For me, if I were creating a nomadic steppe culture, I probably would use the Turks or Mongols as the base inspiration, but then would mix things up a bit. Steppe cultures generally have pretty similar lifestyles, there’s only so many professions your people can support when you’re constantly migrating with your herds, but I would definitely work in some new magical and religious elements. For fantasy elements, they store their yurts in bags of holding, or have magical breeds of horses, like Pegasi or fey horses. Or maybe I’d just make my world’s Centaurs have this culture. For religion, they might be polytheistic and especially venerate the world’s Traveler, War, Commerce or Horse/Nature gods. Or have some connection to to the 4 Elements. I’d probably give them some special funeral rites, depending on which religion I choose. I’d definitely make them have an important role in the setting, maybe as a new invading empire like the Huns or Mongols.My cultures tend to resemble a blend of various basic archetypes (My nomadic grassland horse clans have various similarities to pretty much every real-world temperate nomadic culture as well as both the Dothraki and the Riders of Rohan), as I take a very holistic approach to designing them, taking into consideration everything from geography to geology to evolution to philosophy and letting them develop organically - which means they often go in directions I wasn't quite expecting.
Especially since I also go at it from the other end as well, coming up with specific things or introducing things and ideas I've found elsewhere or been inspired by, and then trying to reverse-engineer them to figure out how a culture arrived at point B from point A.
Working forward from the beginning and backward from the present at the same time like building a puzzle from the outer border inwards usually ends up peeling off a couple of new ideas in the process...![]()
No we won't. Nobody has ever done this in the history of arguments. Could you point to the study that proves this is correct? or do you finally admit that you are just making this up? The older arguments were more authentic anyway. If you're going to argue about arguments, the argument is over before it starts. Also, bounded accuracy.Wow. People will literally argue about anything.
Like hell we will. Begone with your anti-syllogist nonsense.Wow. People will literally argue about anything.
Well, if no one else is going to do it I shall paraphrase the Masters:Wow. People will literally argue about anything.
Ugh. . . It was so far down. . . . Went out to walk the dog and there it was back at the top like a zombie having crawled from the grave.Ever "watch" a thread with the hope that it finally falls off the first page and it rightly forgotten?
Now I know which thread it is!Ugh. . . It was so far down. . . . Went out to walk the dog and there it was back at the top like a zombie having crawled from the grave.
No, but I'm currently watching a couple which have veered rather far off course, out of morbid fascination as to where they will end up.Ever "watch" a thread with the hope that it finally falls off the first page and it rightly forgotten?