Stone Age D&D Games?

[TheLostSoul]

From Asia Modern humans reached Australia about 40000 yrs bp, the Solomon Islands were settledt 25000 years bp and another stream reached America about 15000 yrs bp. The Asian populations went south first because of the more fertile conditions - the area north (ie siberia) being cold tundra until after the last glaciations. (NB there is also evidence of Melanesian populations reaching America as early as 30000 years bp - but its still controversial)

Oh and Neolithic Agriculture hit America in about 2000BC

You are quite right. Humanity spread out quite fast, and that is one of the clearest testaments to our species fertily and adaptability. They mainly kept to somewhat warm locations.

As for early colonisation of the American continents. Most of the so called evidence is very flimsy and circumstantial. There have also been reports of fire places from 50.000 BP, but there are also very suspect. There is no clear evidence of early colonisation. Personally I do not have any problems with an earlier colonisation, but if there were people in America at such an early date, why did they not spread more out and why do we not have more evidence?

As I understand it Homo Sapiens being an africa species simply had it easier than neanderthals. During the Ice Age whilst Europe was a cold land cursed with ice Africa floursihed with extensive fertile savanna and wetlands teeming with animals and thus people. Those people (Homo Sapiens) were able to settle down and form villages and even agriculture (there is evidence of grain cultivation and cattle herding). It was also these people who about 90000 years bp spread north eventually reaching Europe (and Asia) where they encountered Neanderthals and lived with them for approx 10000 years

You are quite right. It is true that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandertalensis lived side by side during several thousand years, it was not in all of Europe. As Homo Sapiens spread into Europe, Homo Neandertalensis was slowly "pushed back" (how is still open to interpretation). It was quite late (in comparison to other locations) before Homo Sapiens really dominated Europe.

Early agriculture is discussed alot too. It is generally acknowledges that it was not until 9000 - 8000 BC that we developed agriculture. There are alot of evidence that it had started earlier, but one of few things that archaeologist agree on, is that a neolithic culture has to have domesticated plants and/or animals. This means that the species has to have undergone some change in comparison to its wild version. This is seen first in the Middle East in the period 9000 - 8000 BC.

 

[mmadsen]

Little Specialization

If we're looking at a Paleolithic society of dozens of men, women,and children, we shouldn't expect to see the kind of specialization we see in more advanced societies, like the quasi-Renaissance societies of D&D or our own modern society. In game terms, that means that almost everyone should belong to the same class -- or, more realistically, all the men of the tribe should belong to one class, and all of the women should belong to another, with an exception for the "wise man" or "wise woman" of the tribe.

 

[TheLostSoul]

If we're looking at a Paleolithic society of dozens of men, women,and children, we shouldn't expect to see the kind of specialization we see in more advanced societies, like the quasi-Renaissance societies of D&D or our own modern society. In game terms, that means that almost everyone should belong to the same class -- or, more realistically, all the men of the tribe should belong to one class, and all of the women should belong to another, with an exception for the "wise man" or "wise woman" of the tribe.

There would be some specialization. Most such societies have divided the food gathering process, so that you have male hunters and female gatherers. This can be seen through ethnological studies, but there are exceptions. Besides this basic division, there would also be a spiritual class, who often hold a place of leadership and magic in the society. These would most likely look more like the Bard than a Cleric or Druid in their range of powers.

Personally I would use the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana to simulate such a society. Most people would be multiclass Warrior/Experts (the weight of the classes based on your role in your community) while a few would be Expert/Spellcaster and act as spiritual leaders and keepers of the tribe's lore. multiclassing would be pretty widespread, though most people would specialize in one area or another, such as bowmaking or flintnapping. Even in these early societies there would most likely be specialized artisans, even though most people would have some skill at various crafts.

What most people do not realize is that during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic, humankind had more freetime than at any other time since. Studies have shown that they only needed to gather food for two to three hours every day to survive. What they did with that time is unknown, but they would probably do many of the things we do today. Socialize, tell stories, mate and so forth. In a D&D campaign (which is often more PC than reality) alot of this time would be used for adventuring: Exploring the nearby coastlines, scouting enemy territory and eliminating deadly threats to your tribe.

The communities would probably contain twenty or more persons, but we cannot guess as to the number of people these communities could contain, with any kind certainty. In southern Scandinavia it seems as though the earliest settlers were nomadic. Moving up from northern Germany to hunt reindeer and other animals. Later they would settle down into small semi-permanent camps. The later into the mesolithic one comes, the more permanent their camps are and the last mesolithic culture in Denmark/Northern Germany (Ertebølle) had permanent settlements.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

cursed doubling

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Now I thought that human beings actually did pretty well on the ice age tundra. I mean the first American colonization pretty well follows the plains and mega-fauna.

And I think you would actually find a fair amount of specialization across a group of bands/tribe. Where people who are vying for excellence/status specialize in different styles.

So that I certainly agree most people would be some sort of fairly tough, skill heavy type, but there would also be a range of the different classes across the tribe.

One way I handled this in my setting was to create some very brief three level culture classes that actually functioned as anti-prestige classes. They were proficiency light, just the native weapons and armors, and skill heavy, in some of them you got skill points unmodofied by intelligence so that regardless of intelligence everyone in the tribe would get a decent surival check, and class features were useful but lame, bonuses to hide in certain environments, etc.

The overall purpose was to create something tailored to specific environments and lifestyles that would be in between the PC and NPC classes so that you could understand that everyone was a bad ass whilst also appreciating the overwhelming importance of PC style heroes in the setting.

 

[TheLostSoul]

Now I thought that human beings actually did pretty well on the ice age tundra. I mean the first American colonization pretty well follows the plains and mega-fauna..

I am not arguing that Homo Sapiens did not do well on the ice age tundra, only that we were not as specialized for survival in those areas as the Homo Neandertalensis In most of the old world, Homo Sapiens pretty much expanded in warmer territory.

One of the possible reasons, that I have heard and read, (most of my archaeological studies is focussed on Europe and in particular, Southern Scandinavia) is that the colonization of North Amerca started from an increased population pressure in the Eastern Asia. This could also be a good explanation why the people chose to settle in the cold North America. Another reason, combined with the first, is that the megafauna in America was primarily located in North America and that therefore, people would concentrate there. Middle and South America was also settle quite early, though.

And I think you would actually find a fair amount of specialization across a group of bands/tribe. Where people who are vying for excellence/status specialize in different styles.

So that I certainly agree most people would be some sort of fairly tough, skill heavy type, but there would also be a range of the different classes across the tribe.

One way I handled this in my setting was to create some very brief three level culture classes that actually functioned as anti-prestige classes. They were proficiency light, just the native weapons and armors, and skill heavy, in some of them you got skill points unmodofied by intelligence so that regardless of intelligence everyone in the tribe would get a decent surival check, and class features were useful but lame, bonuses to hide in certain environments, etc.

The overall purpose was to create something tailored to specific environments and lifestyles that would be in between the PC and NPC classes so that you could understand that everyone was a bad ass whilst also appreciating the overwhelming importance of PC style heroes in the setting.

It looks like a good way of doing it, but I still prefer the generic classes. I am not a fan of creating specialized classes for cultures or organizations, so I often try to avoid that, exept in certain situations, where I think they make sense (Monks in an Oriental setting, for example). The main problem with using the generic classes is that it is problematic if you want PRC's. It can be done with a bit of tinkering. Another way of during it could be using the Modern classes, though I think that the generic classes is better at showing the diversity among ordinary humans

A problem could arise if you chose to use a animalistic/spiritual beliefsystem. Especially if you wanted the spiritual world seperated from ours. Astral Projection is a ninth level spell and is the best way of simulating the spriritual journey that a shaman would take, when communing with the spirits. It makes it difficult to use shamans in a normal D&D setting. You could use Plane Shift, but that is not, IMHO, as flavourable choice and ignores the shamanistic traditions.

 

[warlord]

It seems that using the Conan d20 system would work for a stone age campaign. Its grim and gritty just like life in the stone age.

 

[talinthas]

The dragonlance Barbarians Trilogy by Thompson and Cook explores pretty thoroughly the evolution of humanity in that setting, in an interesting way. Stuff like metal being discovered through dragon scales at first, and the tribe being fostered by a good dragon, elves having crude iron technology but keeping it from the humans, etc.

Classwise, you have your hunters, your experts, your shamans (ambient casters probably work better, as they are less structured) and the laypeople. Magic Items could exist in such a scenario- perhaps a tree struck by lightning could become the source for a wand of lightning if the proper rituals and prayers are performed. Similarly, charms and such would involve lots of cave paintings and secret ceremonies to ensnare the spirit of the target.

There is a lot of potential in such an era.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

It looks like a good way of doing it, but I still prefer the generic classes. I am not a fan of creating specialized classes for cultures or organizations, so I often try to avoid that, exept in certain situations, where I think they make sense (Monks in an Oriental setting, for example). The main problem with using the generic classes is that it is problematic if you want PRC's. It can be done with a bit of tinkering. Another way of during it could be using the Modern classes, though I think that the generic classes is better at showing the diversity among ordinary humans

Your theories on this are pretty different from what I'm familiar with, but then again my information is pretty old. And it may just be a question of comparitive values, as I'm certain the tundra is better than the pine forest, but the warm plains might be better than both.

The other issue is that there is a huge difference in flavor, if nothing else, between a band that subsists on bison and a band that waits for the tuna cactus season. So I felt that lifestyle based anti-prestige classes gave you an easy way to reflect that without having to do that much retooling.

Then again it may just be that I prefer six fast and easy classes where you're willing to take the work to make three more robust ones.

My problem with the DMG classes is that they really don't reflect the skills and abilities that people would need in a such a society. They reflect medieval stuff nicely, but not so great for hunter gatherers.

But I'm not terribly familiar with the UA generic classes so I might be missing something here.

Modern classes would be all right, but I guess I see most of the diversity as being environmental.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Conan the RPG would be pretty good.

The way it puts together races, favoured classes, honor, terror, and armor as DR all make a lot of sense to me for the stone age.

Though in some ways its almost too combat oriented. For stone age I'd like to make the players behave very tricksy.

I really like the Dragonlance bit, the integration of Stone Age with DnD ecologies is at once the trickiest and most intriguing aspect of this scenario.

Magic I actually have less trouble since most stone age cultures are at least stereotypically good at integrating it.