RulingNations@aol.com wrote: >Working through the process for my society has brought back the nature >of Aria in full force; wonderful ideas that are very difficult to >implement and use. Particularly when merged with Fudge, I feel >societies could be designed much more easily and distinctively, but I >don't want to clutter up the list with my comments if it's not >something people want to discuss. At least I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts. You could, though, mark such discussions with e.g. [Rules] tag on the subject line. OK, here goes. The basic problem with the Aria Interactive History system is that too many of the things that are defined are simply descriptive and no (or few) actual game effects. The descriptions are good, but understanding how they are used is extremely difficult. Using Fudge's Attributes / Skills / Gifts / Faults system, here's what I would do. DESCRIPTION: Much of what Aria uses statistics for are simply descriptive. A society's description should include its basic nature (government, family, religion, business), its location, and how its organized. 12 TRAITS: SCOPE is the size and population of the society and its components RESOURCES is the wealth and knowledge available to a society DEVELOPMENT is what a society is capable of, its economy CONTROL is the measure of how much a society dominates its members AGGRESSION is the amount of violence in a society COMMUNALISM is the amount a society de-emphasizes individuality INNOVATION is the amount a society accepts changes and new ideas PRAGMATISM is the amount the practical is emphasized over the mystical PROVIDENCE is the amount of long-term thinking in a society TOLERATION is the amount a society accepts those outside itself TRACTABILITY measures how willing the population is to be ruled UNIFORMITY measures how much a society isn't divided internally If a player (or GM) wishes these traits can be subdefined. For example, Control might be divided into Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, and Social Stratification. Military forces would be based on scope, and Resources could be divided into Food, Gold, Iron and the like. 6 SKILLS: A Society's skills are it's ability to _do_ things (as opposed to traits which are it's ability to _be_ things). Using the Crafts model: ARTS deals with non-practical, but often morale-building, matters BIOLOGY deals with living things (agronomy, medicine, etc.) MILITARY deals with combat and espionage PARANATURALISM deals with magic and mysticism MANUFACTURE deals with physical items (weapons, transportation, etc.) PSYCHOLOGY deals with people's minds (advertising, diplomacy, trade, etc.) As with traits, these can be subdivided. GIFTS AND FAULTS work essentially the same as in Fudge, except they affect the society as a whole. (Note that unlike traits and skills gifts and faults are not ranked.) An example gift might be to give a society a navy in addition to its army. An example fault might be that a society does not have a technology that's considered standard. Gifts and faults aren't subdivided, but they may have prerequisites. For example a society might want to get the Accounting technology to improve it's trade, but in order to do so it must first pick up Primitive Accounting. Jefferson (Exquaestio) http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ PS I'd also change the terminology a bit. Traits become Capacities. Skills become Crafts. Gifts become Glories. Faults become Burdens. If it looks familiar, much of the system above is based on _GURPS Traveller: First In_ by Jon F. Zeigler (who I happen to know plays FUDGE). ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
RulingNations@aol.com wrote: >12 TRAITS: > >SCOPE is the size and population of the society and its components >RESOURCES is the wealth and knowledge available to a society >DEVELOPMENT is what a society is capable of, its economy >CONTROL is the measure of how much a society dominates its members > >AGGRESSION is the amount of violence in a society >COMMUNALISM is the amount a society de-emphasizes individuality >INNOVATION is the amount a society accepts changes and new ideas >PRAGMATISM is the amount the practical is emphasized over the mystical >PROVIDENCE is the amount of long-term thinking in a society >TOLERATION is the amount a society accepts those outside itself >TRACTABILITY measures how willing the population is to be ruled >UNIFORMITY measures how much a society isn't divided internally > You stated that the traits should have actual game-effects. I kind of agree with that, but I think that the 8 traits above are more descriptive in nature than with actual game effect. They are *good* descriptive traits, but I can't really see their game effect, except in some special situations. SCOPE, RESOURCES and CONTROL sound good, but DEVELOPMENT sounds like it would belong to the 'skills' rather than 'traits'. Hmmm... in its stead I would propose STABILITY as measuring how fast or slow the society changes its course. >A Society's skills are it's ability to _do_ things (as opposed to traits >which are it's ability to _be_ things). > Hmm... that's a nice division. >ARTS deals with non-practical, but often morale-building, matters >BIOLOGY deals with living things (agronomy, medicine, etc.) >MILITARY deals with combat and espionage >PARANATURALISM deals with magic and mysticism >MANUFACTURE deals with physical items (weapons, transportation, etc.) >PSYCHOLOGY deals with people's minds (advertising, diplomacy, trade, etc.) > I don't really like the terminology and/or the division to modern subject areas for these. Why should e.g. agronomy and medicine be lumped into one category, when they deal with entirely different matters (from pragmatic and development perspective)? >An example gift might be to give a society a navy in addition to its army. > >An example fault might be that a society does not have a technology >that's considered standard. > How about when a society want to build the navy, or obtains that technology during the game? Ah well, as a game device in character building stage faults and gifts work out nicely, but in IH, the "characters" tend to remain around for a long time. >PS I'd also change the terminology a bit. Traits become Capacities. >Skills become Crafts. Gifts become Glories. Faults become Burdens. > These sound good to my ears. juuso ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
In a message dated 11/18/03 2:16:17 PM Mountain Standard Time, juuso@iki.fi writes: >RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > >>12 TRAITS: >> >>SCOPE is the size and population of the society and its components >>RESOURCES is the wealth and knowledge available to a society >>DEVELOPMENT is what a society is capable of, its economy >>CONTROL is the measure of how much a society dominates its members >> >>AGGRESSION is the amount of violence in a society >>COMMUNALISM is the amount a society de-emphasizes individuality >>INNOVATION is the amount a society accepts changes and new ideas >>PRAGMATISM is the amount the practical is emphasized over the mystical >>PROVIDENCE is the amount of long-term thinking in a society >>TOLERATION is the amount a society accepts those outside itself >>TRACTABILITY measures how willing the population is to be ruled >>UNIFORMITY measures how much a society isn't divided internally > >You stated that the traits should have actual game-effects. I kind of >agree with that, but I think that the 8 traits above are more >descriptive in nature than with actual game effect. They are *good* >descriptive traits, but I can't really see their game effect, except in >some special situations. I mostly see these as target numbers for other society's actions. For example, to get an alliance or trade add society's Toleration; to get your society to adopt a new idea, add Innovation. Admittedly I'm not sure how to apply all of them, but they don't really have any overlaps either. >SCOPE, RESOURCES and CONTROL sound good, but DEVELOPMENT sounds like it >would belong to the 'skills' rather than 'traits'. Well, Development can certainly be combined with Resources. I prefer to split it out because I feel that Communication, Production, and Transportation (subs of Development) are distinctly different from Holdings, Infrastructure, and Knowledge (subs of Resources). Resources answers, "Can it be done?" Development answers, "How easy is it?" >Hmmm... in its stead I would propose STABILITY as measuring how fast >or slow the society changes its course. That's basically the idea of Innovation. >>A Society's skills are it's ability to _do_ things (as opposed to traits >>which are it's ability to _be_ things). > >Hmm... that's a nice division. > >>ARTS deals with non-practical, but often morale-building, matters >>BIOLOGY deals with living things (agronomy, medicine, etc.) >>MILITARY deals with combat and espionage >>PARANATURALISM deals with magic and mysticism >>MANUFACTURE deals with physical items (weapons, transportation, etc.) >>PSYCHOLOGY deals with people's minds (advertising, diplomacy, trade, etc.) > >I don't really like the terminology and/or the division to modern >subject areas for these. Well, we want areas that have similar breadth or utility, and a list of no more than 12 (top-level) items. Another scheme would be: ARTS, BUILD & DESIGN, GOVERNANCE, HUMANITIES, LABOR, MAGIC, NATURAL SCIENCES, PHYSICAL SCIENCES. >Why should e.g. agronomy and medicine be lumped into one category, when >they deal with entirely different matters (from pragmatic and >development perspective)? >>An example gift might be to give a society a navy in addition to its army. >> >>An example fault might be that a society does not have a technology >>that's considered standard. > >How about when a society want to build the navy, or obtains that technology >during the game? Ah well, as a game device in character building stage >faults and gifts work out nicely, but in IH, the "characters" tend to >remain around for a long time. It should be possible to use actions to obtain Glories in play. Jefferson http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
Here's my $0.02 worth of opinion. --- RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > RulingNations@aol.com wrote:> 12 TRAITS: > > SCOPE is the size and population of the society and its components Based on some of the discussions we've been having on the list lately, I really think that instead of Scope being one number, we need two: one number for area, and one for population. The current rules make the assumption that societies with large populations occupy proportionally large land areas(when your society is a nation). This doesn't do justice to the variety of societies we have here. > RESOURCES is the wealth and knowledge available to a society Again, might want to subdivide Resources into, say, Agricultural and Industrial. How well can you feed your people and how well can you "feed" your industries? > DEVELOPMENT is what a society is capable of, its economy Are you talking about tech levels here? > CONTROL is the measure of how much a society dominates its members Perhaps an axis running from anarchy on one extreme to totalitarianism on the other? On the other hand, I forget exactly where I first read this, but I think most political scientists believe that you need two axes, social and economic, to accurately portray political viewpoints. The classic example would be the American liberal who favors minimal governmental interference with social behavior but wants heavily regulated markets opposed to the American conservative who wants heavy regulation of social behavior but minimal government interference with markets. Someone who feels that government shouldn't be involved in regulating anything would probably be an anarchist, while someone who favors heavy government involvement in all aspects of life is likely a totalitarian. > AGGRESSION is the amount of violence in a society Is this internal violence, reflecting tension within a society, or external violence, directed at neighbors? > COMMUNALISM is the amount a society de-emphasizes individuality Being American, I'd probably just call this Individuality; the greater the number on the positive side, the more individualistic, while the farther negative you go, the more communalist you become. > INNOVATION is the amount a society accepts changes and new ideas > PRAGMATISM is the amount the practical is emphasized over the > mystical I would think that Pragmatism and Innovation influence each other to a certain degree; when a society has extremely high values for pragmatism, most of their innovative energy is probably going to be directed into improving existing technologies because if they don't see an immediate practical application for a new discovery, they won't follow it up. On the other hand, when they *do* see an immediate application for a new discovery, they'd exploit it to the full. I also imagine that when a society's Pragmatism number is down in the far Mysticism end of the scale, they too would have problems with innovation, because they spend so much time looking inward. > PROVIDENCE is the amount of long-term thinking in a society Maybe Foresight would be a better term? The word "Providence" always makes me think of two things: 18th Century Christians and Rhode Island. It's kind of a loaded term. > TOLERATION is the amount a society accepts those outside itself Good idea. > TRACTABILITY measures how willing the population is to be ruled We kind of have this already, as the Consent determinant that each Key Element receives, indicating how much popular support they have. I don't think we need to add Tractability; the current method allows more flexibility. > UNIFORMITY measures how much a society isn't divided internally Another good idea. In our world, Japan and Korea would probably come close to the maximum value for Uniformity, the US would be down near the low end(because of our ethnic diversity and deep political divisions), while countries with civil wars and strong separatist movements like Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the Congo would be well into negative numbers. > If a player (or GM) wishes these traits can be subdefined. For > example, > Control might be divided into Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, and > Social > Stratification. Military forces would be based on scope, and > Resources > could be divided into Food, Gold, Iron and the like. > > 6 SKILLS: > > A Society's skills are it's ability to _do_ things (as opposed to > traits > which are it's ability to _be_ things). Using the Crafts model: > > ARTS deals with non-practical, but often morale-building, matters > BIOLOGY deals with living things (agronomy, medicine, etc.) > MILITARY deals with combat and espionage > PARANATURALISM deals with magic and mysticism > MANUFACTURE deals with physical items (weapons, transportation, etc.) > PSYCHOLOGY deals with people's minds (advertising, diplomacy, trade, > etc.) Another possible division, more in keeping with the general level of development in Midsea: ARTS, as above. MILITARY, as above. MAGECRAFT, as Paranaturalism. INDUSTRY, as Manufacture. AGRICULTURE, self-evident. PHILOSOPHY, the mind. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, the sciences & most social sciences, but see below. POLITICAL ECONOMY, political science & economics (in real history, political science and economics weren't considered as seperate subjects until after 1776, when Adam Smith published _The Wealth of Nations_. And at the current level of development in the Midsea(traditional economies), it's not inaccurate to consider them the same.) > As with traits, these can be subdivided. > > GIFTS AND FAULTS work essentially the same as in Fudge, except they > affect the society as a whole. (Note that unlike traits and skills > gifts > and faults are not ranked.) > > An example gift might be to give a society a navy in addition to its > army. Eh, not neccessarily a good example. A society that's large enough with access to ocean, like the ancient Mystic Realm of Mir or the old Cedonian Empire would automatically have a navy--in fact, any society on the Midsea that engages in trade is going to have *some* kind of naval force, if only for customs/excise and anti-piracy purposes. For some societies, like Kaeir, their navy is their primary force, with the army secondary, or replaced by marines. > An example fault might be that a society does not have a technology > that's considered standard. Do you mean sub-standard, or just incompatible with what everybody else uses? > Gifts and faults aren't subdivided, but they may have prerequisites. > For > example a society might want to get the Accounting technology to > improve > it's trade, but in order to do so it must first pick up Primitive > Accounting. Hrm. I like most of your ideas, but I worry that they may make things more restrictive for the players. Andrew Janssen > Jefferson (Exquaestio) > http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ > > PS I'd also change the terminology a bit. Traits become Capacities. > Skills become Crafts. Gifts become Glories. Faults become Burdens. > > If it looks familiar, much of the system above is based on _GURPS > Traveller: First In_ by Jon F. Zeigler (who I happen to know plays > FUDGE). > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
Andrew Janssen wrote: >Based on some of the discussions we've been having on the list lately, >I really think that instead of Scope being one number, we need two: one >number for area, and one for population. The current rules make the >assumption that societies with large populations occupy proportionally >large land areas(when your society is a nation). This doesn't do >justice to the variety of societies we have here. > Actually, the IH rules, as presented on my page at http://www.iki.fi/juuso/ihfudge already require those two numbers (although there is only one 'Scope' value). This, and the agriculture discussion, led me to think more about the scope, population and subsistance in a society. I would like to have a very simple ruleset which would cover these three issues in a somewhat consistent matter. The spreadsheets are very nice, but they are quite too complicated to be used in a (basically) table-top game. So here's my thinking laid out: 1. Scope of the society is based on its population (not the landarea). 2. Population consists of (a) people directly or indirectly involved with basic subsistance (farmers, blacksmiths, local lords, etc.), and (b) people not involved in such tasks (e.g. army, priests, artists, etc.; let's call these "extras"). 3. A single figure is used to represent how many "extras" the society can maximally support. This is the "margin of subsistance": it is the leftover from production of subsistance after the "normal people have taken their share. For example, a margin of 0.2 would mean that 5 people involved in subsistance livelyhoods generates enough to support one extra. Normally, though, these extras require more support than normal people: a soldier needs his gear, for example, which is not cheap, and which is away from subsistance production. Note that the 'subsistance' need not come from farming: it can be, for example, commerce. It just needs to provide the subsistance for the people in the society. 4. To tie the margin in with land area, another figure is needed: the subsistance population density, which tells how many normal people - well, let's say farmers - can gather their livelihood from one square mile/km. This determines how big population can live in a given area, or how big area does a certain population require. Typical values are around 1-2 for primitive gathering/hunting societies, around 10 (I think....) for herding, and around 100 for sedentary. Modern societies, and special situations (like imperial Rome) allow bigger population densities. As an example, let's assume an area of 100x100 miles. If it is fully cultivated, and can support 100 farmers per square mile, and the subsistance margin (which depends on the yield of the crop, which in turns on soil, weather, fertilizer, techiniques... and magic) is 0.2. The number of farmers (and their supportive cast) is 1 million, and thus the maximum number of extras is 200'000. Since these are more "expensive" than the farmers, let's say there are 100'000 of the extras => the maximum size of army is 100'000 men; in practice a whole lot less. What are the extras then? That depends on the motivation/obsessions of the society (religion --> priets, science --> scientists, art --> artists; and of external pressures --> army). Of course, the extras can also be valuable craftsmen, or for example gold miners, or simply more farmers; each of these generates more wealth to the society. So, depending on resources, motivations, and crafts of the society, the margin is also directly linked to the wealth of the society. So, just by specifying population, and the margin of subsistance, we can get - "extra" population --> maximum standing army size - some indication of the wealth of the society - with sub.pop.density --> required (cultivated) land area Comments? Hmmm... I'll have to go through Qaiyore socieities, and see how they compare with this (landarea, wilderness ratio, population --> what are the subsistance margin and pop.densities of different societies? Do they make sense?) juuso ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
In a message dated 11/19/03 6:30:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: >>RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > >>12 TRAITS: >> >>SCOPE is the size and population of the society and its components > >Based on some of the discussions we've been having on the list lately, >I really think that instead of Scope being one number, we need two: one >number for area, and one for population. The current rules make the >assumption that societies with large populations occupy proportionally >large land areas (when your society is a nation). This doesn't do >justice to the variety of societies we have here. That's where being able to subdivide capacities comes in. Scope is a can be divided into Population, Area, and Reach. You could also subdivide for sub-areas or different races. But you subdivide only if required, most of the time the summary Scope covers what's needed. >>RESOURCES is the wealth and knowledge available to a society > >Again, might want to subdivide Resources into, say, Agricultural and >Industrial. How well can you feed your people and how well can you >"feed" your industries? That's more along the line of Development. However, I personally would rather have economic factors like this taken care of automatically. I feel that the more control a player has over economic factors, the more unrealistic (and less fun) a game gets. I'd like to hear the other side though. >>DEVELOPMENT is what a society is capable of, its economy > >Are you talking about tech levels here? Nope, tech levels are knowledge which falls under resources. >>CONTROL is the measure of how much a society dominates its members > >Perhaps an axis running from anarchy on one extreme to totalitarianism >on the other? On the other hand, I forget exactly where I first read >this, but I think most political scientists believe that you need two >axes, social and economic, to accurately portray political viewpoints. >The classic example would be the American liberal who favors minimal >governmental interference with social behavior but wants heavily >regulated markets opposed to the American conservative who wants heavy >regulation of social behavior but minimal government interference with >markets. Someone who feels that government shouldn't be involved in >regulating anything would probably be an anarchist, while someone who >favors heavy government involvement in all aspects of life is likely a >totalitarian. Control isn't a matter of politics it's a matter of police, bureaucracy, laws, and so forth. (Of course, if a society's Control exceeds it's Tractability, problems are likely.) >>AGGRESSION is the amount of violence in a society > >Is this internal violence, reflecting tension within a society, or >external violence, directed at neighbors? Both, plus how much training in violence is present in a society. >>COMMUNALISM is the amount a society de-emphasizes individuality > >Being American, I'd probably just call this Individuality; the greater >the number on the positive side, the more individualistic, while the >farther negative you go, the more communalist you become. I made the list with the idea that high values were generally better from a society's perspective. Certainly Individuality would be easier to describe, but a high communalism makes things easier for a society. [snip] >>PROVIDENCE is the amount of long-term thinking in a society > >Maybe Foresight would be a better term? The word "Providence" always >makes me think of two things: 18th Century Christians and Rhode Island. >It's kind of a loaded term. I can see that. >>TOLERATION is the amount a society accepts those outside itself > >Good idea. > >>TRACTABILITY measures how willing the population is to be ruled > >We kind of have this already, as the Consent determinant that each Key >Element receives, indicating how much popular support they have. I >don't think we need to add Tractability; the current method allows more >flexibility. The problem is that I don't really see how the consent of key elements is supposed to be used. >>UNIFORMITY measures how much a society isn't divided internally > >Another good idea. In our world, Japan and Korea would probably come >close to the maximum value for Uniformity, the US would be down near >the low end (because of our ethnic diversity and deep political >divisions), while countries with civil wars and strong separatist >movements like Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the Congo would be well into >negative numbers. > >>If a player (or GM) wishes these traits can be subdefined. For >>example, Control might be divided into Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, >>and Social Stratification. Military forces would be based on scope, >>and Resources could be divided into Food, Gold, Iron and the like. >> >>6 SKILLS: >> >>A Society's skills are it's ability to _do_ things (as opposed to >>traits >>which are it's ability to _be_ things). Using the Crafts model: >> >>ARTS deals with non-practical, but often morale-building, matters >>BIOLOGY deals with living things (agronomy, medicine, etc.) >>MILITARY deals with combat and espionage >>PARANATURALISM deals with magic and mysticism >>MANUFACTURE deals with physical items (weapons, transportation, etc.) >>PSYCHOLOGY deals with people's minds (advertising, diplomacy, trade, >>etc.) > >Another possible division, more in keeping with the general level of >development in Midsea: >ARTS, as above. >MILITARY, as above. >MAGECRAFT, as Paranaturalism. What about religious magic? >INDUSTRY, as Manufacture. >AGRICULTURE, self-evident. >PHILOSOPHY, the mind. >NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, the sciences & most social sciences, but see below. >POLITICAL ECONOMY, political science & economics (in real history, >political science and economics weren't considered as seperate subjects >until after 1776, when Adam Smith published _The Wealth of Nations_. >And at the current level of development in the Midsea(traditional >economies), it's not inaccurate to consider them the same.) Other than the above I can see this. Jefferson (Exquaestio) http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
please remove me from this mailing list RulingNations@aol.com wrote:In a message dated 11/19/03 6:30:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: >>RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > >>12 TRAITS: >> >>SCOPE is the size and population of the society and its components > >Based on some of the discussions we've been having on the list lately, >I really think that instead of Scope being one number, we need two: one >number for area, and one for population. The current rules make the >assumption that societies with large populations occupy proportionally >large land areas (when your society is a nation). This doesn't do >justice to the variety of societies we have here. That's where being able to subdivide capacities comes in. Scope is a can be divided into Population, Area, and Reach. You could also subdivide for sub-areas or different races. But you subdivide only if required, most of the time the summary Scope covers what's needed. >>RESOURCES is the wealth and knowledge available to a society > >Again, might want to subdivide Resources into, say, Agricultural and >Industrial. How well can you feed your people and how well can you >"feed" your industries? That's more along the line of Development. However, I personally would rather have economic factors like this taken care of automatically. I feel that the more control a player has over economic factors, the more unrealistic (and less fun) a game gets. I'd like to hear the other side though. >>DEVELOPMENT is what a society is capable of, its economy > >Are you talking about tech levels here? Nope, tech levels are knowledge which falls under resources. >>CONTROL is the measure of how much a society dominates its members > >Perhaps an axis running from anarchy on one extreme to totalitarianism >on the other? On the other hand, I forget exactly where I first read >this, but I think most political scientists believe that you need two >axes, social and economic, to accurately portray political viewpoints. >The classic example would be the American liberal who favors minimal >governmental interference with social behavior but wants heavily >regulated markets opposed to the American conservative who wants heavy >regulation of social behavior but minimal government interference with >markets. Someone who feels that government shouldn't be involved in >regulating anything would probably be an anarchist, while someone who >favors heavy government involvement in all aspects of life is likely a >totalitarian. Control isn't a matter of politics it's a matter of police, bureaucracy, laws, and so forth. (Of course, if a society's Control exceeds it's Tractability, problems are likely.) >>AGGRESSION is the amount of violence in a society > >Is this internal violence, reflecting tension within a society, or >external violence, directed at neighbors? Both, plus how much training in violence is present in a society. >>COMMUNALISM is the amount a society de-emphasizes individuality > >Being American, I'd probably just call this Individuality; the greater >the number on the positive side, the more individualistic, while the >farther negative you go, the more communalist you become. I made the list with the idea that high values were generally better from a society's perspective. Certainly Individuality would be easier to describe, but a high communalism makes things easier for a society. [snip] >>PROVIDENCE is the amount of long-term thinking in a society > >Maybe Foresight would be a better term? The word "Providence" always >makes me think of two things: 18th Century Christians and Rhode Island. >It's kind of a loaded term. I can see that. >>TOLERATION is the amount a society accepts those outside itself > >Good idea. > >>TRACTABILITY measures how willing the population is to be ruled > >We kind of have this already, as the Consent determinant that each Key >Element receives, indicating how much popular support they have. I >don't think we need to add Tractability; the current method allows more >flexibility. The problem is that I don't really see how the consent of key elements is supposed to be used. >>UNIFORMITY measures how much a society isn't divided internally > >Another good idea. In our world, Japan and Korea would probably come >close to the maximum value for Uniformity, the US would be down near >the low end (because of our ethnic diversity and deep political >divisions), while countries with civil wars and strong separatist >movements like Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the Congo would be well into >negative numbers. > >>If a player (or GM) wishes these traits can be subdefined. For >>example, Control might be divided into Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, >>and Social Stratification. Military forces would be based on scope, >>and Resources could be divided into Food, Gold, Iron and the like. >> >>6 SKILLS: >> >>A Society's skills are it's ability to _do_ things (as opposed to >>traits >>which are it's ability to _be_ things). Using the Crafts model: >> >>ARTS deals with non-practical, but often morale-building, matters >>BIOLOGY deals with living things (agronomy, medicine, etc.) >>MILITARY deals with combat and espionage >>PARANATURALISM deals with magic and mysticism >>MANUFACTURE deals with physical items (weapons, transportation, etc.) >>PSYCHOLOGY deals with people's minds (advertising, diplomacy, trade, >>etc.) > >Another possible division, more in keeping with the general level of >development in Midsea: >ARTS, as above. >MILITARY, as above. >MAGECRAFT, as Paranaturalism. What about religious magic? >INDUSTRY, as Manufacture. >AGRICULTURE, self-evident. >PHILOSOPHY, the mind. >NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, the sciences & most social sciences, but see below. >POLITICAL ECONOMY, political science & economics (in real history, >political science and economics weren't considered as seperate subjects >until after 1776, when Adam Smith published _The Wealth of Nations_. >And at the current level of development in the Midsea(traditional >economies), it's not inaccurate to consider them the same.) Other than the above I can see this. Jefferson (Exquaestio) http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
