Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Tech in DnD; What should be included and how much is too much? (+)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9218123" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Not necessarily--the conclusion requires more than that. It requires, for example, that no individuals could gain an economic edge over their rivals through crushing more work out of the same number of slaves--or, alternatively, getting the same amount out of a smaller number. In the cruelty of enslavement, enslaved people are "tools" of labor, exploited like a beast of burden or machine, which means they cost money to buy, maintain, and repair (or, more commonly, replace with newly-enslaved persons.) If master-enslaver A has the same number of enslaved people as master-enslaver B, but master-enslaver A has superior fertilizers, better transportation, access to insecticides, and tools like cotton gins to separate seeds far faster (and with far less wear-and-tear) than if he were to dedicate his enslaved workers to the tasks, then those technologies will still have value, not because the master-enslaver <em>cares</em> about reducing labor, but because these things increase yields and reduce the amount of time and money required to extract it.</p><p></p><p>A society built around the expectation of human(oid) slavery can still get value out of labor-reducing technologies, but they will certainly be viewed differently and likely will advance differently.</p><p></p><p></p><p>While this is one source, it is not the only source. Sometimes, a new discovery, or a critical mass of iterative improvement that crosses a breakpoint, has made a particular action possible when it wasn't before. Metallurgical advances in the 17th and 18th century finally enabled us to turn Heron's funny spinny-steam-toy into an actual steam engine, and you know what the very first (commercially successful) application was? An atmospheric pump for mining. Pure economic interest, not a lick of warfare. Combat applications of steam engines wouldn't come along for more than a century (and <em>big</em> ones wouldn't for almost two.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right. Hence why I said what I said above: even in a society built around the enslavement of sapient beings, it's not that there would be <em>zero</em> appetite for labor-saving stuff. It's that it would be viewed differently. Every interest group cares about different things. You see quite a bit of this if you play games like <em>Victoria 3</em>, for instance.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you could have other forms of progress in this area. For example, perhaps Druids can't meaningfully irrigate lands that <em>would</em> be arable if they weren't so arid, which can lead to examining how and why various terrains are able to support various crops. There will also be pressure on the druids themselves to put out yields which continue to support a growing population, which may run into trouble if there's a cap on how much magic can do to squeeze more productivity out of the land.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Most societies are. Even today. It's just that technological advancement is going at a breakneck pace right now, and choosing not to compete is a death sentence--"instability" now <em>means</em> a failure to keep pace. Technology has changed from mostly slow, iterative building on the work of the Old Masters, into a Red Queen's Race where the only way to keep up is to run as fast as you can, and the only way to get ahead is to run <em>twice</em> that fast.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is more than a bit off the mark. While you may be right about Cuba (I've no idea, I'm no student of Cuban history), the Soviet Union full-force embraced Lysenkoism, which was outright blatant pseudoscience that promised stability, increased productivity, and politically-convenient results. Likewise, Mao's Great Leap Forward was specifically about trying to hyper-modernize Chinese agriculture and industry through mass peasant labor. Unfortunately, because he despised "intellectuals" (despite being one himself), he ignored or eliminated anyone who could have told him that his grain production targets were impossibly high and that the "steel" produced by his mobilized peasants was actually near-worthless pig iron.</p><p></p><p>Socialist societies can also prioritize productivity and growth rather than common welfare and quality of life. They just do so from a collectivist standpoint, not an individualist one. (This is, for example, why the Federation is really neither "capitalist" nor "socialist"--it is a highly individualistic society in terms of rights, privileges, liberalism, etc., but it is a highly collectivistic society because the nigh-inexhaustible energy sources, plus technologies like replicators, enable everyone to live at the highest standard of living, and "labor" becomes a form of self-actualization doing something you <em>enjoy</em> rather than a means to obtain sustenance or support the common good.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting stuff!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9218123, member: 6790260"] Not necessarily--the conclusion requires more than that. It requires, for example, that no individuals could gain an economic edge over their rivals through crushing more work out of the same number of slaves--or, alternatively, getting the same amount out of a smaller number. In the cruelty of enslavement, enslaved people are "tools" of labor, exploited like a beast of burden or machine, which means they cost money to buy, maintain, and repair (or, more commonly, replace with newly-enslaved persons.) If master-enslaver A has the same number of enslaved people as master-enslaver B, but master-enslaver A has superior fertilizers, better transportation, access to insecticides, and tools like cotton gins to separate seeds far faster (and with far less wear-and-tear) than if he were to dedicate his enslaved workers to the tasks, then those technologies will still have value, not because the master-enslaver [I]cares[/I] about reducing labor, but because these things increase yields and reduce the amount of time and money required to extract it. A society built around the expectation of human(oid) slavery can still get value out of labor-reducing technologies, but they will certainly be viewed differently and likely will advance differently. While this is one source, it is not the only source. Sometimes, a new discovery, or a critical mass of iterative improvement that crosses a breakpoint, has made a particular action possible when it wasn't before. Metallurgical advances in the 17th and 18th century finally enabled us to turn Heron's funny spinny-steam-toy into an actual steam engine, and you know what the very first (commercially successful) application was? An atmospheric pump for mining. Pure economic interest, not a lick of warfare. Combat applications of steam engines wouldn't come along for more than a century (and [I]big[/I] ones wouldn't for almost two.) Right. Hence why I said what I said above: even in a society built around the enslavement of sapient beings, it's not that there would be [I]zero[/I] appetite for labor-saving stuff. It's that it would be viewed differently. Every interest group cares about different things. You see quite a bit of this if you play games like [I]Victoria 3[/I], for instance. But you could have other forms of progress in this area. For example, perhaps Druids can't meaningfully irrigate lands that [I]would[/I] be arable if they weren't so arid, which can lead to examining how and why various terrains are able to support various crops. There will also be pressure on the druids themselves to put out yields which continue to support a growing population, which may run into trouble if there's a cap on how much magic can do to squeeze more productivity out of the land. Most societies are. Even today. It's just that technological advancement is going at a breakneck pace right now, and choosing not to compete is a death sentence--"instability" now [I]means[/I] a failure to keep pace. Technology has changed from mostly slow, iterative building on the work of the Old Masters, into a Red Queen's Race where the only way to keep up is to run as fast as you can, and the only way to get ahead is to run [I]twice[/I] that fast. This is more than a bit off the mark. While you may be right about Cuba (I've no idea, I'm no student of Cuban history), the Soviet Union full-force embraced Lysenkoism, which was outright blatant pseudoscience that promised stability, increased productivity, and politically-convenient results. Likewise, Mao's Great Leap Forward was specifically about trying to hyper-modernize Chinese agriculture and industry through mass peasant labor. Unfortunately, because he despised "intellectuals" (despite being one himself), he ignored or eliminated anyone who could have told him that his grain production targets were impossibly high and that the "steel" produced by his mobilized peasants was actually near-worthless pig iron. Socialist societies can also prioritize productivity and growth rather than common welfare and quality of life. They just do so from a collectivist standpoint, not an individualist one. (This is, for example, why the Federation is really neither "capitalist" nor "socialist"--it is a highly individualistic society in terms of rights, privileges, liberalism, etc., but it is a highly collectivistic society because the nigh-inexhaustible energy sources, plus technologies like replicators, enable everyone to live at the highest standard of living, and "labor" becomes a form of self-actualization doing something you [I]enjoy[/I] rather than a means to obtain sustenance or support the common good.) Interesting stuff! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Tech in DnD; What should be included and how much is too much? (+)
Top