count as 1 Animal Slot and add 1 Goods for 1/3 Property (rounded up at 2/3 and down at 1/3).
3 Fine Chickens count as 1 Animal Slot and add 1 Goods for 1/4 Property (rounded down at 2/4 or less).
3 Decent Chickens count as 1 Animal Slot and add 1 Goods for 1/2 Property (rounded down).
3 Good Chickens count as 1 Animal Slot and add 1 Goods for 1/3 Property (rounded up at 2/3 and down at 1/3).
3 Fine Chickens count as 1 Animal Slot and add 1 Goods for 1/4 Property (rounded down at 2/4 or less).
Goats:
1 Basic Goat adds 1 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 2 extra Goods.
1 Decent Goat adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 2 extra Goods.
1 Good Goat adds 3 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 2 extra Goods.
1 Fine Goat adds 4 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 2 extra Goods.
1 Decent Goat adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 2 extra Goods.
1 Good Goat adds 3 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 2 extra Goods.
1 Fine Goat adds 4 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 2 extra Goods.
Sheep:
1 Basic Sheep adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 3 extra Goods.
1 Decent Sheep adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 4 extra Goods.
1 Good Sheep adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 5 extra Goods.
1 Fine Sheep adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 6 extra Goods.
1 Decent Sheep adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 4 extra Goods.
1 Good Sheep adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 5 extra Goods.
1 Fine Sheep adds 2 Goods for 1 Property, and can spend 1 extra Property for 6 extra Goods.
Cows:
1 Basic Cow adds 3 Goods for 1 Property, +1/6 Orthstirr per year (always rounded down)
1 Decent Cow adds 4 Goods for 1 Property, +1/6 Orthstirr per year (always rounded down)
1 Good Cow adds 4 Goods for 1 Property, +1/3 Orthstirr per year (always rounded down)
1 Fine Cow adds 5 Goods for 1 Property, +1/3 Orthstirr per year (always rounded down)
1 Decent Cow adds 4 Goods for 1 Property, +1/6 Orthstirr per year (always rounded down)
1 Good Cow adds 4 Goods for 1 Property, +1/3 Orthstirr per year (always rounded down)
1 Fine Cow adds 5 Goods for 1 Property, +1/3 Orthstirr per year (always rounded down)
Or just ditch Animal Quality, of course, but that makes us feel a bit bad for buying all Fine Animals earlier...
With this system, if we just did away with Superior or higher for mundane animals (downgrading them to Fine...which seems perfectly acceptable to me for simplicity's sake) and simplified out gender (we're assumed to have one male of each type), and (just as an example) we reclaimed our existing animals from before the attack, we'd have 6 Fine Chickens (+2 Goods, no maintenance...would be 7, but let's just round down), 8 Fine Sheep (+16 Goods for 8 Property, another +48 Goods for 8 more), and 5 Fine Cows (+25 Goods for 5 Property, +1 Orthstirr per year...and a lot of incentive to buy one more cow to get that to +2 Orthstirr).
That seems straightforward enough, I think?
That'd be 21 Property per turn for 91 Goods due to high quality animals, and 15 Animal Slots filled (and just shy of 2 Orthstirr per year...we'd definitely buy one more Fine Cow under those circumstances).
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Hypothesis:
A prize bull doesn't give Goods, but is good for extra Orthstirr.
A prize bull doesn't give Goods, but is good for extra Orthstirr.
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
Quality doesn't really make sense for like Pigs. Who only give stuff when slaughtered.
But then if we have Quality levels we'll have to track a lot more things.
Maybe just have an 'average' quality level for the herd as a whole instead?
So we can have like
Cows: Average Quality Good, 12 Cows (12 Cows with average quality good)
But then if we have Quality levels we'll have to track a lot more things.
Maybe just have an 'average' quality level for the herd as a whole instead?
So we can have like
Cows: Average Quality Good, 12 Cows (12 Cows with average quality good)
Last edited:
CedeTheBees
Probably high right now
- Location
- Somewhere
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Magical pigs that give more meat per meat?
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Making male animals produce Orthstirr instead of anything else would make sense, but it would add some more fiddly-ness.
Higher quality Pigs getting bigger and thus giving more meat is pretty valid, honestly.
That doesn't really help much, since we still need to figure what the difference is between a Decent Cow and a Fine one so we know the difference between Herds of those qualities. Like, it wouldn't really change anything.
Ceasing to track individual animals entirely for Herds is totally valid, but apparently not the direction Imperial Fister seems to want to go. And removing Quality would work but be a bit disappointing in some ways.
The Herd version would be, like, for example:
Small Herd of Fine Cows (+15 Goods per turn, 3 Property Upkeep, +1 Orthstirr per year, 1 Herd Slot)
With Medium Herds doubling that, and Large ones doubling that (+60 Goods, 12 Property Upkeep, +4 Orthstirr per year, 4 Herd Slots for a Large Herd of Fine Cows).
And then go from Animal Slots to Herd Slots (probably one Herd Slot per Field).
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I was thinking specifically bulls, not other male animals. Cattle are the prestige animals, but most male cattle are gelded for oxen because you really don't need that many bulls and bulls are a pain to deal with. So bulls tend to be particularly prestigious in cultures that hold cattle in general to be prestige animals. Similar logic applies to stallions.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Fair, but having separate rules for bulls but not other male animals would be weird. I think it's easier to just assume that one (and only one) of our cattle is a bull and the orthstirr we get from the herd counts that from the bull itself. Like, you can assume all the cows are giving a bit more Goods and the Bull no Goods but more Orthstirr and it's just averaged out for simplicity.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Not that weird in my opinion, but it's not my decision.
[shrug]
Besides, like I said, same rule might apply to stallions; I know the Norse aren't big on horses but I think they have some.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
They do. Mechanically, if we ever get horses, they probably work like Oxen should (ie: provide Property Dice rather than anything else, probably at a cost in Goods), but stallions also adding Orthstirr is possible.
Last edited:
Shard
One and Many
- Location
- Malaysia
Hmm...
Could I put in the rest of my reward dice for more advise on the next stage? 9 dice total might yield something 3 dice doesn't.
I did wonder if giving Odr to our children during pregnancy would pre-initiate them into True Norse Cultivation.
Sirrocco
Pedantic
I feel like upping it to herds might be worthwhile, but I'd encourage having herds be all the same size. We're trying to simplify this thing, after all.
Having it be in herds has the twin advantages that we don't feel the need to track animal births and deaths individually, and that we can reasonably be restricted to a relatively small number of them. We don't have anything particularly impressive in herd-management mojo, so we can just say that herds don't tend to change in quality. If we eventually get someone with particular herd-management mojo, we can revisit that.
Then we figure how many plots of land we have. Each plot of land can either be plowed and farmed or support herds. You can have, at most, two herds per herd-support plot, and anything above one herd per is goign to cost you two produce per additional herd, since they'll need forage (or, mathwise, produce two less). If you want to get fancy, they also maybe produce less during the winter, because they need extra food and whatnot then.
So we'd have... something like 8 plots? Total? Maybe less? You don't need to worry about breeding rolls (or any rolls), you just have a certain number of plowed fields and up to 16 herds to deal with, who will turn property points into goods in various ways. If you want to simpliy it further, just don't allow the doubling up. We fill our plots with whatever we fill our plots with, we assign property points, and at that point it mostly runs itself.
Having it be in herds has the twin advantages that we don't feel the need to track animal births and deaths individually, and that we can reasonably be restricted to a relatively small number of them. We don't have anything particularly impressive in herd-management mojo, so we can just say that herds don't tend to change in quality. If we eventually get someone with particular herd-management mojo, we can revisit that.
Then we figure how many plots of land we have. Each plot of land can either be plowed and farmed or support herds. You can have, at most, two herds per herd-support plot, and anything above one herd per is goign to cost you two produce per additional herd, since they'll need forage (or, mathwise, produce two less). If you want to get fancy, they also maybe produce less during the winter, because they need extra food and whatnot then.
So we'd have... something like 8 plots? Total? Maybe less? You don't need to worry about breeding rolls (or any rolls), you just have a certain number of plowed fields and up to 16 herds to deal with, who will turn property points into goods in various ways. If you want to simpliy it further, just don't allow the doubling up. We fill our plots with whatever we fill our plots with, we assign property points, and at that point it mostly runs itself.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It might...I'm not sure that's actually desirable. Like, Norse Cultivation is full of potentially lethal traps, do we want our kid stumbling around in there while they're toddlers?
The existing system proposed isn't actually that much different or more complex than this. And can likewise probably be assigned and forgotten about (technically, the current version we need a Winter version and a Summer version because of Fields, but aside from that), assuming we abstract births and deaths anyway. Which we definitely should.
All the stuff I list above is just trying to get the numbers right.
Last edited: