Carnivorous Races

[Tetsubo]

I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about the
logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
see in many fantasy games or films. That ogres or hill giants are good
examples of carnivorous races that make sense. But you aren't going to
have Tolkien sized orc armies. Any thoughts?

Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4ze0QrNpM
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/11/13 4:25 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about
> the logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
> see in many fantasy games or films.

Well, we Americans eat a lot of meat and we seem able to maintain a
large force. OBLIGATE carnivores are a bit harder, but not impossible.
They'll need large farms for food, obviously.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:20:35 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>On 5/11/13 4:25 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
>> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about
>> the logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
>> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
>> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
>> see in many fantasy games or films.
>
> Well, we Americans eat a lot of meat and we seem able to maintain a
>large force. OBLIGATE carnivores are a bit harder, but not impossible.
>They'll need large farms for food, obviously.

Alternately, constant raids on the neighbors to restock the larders.

Those aren't other civilizations the orcs are attacking; they are
their /farms/. ;-)

[Tetsubo]

On 5/11/2013 9:20 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/11/13 4:25 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
>> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about
>> the logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
>> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
>> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
>> see in many fantasy games or films.
>
> Well, we Americans eat a lot of meat and we seem able to maintain a
> large force. OBLIGATE carnivores are a bit harder, but not impossible.
> They'll need large farms for food, obviously.
>
>

You would need *huge* farms to supply an army of carnivores. Farms so
large I don't think you could maintain them in a non-modern setting.
There is a reason that carnivores only make up a very small percentage
of the animal population. I see omnivores as the best design for an
intelligent race. Lots of options.

[tussock]

Tetsubo wrote:

> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about the
> logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
> see in many fantasy games or films. That ogres or hill giants are good
> examples of carnivorous races that make sense. But you aren't going to
> have Tolkien sized orc armies. Any thoughts?

Of Tolkien Orcs (drinking their special go-juice), D&D Orcs (originally
portrayed as the only "evil" race with trade caravans hauling grains), or
Warhammer Orcs (who are highly psionic plants and live on sunlight and
WAAAGH); none are great meat eaters.

Goblins eat garbage and filth, Drow eat shrooms, Dwarves are all
shepards who live on Ale, Grimlocks seem to live on darkness, Dragons are
fusion reactors, Devils eat your fear, ....


Oh, right, physics. Yeh, meat eaters who grow to more than about 5% of
the mass of the food stock are going to wipe them out and then starve, which
happens now and then IRL (the breeding rate of the food is always better
than the predator, to stabalise things). The grain eaters can make about the
same weight as that food stock (they may even /be/ the food stock), plus or
minus a bit for planning.
So if there are Giants, they'd use about (10.5/5.75)^2 = 3.33 times as
much food energy as us, and if they mostly eat meat and we mostly eat grain
there'll be at most 67 farming people for every hunter Hill Giant on similar
land.

But then grain farmers also use and need meat animals, and hunters are
by neccesity gatherers of wild seeds, fruits, and nuts. Give the worse land
to the Giants and you're still in the right ballpark.

Let the Giants take over the best lowlands and grow Potatoes with plows
they can pull themselves, you might find there's more Gaints that Humans.

> Here is the link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4ze0QrNpM

And if there's only one decent hero for every 100 peasants, the Hill
Giants win anyway. As long as they can all fight, and grow up strong as fast
as Heroes do.

--
tussock

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/11/13 10:43 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 9:20 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 5/11/13 4:25 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
>>> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about
>>> the logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
>>> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
>>> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
>>> see in many fantasy games or films.
>>
>> Well, we Americans eat a lot of meat and we seem able to maintain a
>> large force. OBLIGATE carnivores are a bit harder, but not impossible.
>> They'll need large farms for food, obviously.
>>
>>
>
> You would need *huge* farms to supply an army of carnivores. Farms
> so large I don't think you could maintain them in a non-modern setting.

Or a setting with, oh, I don't know... MAGIC?

Really, if you look at the world as though it's restricted to what we
could do given the same technology, and ignore the existence of gods and
magic...

[Tetsubo]

I like the standard races to be biologically possible. Or at least
plausible. And the protein requirements of a large population of pure
meat-eaters breaks immersion for me. The 'its magic' mechanism shouldn't
be used without cause in my opinion. And I see this as an instance of
using it without just cause. Now, a race that lives on pure magic,
'consuming' nothing else, *that* could be interesting. But orc hordes
that use magic to create endless supplies of meat just seems silly. If
you can do that, you can do all sorts of things. Ones that make the
trope of orc horde invasions seems absurd. The butterfly effect. Make a
small change and it can have huge consequences.

[Thomas Prufer]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:26:20 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> Or a setting with, oh, I don't know... MAGIC?
>
> Really, if you look at the world as though it's restricted to what we
>could do given the same technology, and ignore the existence of gods and
>magic...
>

How about the modern urban legend, "Animal 57"?

(This a is a (legendary) hunk of meat grown floating in tanks, reported to be
the source for McNuggets/KFC chicken/<#fast food place serving meat>.)

Just a tiny little bit of magic and nicely gruesome, and I'd accept it as
sufficently plausible in a game setting.


Thomas Prufer

[Harold Groot]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 00:53:39 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:

As far back as 1E we had the magic spell STONE TO FLESH. So when there
was a widespread famine, my Magic User went over to the nearest
outcrop of rock and cast the spell. 9 cubic feet per level, I think
my character was 14th level at the time, so a single 6th level spell
produced 126 cubic feet of meat. You can feed a thousands of people
that way.

That doesn't mean that that HAS to be the way that Orc tribes feed
their armies - but don't rule it out, either.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

It would be silly to me too, and your assumption of it is also silly.

With magic, you can have farms which do what high-tech modern farms do
-- produce lots more with far less labor. Nothing ridiculous or
biologically impossible. Magic can *SUBSTITUTE* for technology in many
circumstances; in quite a few, it can drastically *improve* on technology.

Obviously such a race didn't *start out* doing that, but as their
population gets larger, that's what they started to figure out how to do
-- in order to address the very problems you're concerned with.

[Tetsubo]

I can agree with your assessment. Any such race though is not going to
be the 'invade the neighbors in hordes' type. If they are that advanced
they would be the equivalent to Kryptonians (pre-cataclysm). That also
goes beyond where I weant most D&D style campaigns to be. I like mine to
be more of the classic pseudo-medieval style.

[Tetsubo]

But is it kosher...

Which makes me realize there is no Stone To Plant spell.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Why? They'd be, at most, the equivalent of us, today. And invading in
hordes is a choice, not a matter of advancement.

[Tetsubo]

If they have that level of technical sophistication to cover meat
requirements they have enough technical sophistication to solve any
resource problem. Which puts them ahead of us. Invading is often a
resource issue. Solve the resource issue and invading becomes a lot less
attractive. If everyone is fat & happy, there aren't a lot of wars.

[Rast]

Tetsubo wrote...

> I like the standard races to be biologically possible. Or at least
> plausible. And the protein requirements of a large population of pure
> meat-eaters breaks immersion for me.

But you play a game where, in defiance of biology, psychology,
evolution, and basic physics, male and female humans are equally adept
at deadly combat with melee weapons. A game with a default setting
like Medieval Europe, except full of people with 21st-century attitudes
towards race, sex, and sexuality.

The other day I was reading a review of "Beyond the Sea Gate of the
Scholar Pirates of Sarskoe", an excellent short story by Garth
Williams. It's a nautical tale, but the reviewer pointed out,
correctly I think, that predicting tides would be impossible in a world
with three moons. Apparently this bothered the reviewer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

I just rolled my eyes and enjoyed the story...

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Er... why? We could do the same.

[Tetsubo]

I disagree. The level of technology to achieve what you speak of via
magic is ahead of us. We are not close to the 'solve all resource
issues'. I would rather just avoid this entire problem by keeping a
truly carnivorous race in small, easily handled numbers. With the
occasional population burst that leads to war, conflict, eventual
collapse. It suits my needs better and avoids the technical
extrapolation issue.

This is like Star Trek where they introduce some neat technology to
solve an issue in an episode and then forget it ever existed. They never
take things to their logical conclusion. I have seen a lot of that in
fiction. It is one of the reasons I no longer read it.

[David Lamb]

On 11/05/2013 4:25 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
> But you aren't going to have Tolkien sized orc armies.

I don't recall orcs being purely carnivorous. Is that canon? The movie
might have taken some liberties but I recall the line from Two Towers
where the boss orc says "meat's back on the menu, boys!". Implied they
would eat other stuff, too.

[David Lamb]

On 12/05/2013 12:17 PM, Rast wrote:
> the reviewer pointed out,
> correctly I think, that predicting tides would be impossible in a world
> with three moons. Apparently this bothered the reviewer.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

What sort of calculational technology was available in the story? Seems
to me from the wikipedia article that numerical approximations work well
enough; you don't need a closed form solution.

> I just rolled my eyes and enjoyed the story...

So would I, I suspect.

[Tetsubo]

I was making the reference for the size of the army. I have no idea
what Tolkien's orcs ate.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Only because you interpreted it that way. I said "replace technology",
not "do funky stuff that we can't do in some ludicrous way".

You seem to be thinking I'm saying "wave your hands and make food",
while I'm saying "increase yields and reduce needed manpower just like
we do."

[Tetsubo]

And I am saying if you use magic in that way, there will be unexpected
consequences. That if you extrapolate such 'technology' further than
food production it would change everything. I am also saying that people
often fail to do this. Fail to follow where technology can lead. If
magic can produce all the food a people need, that is a game changer.
*Nothing* would be the same as it is in a traditional gaming setting.
Magic has fewer boundaries. It is not just a technology replacement. It
has fewer, if any, limits.

[Harold Groot]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:34:50 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Tetsubo

I don't see where you can draw such a conclusion (that races that have
enough food/resources are automatically not going to be "invade the
neighbors" types). If you look at D&D orcs and the history of Grumsh
(how the other gods tried to cheat him by claiming all the lands of
the world), it is very easy to model their "invade the neighbors"
policy as a religious jihad rather than a search for resources. Having
more resources available in their homeland doesn't prevent war, it
just makes a war come SOONER.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <kmohl9$v43$2...@dont-email.me>,
"in another place" *,
dal...@cs.queensu.ca "David Lamb" wondered:

- there's no such line in the book; but, whilst i don't believe
that tolkien's orcs should be obliged to conform to jackson's
invention, the uruk hai - the orcs under ugluk, from isengard -
did carry hard, grey bread with them on their raid, together
with dried meat. merry and pippin were fed both, once the orcs
stopped for long enough to sort themselves and their captives
out, and forcibly given some restorative draught by ugluk, who
also smeared gunk onto merry's forehead, treating his wound.
ugluk cheered the orcs to look forward to feasting on horse-
flesh "or something better", once they'd dealt with the horse-
devils; they were doomed to be disappointed on this point, though...

- somewhat later on, and many miles away, gorbag suggests that
frodo's worthless, save for adding to the pot; shagrat, captain
of the tower, disagrees with him (not only because of specific
orders from lugburz), and orders his clothed, cold body be taken
to the secure room at the top of his tower, intact & unsearched,
whilst he organises the sending of a messenger to lugburz (the
barad-dur). the orcs siezed the remnants of the food frodo had
from ithilien, so presumably they found it palatable; but they
hated the lembas from lorien, and trampled it all over the floor.

- so i think you can safely act on the basis that orcs are
omnivores, pretty much like humans - but'll accept beef, horse-
flesh or mutton, and can subsist on soups and stews made from
pulses, vegetables, seeds and whosever meat or bones they can
scrounge to flavour 'em.

- but the question of how a militarist culture could develop
amongst obligate carnivores is a great one, and could provide
the basis for very interestingly nasty settings into which to
lead a party of adventurers.

- and it's one that i think'd be fun developing more generally.

- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
[* - n.b. cross-posted; follow-up set to afp at the moment]
--
"The Dinner was loose again."
- _Chanur's Homecoming_, C. J. Cherryh, 1987
Phantasia, Daw & Methuen Books

[LL]

On 11.05.2013 10:25, Tetsubo wrote:
> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about
> the logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
> see in many fantasy games or films. That ogres or hill giants are good
> examples of carnivorous races that make sense. But you aren't going to
> have Tolkien sized orc armies. Any thoughts?

I read somewhere that the neandertals were less successful than our
species and got extinct because they needed more meat than homo sapiens
sapiens. They were almost exclusive carnivores according to this theory.

Small numbers of predators is one possibility.
Others are small size compared to their prey and long periods of
hibernation or something similar, allowing the population of the prey to
recover between hunting seasons.

LL

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

But not necessarily to "way beyond us". We can do this stuff, and a lot
more besides, because our world logically extrapolates that technology
in the most detailed way possible -- because it's a real world.

> traditional gaming setting. Magic has fewer boundaries. It is not just a
> technology replacement. It has fewer, if any, limits.
>

It has PLENTY of limits. Most obvious being that it requires an
individual person to be doing the basic work. You can't stamp out
magical items on an assembly line with ten thousand workers doing the
grunt-work, because they'd have to be mages themselves and there aren't
that many mages available, and certainly not that many willing to work
for assembly-line wages.

[Magewolf]

The Vorenk are a carnivorous horde that rely on the vast farms and
superior grazing land that come from their worship of the Greater Plant
God Wiwopoo.Wiwopoo is a kind and gentle god who loves his worshipers
and goes to great lengths to see that they are well fed since that is
all he can do for them .Unfortunately he only accepts worshipers who
have never eaten any plants in there entire life and turns his back on
any who start to eat plants.


There you go,no super magic or supermen needed.

[Seebs]

On 2013-05-12, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> But not necessarily to "way beyond us". We can do this stuff, and a lot
> more besides, because our world logically extrapolates that technology
> in the most detailed way possible -- because it's a real world.

Yes. And the fact is, if you tried to convince someone living in the 1900s
that we could feed 300+ million people with only something like 2% of them
working in agriculture, and the largest problem would be figuring out where
to store the excess food until it rots (but we have to pay people to grow
it to keep people employed in agriculture)... That's a heck of a lot less
plausible than stuff like "we can travel from New York to London in a few
hours" or "there's a guy in space recording covers of popular songs".

> It has PLENTY of limits. Most obvious being that it requires an
> individual person to be doing the basic work. You can't stamp out
> magical items on an assembly line with ten thousand workers doing the
> grunt-work, because they'd have to be mages themselves and there aren't
> that many mages available, and certainly not that many willing to work
> for assembly-line wages.

I wonder if there might be if someone were willing to set up an indentured
servitude deal for people with an int of 12 or higher.

You know, on the back of the matchbook, there's a DC 22 Search puzzle.
CAN YOU FIND SKIPPY? IF SO WRITE TO...

-s
--
Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
Autism Speaks does not speak for me. http://http://autisticadvocacy.org/
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[Justisaur]

On May 11, 1:25 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>         I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about the
> logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
> like  a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you

> see in many fantasy games or films. That ogres or hill giants are good
> examples of carnivorous races that make sense. But you aren't going to
> have Tolkien sized orc armies. Any thoughts?

Most humanoids in my worlds are omnivores, and actually better at it
than humans being able to eat and subsist on things that would be too
rotten for humans. Orcs are like pigs, they'll eat just about
anything including shit. Goblinoids are much more efficient digesters
than humans and need less to eat. Trolls are at least part plant and
can go extended periods on thier last meal if supplied with sunlight &
water. Giants at least beyond Hill are all magical so who knows what
they eat. Of course they all prefer meat, much as most humans do if
given the choice, and aren't as picky about it, or where it comes
from.

About the only somewhat more common races I can think of that are
purely carnivores are Gnolls, but they can eat carrion, and they are
in extremely small numbers compared to the other races. Lizardmen
too, although certain tribes I might see as being able to eat
vegetables, but not grain.

- Justisaur

[Ubiquitous]

In article <kmkv2s$99a$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:

> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about the
> logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
> see in many fantasy games or films. That ogres or hill giants are good
> examples of carnivorous races that make sense. But you aren't going to
> have Tolkien sized orc armies. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure about Orcs, but Mind Flayers (Illithid) are purely
carnivores.

Your article reminds me of something I read in Dragon that dealt with the
mathematics of that and birth rate.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:kmmjru$bkf$1...@dont-email.me:

One does, eventually, have to consider the willing suspension of
disbelief, though.

I could see such a setting for say, a Lovecraftianesque dystopia,
or maybe a comdey setting (or maybe both at the same time), but for
a serious fantasy setting, I'd have to see it work to believe it.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:kmn71f$7a5$1...@dont-email.me:

Now I'm getting a mental image of a horde of fat, slovenly orc
teenagers with Cheet(ah)(os) stains on their fingers, sitting in
the basement of their parents' cave, playing megical video games.

If the game's going to be *just* like the gamers, why bother with
the game?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:kmocng$15k$3...@dont-email.me:

We had a metal to rubber spell. The Rubber Golem was . . . kinda
interesting, especially after it was made mayor of the town.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:kmo0s6$3o0$1...@dont-email.me:

Even with modern technology, meat producing animal herds take a
*lot* of acreage to support them.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:kmokp6$15k$8...@dont-email.me:

> And I am saying if you use magic in that way, there will be
> unexpected
> consequences.

Unless one of the *intended* consequences is to ignore any unintended
consequences.

For my own gaming, I generally agree with you - I prefer works that
make *more* sense when you think about the, not *less*.

Not everyone has the same preferences.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:kmp6ro$p74$2...@dont-email.me:

Unless, of course, the gamemaster says, you know, there are.

[tussock]

LL wrote:

> I read somewhere that the neandertals were less successful than our
> species and got extinct because they needed more meat than homo sapiens
> sapiens. They were almost exclusive carnivores according to this theory.

You know what else went extinct when we came along? Almost everything,
no matter what it ate. Anyhoo, that particular sub-species likely wasn't as
good at the running and spear-throwing as us. Only by a small margin, but
enough to matter over hundreds of generations of competition. It's not like
our lot were farming yet anyway, still a few millenia to go before folk
figured that out.
And they may have cross-bread anyway. Maybe. Likely could have at least.

--
tussock

[Gordon Burditt]

> The other day I was reading a review of "Beyond the Sea Gate of the
> Scholar Pirates of Sarskoe", an excellent short story by Garth
> Williams. It's a nautical tale, but the reviewer pointed out,
> correctly I think, that predicting tides would be impossible in a world
> with three moons. Apparently this bothered the reviewer.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

How would you feel about the possibility (in the real world) of a
mechanical computer from about 2,000 years ago used to predict
eclipses and various astronomical events? Granted, the Earth, Sun,
Moon and various planets don't interact as strongly as three moons
would, but predicting eclipses takes a lot more accuracy than
predicting tides.

It's well before Newton. There are questions about how they could
fashion gears accurately enough. It also seems to require a lot
more astronomical knowledge than people of that time are given
credit for by modern historians.

PBS NOVA describes such a device found on a Greek ship in an episode
called "Ancient Computer". It wasn't recovered intact so there may
be a lot more that it could do, or functions we haven't figured out
yet.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<qPqdnQ4FgM62VgzM...@posted.internetamerica>,
"in another place"
gordon...@burditt.org "Gordon Burditt" enquired:

- the innards of the antikythera device have been investi-
gated and a working copy made: iiuc it worked better, once
what had at first been presumed inaccurately made (or worn
down) parts in the original, and modelled more precisely,
were modified to more accurately reproduce the degrees of
freedom possessed by the original parts. and a method of
cutting and shaping gear wheels and their teeth to the re-
quired accuracy that was within the technical and technol-
ogical abilities of late classical greek metal-working has
also been demonstrated. observations by the naked eye of
the planets out to saturn had been made with sufficient acc-
uracy and over sufficient length of time for their, the sun
and the moon's motion to've been predictable also: i believe
a plausible explanation of how the device came to have ended
up in the shipwreck with which it is associated has also
been made, and a stab at identifying who may have designed it.

- and all without the invocation of ancient spacemen or gods!

- love, a ppint. as suspects only the absence of glass [a]
prevented the inclusion of the galilean satellites & uranus

[a] - and possibly of earwigs, or a particular hero earwig - ?

n.b. cross-posted, with follow-up currently set to a.b.t-h

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]

--
"sunspots are important because scientists now know
they can affect the british climate."
- horizon: global weirding, bbc4, 20:35 bst (19:35 gmt) 2/4/13

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

An excellent reason to unleash your hordes on your neighbors who are
using THEIR acreage to raise veggies.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

news:kmt7em$gu1$1...@dont-email.me:

As has been noted, if one things these things through, there are a
*lot* of profound consequences to a large population of carnivores.
For those who *do* think it through, it brease WSOD. You, clearly,
in a game, do not feel the need to think it through. And that's
fine. Some, however, *do* need or want to think it through.

You should not game with these people. They should not game with
you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in
news:t2c76ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY:

> LL wrote:
>
>> I read somewhere that the neandertals were less successful than
>> our species and got extinct because they needed more meat than
>> homo sapiens sapiens. They were almost exclusive carnivores
>> according to this theory.
>
> You know what else went extinct when we came along? Almost
> everything,

For values of "almost everything" that amounts of maybe 1% of
species, over the entire existence of mankind. And, honestly, given
that we have catalogued nearly two million species so far, and
estimate there are several times as many more still to be discovered,
I have doubts on that.

> no matter what it ate. Anyhoo, that particular sub-species
> likely wasn't as good at the running and spear-throwing as us.
> Only by a small margin, but enough to matter over hundreds of
> generations of competition. It's not like our lot were farming
> yet anyway, still a few millenia to go before folk figured that
> out.
> And they may have cross-bread anyway. Maybe. Likely could
> have at least.
>

There is increasing evidence they did exatly that. Nearly everyone
outside of Africa has at least some neandertal DNA, apparently.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in
news:qPqdnQ4FgM62VgzM...@posted.internetamerica:

>> The other day I was reading a review of "Beyond the Sea Gate of
>> the Scholar Pirates of Sarskoe", an excellent short story by
>> Garth Williams. It's a nautical tale, but the reviewer pointed
>> out, correctly I think, that predicting tides would be
>> impossible in a world with three moons. Apparently this
>> bothered the reviewer.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
>
> How would you feel about the possibility (in the real world) of
> a mechanical computer from about 2,000 years ago used to predict
> eclipses and various astronomical events? Granted, the Earth,
> Sun, Moon and various planets don't interact as strongly as
> three moons would, but predicting eclipses takes a lot more
> accuracy than predicting tides.
>
> It's well before Newton. There are questions about how they
> could fashion gears accurately enough. It also seems to require
> a lot more astronomical knowledge than people of that time are
> given credit for by modern historians.

"Predicting things mathmatically" and "predicting things based on
centuries of millennia of observation" are not the same thing.

Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system was significantly
less accurate than the ptolemaic tables for at least a hundred years,
until Newton invented calculus.

[Joanna Rowland Stuart]

In article <kmkv2s$99a$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net (Tetsubo)
wrote:

> Specifically about the
> logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time
> meat eaters.

The usual way - breed LARGE populations of captive animal fodder. Feed
the fodder on basic food (vast underground caverns of mushrooms?) Spice
it up with slaves who can't / won't work.

Cheers
JOanna

[Joanna Rowland Stuart]

In article <kmll81$99a$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net (Tetsubo)
wrote:

> You would need *huge* farms to supply an army of carnivores.

Farms? Underground breeding pens. Lack of daylight makes the meat
tenderer. Feed the animals from caves full of mushrooms and algae...

Armies on campaign simply eat captives, or whatever else they can, as an
alternative to salted (and possibly even tinned) meat.

> I see omnivores as the best design for an
> intelligent race
I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have low
populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.

Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would have
to feed off the enemy as much as possible.

It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply. And there's nothing
to say that orcs are solely carnivorous - although presumably it would be
shameful for one to admit to eating anything other than meat...

Cheers
JOanna

[tussock]

Justisaur wrote:

> Tetsubo wrote:

>> I recently did a video about carnivorous races. Specifically about the
>> logistical nightmare of feeding a large population of full-time meat
>> eaters. It is my thought that such a race can work on a small scale,
>> like a wolf pack population but not on the large, army sized lots you
>> see in many fantasy games or films. That ogres or hill giants are good
>> examples of carnivorous races that make sense. But you aren't going to
>> have Tolkien sized orc armies. Any thoughts?
>
> Most humanoids in my worlds are omnivores, and actually better at it
> than humans being able to eat and subsist on things that would be too
> rotten for humans. Orcs are like pigs, they'll eat just about
> anything including shit. Goblinoids are much more efficient digesters
> than humans and need less to eat. Trolls are at least part plant and
> can go extended periods on thier last meal if supplied with sunlight &
> water.

I use unseelie Trolls, but being some form of intelligent sponge would
suit most of their abilities now you mention it. Surviving being split up,
vulnerable to fire and acid, dumb as dirt. Hmm.

OK, Mr lives on sunlight and air, why you so angry? Occum's razor says
they're still just dark faerie. I'll keep it in mind though.

> Giants at least beyond Hill are all magical so who knows what
> they eat.

Bone-bread, last I heard. My stone giants would have to live on hard
work like Dwarves do, or maybe by throwing rocks. Frost and Fire giants
obviously live on cold and heat eminations, respectivly. Storm giants on
electrical energy.

> Of course they all prefer meat, much as most humans do if given the
> choice, and aren't as picky about it, or where it comes from.

Neither were humans, any time food was scarce. Hell, still aren't.

> About the only somewhat more common races I can think of that are
> purely carnivores are Gnolls, but they can eat carrion, and they
> are in extremely small numbers compared to the other races.

Illithid eat braaaaains, and feed the rest to their Grimlocks (who live
on darkness, but like the taste). Even more rare outside PC-adventure-land.

Wait, it's not Grimlocks who live on darkness, it's Gibberlings. Duh.

> Lizardmen too, although certain tribes I might see as being able to
> eat vegetables, but not grain.

Lizardmen are cold blooded, so that cuts their food requirements
massively. Also, their typical homes are rather full of fish-life.

--
tussock

[tussock]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

>> The other day I was reading a review of "Beyond the Sea Gate of the
>> Scholar Pirates of Sarskoe", an excellent short story by Garth
>> Williams. It's a nautical tale, but the reviewer pointed out,
>> correctly I think, that predicting tides would be impossible in a world
>> with three moons. Apparently this bothered the reviewer.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
>
> How would you feel about the possibility (in the real world) of a
> mechanical computer from about 2,000 years ago used to predict
> eclipses and various astronomical events?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Pfft. Analogue. Funniest bit, it was complex enough that no one realised
it was complex at all for a century after discovery. Plus, corroded. 8]

> Granted, the Earth, Sun, Moon and various planets don't interact
> as strongly as three moons would, but predicting eclipses takes a
> lot more accuracy than predicting tides.

No it doesn't, they're about the same, and eclipses would be much easier
than tides with a few harmonic moons. Eclipses are noting how the lunar and
seasonal cycles match up, finding some useful ratios, and bang, there you
go. Tides are noting how the lunar cycle and day cycle match up, finding
some useful ratios, and bang, there you go.

Tides don't generalise though, your neighbour's tide tables don't work
for you at all. Each port has to figure out their own peculiarities,
particularly for spring and neap tides, and then there's weather effects,
and when all the other far more subtle driving forces happen to stack or
cancel and you get wierd changes.

Hell, long records of lunar eclipses are how people first calculated the
exact phases of the moon anyway, only way they could be known as precisely
as they were throughout the ancient world.

--
tussock

[David Lamb]

On 15/05/2013 12:01 AM, Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
> It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply. And there's nothing
> to say that orcs are solely carnivorous - although presumably it would be
> shameful for one to admit to eating anything other than meat...

I was under the impression that predator/prey relationships are cyclic,
with "breeding beyond the food supply" a problem on both sides.

[Tetsubo]

Yep. I just didn't want to unpack that one myself.

--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

*ALL* animals breed beyond their food supply unless their predators or
disease kills them off faster than they can breed. As you say, the usual
cycle is that the prey breed to the limit, this allows a boom in
predators, the predators eventually eat the population of prey down,
predators die off, prey begins another boom, lather, rinse, repeat.

Human beings happen to be the absolute top dogs on the planet; we can
eat virtually everything, and there is nothing that regularly dares prey
on us. The only things that threaten us, besides ourselves, are diseases
to which we have little resistance. However, all diseases I know of have
at least some percentage of the population resistant and/or immune to
their effect; they may have a 99% mortality rate, but that 1% refuses to
go down. Given population growth rates, even such a disease isn't going
to keep the population down for more than a few generations.

[Jim Davies]

On the grave of LL <Loren...@invalid.invalid> is inscribed:

>I read somewhere that the neandertals were less successful than our
>species and got extinct because they needed more meat than homo sapiens
>sapiens. They were almost exclusive carnivores according to this theory.

That would seem pretty trivial to disprove: had they been carnivores,
they'd have had carnivore teeth. IIRC they didn't.

--
Jim

http://www.aaargh.org

[tussock]

Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:

> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> You would need *huge* farms to supply an army of carnivores.
> Farms? Underground breeding pens. Lack of daylight makes the meat
> tenderer. Feed the animals from caves full of mushrooms and algae...

Now all you need is an energy source, which is where that underground
radiation thing comes from.

> Armies on campaign simply eat captives, or whatever else they can, as an
> alternative to salted (and possibly even tinned) meat.

Mobile medieval armies didn't carry much food at all, they just took
what they wanted from whatever the locals left behind when they fled. That
only ended when armies got too big to reliably support themselves through
pilliage.
Sieges are another story, but in general they'd be fed from the
surrounds for a few weeks until proper supplies could be organised.
Conditions were typically much easier for those inside the fortification,
where heavy and hard-to-move food stocks already existed, at least for a few
months (and resupply for the defenders was easier because there was so few
of them in comparison).

>> I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
> I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have low
> populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
>
> Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would have
> to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
>
> It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.

Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything /except/ humans reproduces as hard
as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting thier own food
supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost all of your
children starve to death is the /norm/. Plants are even worse, naturally.

--
tussock

[tussock]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> tussock wrote:
>> LL wrote:
>>
>>> I read somewhere that the neandertals were less successful than
>>> our species and got extinct because they needed more meat than
>>> homo sapiens sapiens. They were almost exclusive carnivores
>>> according to this theory.
>>
>> You know what else went extinct when we came along? Almost
>> everything,
>
> For values of "almost everything" that amounts of maybe 1% of
> species, over the entire existence of mankind. And, honestly, given
> that we have catalogued nearly two million species so far, and
> estimate there are several times as many more still to be discovered,
> I have doubts on that.

But the megaherbivores and their predators are sooooo coool. 8[

Well, they're big, slow piles of protien that hominids killed off using
early stone-age technology. But you know what I mean. Huge. Like whales only
easier to get at, and a lot smaller. Elephants, that's what I'm looking for.

>> no matter what it ate. Anyhoo, that particular sub-species
>> likely wasn't as good at the running and spear-throwing as us.
>> Only by a small margin, but enough to matter over hundreds of
>> generations of competition. It's not like our lot were farming
>> yet anyway, still a few millenia to go before folk figured that
>> out.
>> And they may have cross-bread anyway. Maybe. Likely could
>> have at least.
>
> There is increasing evidence they did exatly that. Nearly everyone
> outside of Africa has at least some neandertal DNA, apparently.

Yes, though the error bars are quite large on that, so yes and no are
both reasonable answers at this point.

--
tussock

[LL]

On 16.05.2013 01:36, Jim Davies wrote:
> That would seem pretty trivial to disprove: had they been carnivores,
> they'd have had carnivore teeth. IIRC they didn't.

Well, they didn't need their teeth to kill animals so their teeth
didn't need to be like carnivore's teeth, for example canines or
felines. Some scientists estimate that their diet was 80% meat.

I googled a bit and found other theories:

- they had bigger eyes and used more brain power for seeing
or processing what they saw. Meaning less brain power for
social interaction, therefore smaller groups, easier for
larger groups of homo sapiens to compete for food, fight them,
drive them away from resources.

- they were assimilated. Because there were much fewer their genes
almost vanished from our (combined) gene pool. Their seem to be
traces of "them" in "us".

LL

[LL]

On 16.05.2013 00:41, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/15/13 5:35 PM, David Lamb wrote:
>> On 15/05/2013 12:01 AM, Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>> It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply. And there's
>>> nothing
>>> to say that orcs are solely carnivorous - although presumably it
>>> would be
>>> shameful for one to admit to eating anything other than meat...
>>
>> I was under the impression that predator/prey relationships are cyclic,
>> with "breeding beyond the food supply" a problem on both sides.
>
> *ALL* animals breed beyond their food supply unless their predators
> or disease kills them off faster than they can breed. As you say, the
> usual cycle is that the prey breed to the limit, this allows a boom in
> predators, the predators eventually eat the population of prey down,
> predators die off, prey begins another boom, lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> Human beings happen to be the absolute top dogs on the planet; we
> can eat virtually everything, and there is nothing that regularly dares
> prey on us.

Parasites. Lice, bugs (big problem in NY I read recently), moskitos, and
many more which are much more unpleasant, but thankfully rare (where I
live). I recommend Peeps by Scott Westerfeld :-)

LL

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I differentiate "prey upon" from "use us as incubators or other
reproductive aids", which is what most parasites do. I could imagine a
group of army ants predating on humans unfortunate enough to get in
their path, but in most cases for a bug to consider human "prey" the bug
would have to be bigger than science allows.

Parasites and disease-carriers are the only real threat we face,
outside of ourselves.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in
news:0n5e6ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>>> LL wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read somewhere that the neandertals were less successful
>>>> than our species and got extinct because they needed more
>>>> meat than homo sapiens sapiens. They were almost exclusive
>>>> carnivores according to this theory.
>>>
>>> You know what else went extinct when we came along? Almost
>>> everything,
>>
>> For values of "almost everything" that amounts of maybe 1% of
>> species, over the entire existence of mankind. And, honestly,
>> given that we have catalogued nearly two million species so
>> far, and estimate there are several times as many more still to
>> be discovered, I have doubts on that.
>
> But the megaherbivores and their predators are sooooo coool.
> 8[

If a bit messy, and smelling a little moldy, sure.

>
> Well, they're big, slow piles of protien that hominids
> killed off using
> early stone-age technology. But you know what I mean. Huge. Like
> whales only easier to get at, and a lot smaller. Elephants,
> that's what I'm looking for.

I believe you can still find a few in Africa and Asia.

>
>>> no matter what it ate. Anyhoo, that particular sub-species
>>> likely wasn't as good at the running and spear-throwing as us.
>>> Only by a small margin, but enough to matter over hundreds of
>>> generations of competition. It's not like our lot were farming
>>> yet anyway, still a few millenia to go before folk figured
>>> that out.
>>> And they may have cross-bread anyway. Maybe. Likely could
>>> have at least.
>>
>> There is increasing evidence they did exatly that. Nearly
>> everyone outside of Africa has at least some neandertal DNA,
>> apparently.
>
> Yes, though the error bars are quite large on that, so yes
> and no are
> both reasonable answers at this point.
>

Hence, "increasing evidence" (since there *is* more of it than
there used to be) rather than "it has been shown."

And it's not an unreasonable premise at all. Mot men would fuck a
knothole in a tree stump if they were sure there were not hornets'
nest inside.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <jg8e6ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:

> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:

[]

>>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
>[]
>>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
>>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
>>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
>>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
>>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>

>Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
>as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own

>food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost

>all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.

- this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
itself. the domestic cat and dog are certainly capable
of destroying local populations of some species, especially
where introduced into "island" (isolated) ecosystems that
previously lacked any comparable predator, as is the humble
hedgehog(!); but iirc the success rate of the big predators'
hunts is around one kill in ten - low enough to be coped
with by the prey species, and the rate of reproduction of
the big predators is low enough to maintain a population
sufficient to expand only relatively slowly, even when one
or more of the prey species increases considerably and rel-
atively quickly. big predators occupy large territories
and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
of whatever species. this is why c.j. cherryh chose her
leonine spacefaring species in the chanur sequence, the hani,
to be primarily a pride-based civilisation, somewhat extended
to a workable kith-based clan structure, naturally somewhat
imperfectly: co-operation is necessary for culture to arise.

- i believe it's mainly in ecologically marginal territories
that they are likely to outbreed their food supply to the
point of death by starvation being anywhere near the norm
for their young. by and large the big cats spend more time
sleeping, lazing, digesting, grooming and playing (especially
females with their young) than hunting - which they would
scarcely do, if starving.

- predator species' weaponry and prey species' defences
tend to co-evolve, maintaining an approximate parity;
domestic cats and their more distant cousins' ability to
expand populations rapidly may be linked to the propensity
of their small mammal prey species populations to explode
occasionally - explode in number, that is, not percussively.
(- though that _would_ make for an *_interesting_* range
of problems for predators and rpg adventurers alike ;-) )

>Plants are even worse, naturally.

- very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any
are known habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.

- love, a ppint. as is excluding sentient & sophont triffids
[n.b. cross-posted; followup currently set to r.g.frp.dnd]

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"The Dinner was loose again."
- _Chanur's Homecoming_, C. J. Cherryh, 1987
Phantasia, Daw & Methuen Books

[Dan Goodman]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:45:38 +0100, ppint. at pplay wrote:

> - very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any are known
> habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.

But what's to keep those few from extreme overpopulation?



--
Dan Goodman

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Thu, 2013-05-16, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
> - hi; in article, <jg8e6ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>> Tetsubo wrote:
> []
>>>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
>>[]
>>>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
>>>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
>>>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
>>>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
>>>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>>
>>Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
>>as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
>>food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
>>all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
>
> - this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
> for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
> obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
> that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
> species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
> itself.

Nor is it true for most birds. Nestlings tend to be fed and survive
that phase (modulo bad weather, the death of a parent etc). Then they
disperse and have to learn to survive on their own. Lots of them die
during the first year, but not because the parents sucked at planning
and should have laid fewer eggs.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Robert Bannister]

On 17/05/13 12:45 AM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
> - hi; in article, <jg8e6ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>> Tetsubo wrote:
> []
>>>> I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
>> []
>>> I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
>>> low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
>>> Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
>>> have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
>>> It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>>
>> Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
>> as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
>> food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
>> all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
>
> - this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
> for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
> obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
> that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
> species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
> itself.

I thought that was the whole point of the wolf & sheep thing that used
to be a little spreadsheet program. The wolves eat the sheep until there
is a sheep shortage. The wolf population drops. Sheep number gradually
build up. Then the wolves eat the sheep again and wolf numbers
increase... I am afraid I rather doubt your assertion about big cats.
Predators will move to find a new range if they can. Sometimes, they are
already too weak to move or the opposition is too strong and they just die.

--
Robert Bannister

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
wrote:
>         - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,

>              sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>
> >              Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
> >>                         Tetsubo wrote:

BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?

> >>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
> >[]
> >>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
> >>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
> >>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
> >>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
> >>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>
> >Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
> >as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
> >food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
> >all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
>
>         - this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true
>         for most pack-hunters;
> for most pack-hunters; i suspect it is not true for most
>         obligate wild carnivore species, as any predator species
>         that destroys one hundred per cent of its possible prey
>         species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
>         itself.

Yes, it is true. Typically, prey populations explode in spring, and
predator population expands one litter-bearing-period later, then the
prey thins out and so do the predators.

Look up "predator prey boom bust cycle".

Prey are rarely if ever hunted to extinction and predators choose
other prey if their preferred game isn't available but change takes
adapting and some just don't manage it.

> the domestic cat and dog are certainly capable
>         of destroying local populations of some species, especially
>         where introduced into "island" (isolated) ecosystems that
>         previously lacked any comparable predator, as is the humble
>         hedgehog(!); but iirc the success rate of the big predators'
>         hunts is around one kill in ten - low enough to be coped
>         with by the prey species, and the rate of reproduction of
>         the big predators is low enough to maintain a population
>         sufficient to expand only relatively slowly, even when one
>         or more of the prey species increases considerably and rel-
>         atively quickly.

Typically more than one predator species hunts in a given area.

> big predators occupy large territories
>         and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
>         itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
>         other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
>         of whatever species.

Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.

> this is why c.j. cherryh chose her
>         leonine spacefaring species in the chanur sequence, the hani,
>         to be primarily a pride-based civilisation, somewhat extended
>         to a workable kith-based clan structure, naturally somewhat
>         imperfectly: co-operation is necessary for culture to arise.

I always thought she chose lions as her model because they were
sufficiently cooperative to have the potential to form a culture,
given whatever event made their brains get big enough for humanoid
intelligence. Notice that in the Chanur, the females do the thinking.

>         - i believe it's mainly in ecologically marginal territories
>         that they are likely to outbreed their food supply to the
>         point of death by starvation being anywhere near the norm
>         for their young.  by and large the big cats spend more time
>         sleeping, lazing, digesting, grooming and playing (especially
>         females with their young) than hunting - which they would
>         scarcely do, if starving.

Where their are prey there are predators. In Africa, the hunting
territories of lions, cheetahs, hyenas, etc. overlap though they
usually don't hunt the same prey. In the Americas you find mountain
lions and grizzlies hunting the same turf as well, though not usually
the same prey at the same time.

>         - predator species' weaponry and prey species' defences
>         tend to co-evolve, maintaining an approximate parity;

That is thought to be why American pronghorn antelope can run so
fast- the American cheetah (now extinct) ate the slower ones.

>         domestic cats and their more distant cousins' ability to
>         expand populations rapidly may be linked to the propensity
>         of their small mammal prey species populations to explode
>         occasionally - explode in number, that is, not percussively.

Yep, the "boom bust cycle".

>         (- though that _would_ make for an *_interesting_* range
>         of problems for predators and rpg adventurers alike ;-) )

A couple years back there was a discussion in rec.arts.sf.science
about exotic biochemistries based on compounds we would call
explosives and whether lifeforms could eat each other "safely". I
suggested that grazers might want to avoid the crabgrass' "detcord"
stems...

> >Plants are even worse, naturally.
>
>         - very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any
>         are known habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.

Plants don't just eat animals...

Do you know how the strangler fig got its name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_plant


Mark L. Fergerson

[Tetsubo]

This got me thinking of the cicada season we are currently entering
here in the Eastern US. Cicadas work on the predator satiation model.
You simply overwhelm your predators with food. They just can't eat all
of your species. The ones that survive live to breed the next
generation. So what if we expand that model to larger creatures. This on
the Tiny or even Small scale. We could be traditional and make them
insectoids. Or we could make them something different, mammals. reptiles
or since this is a fantasy world even humanoids of one type or another.
Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass School of
Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies were the natural
predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch and burst forth from the
earth. The player characters have already moved on like the murder hobos
that they are. They hear a rumor that things have gone pear-shaped in
the province they recently cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
Maybe this infestation is how goblins breed and the survivors grow up
into orcs... hmmm...

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Why is this suddenly being crossposted here to rec.arts.sf.written?

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-17, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This got me thinking of the cicada season we are currently entering
> here in the Eastern US. Cicadas work on the predator satiation model.
> You simply overwhelm your predators with food. They just can't eat all
> of your species. The ones that survive live to breed the next
> generation.

They _also_, interestingly enough, use a model where they're only available
in certain years ... which are a prime number of years apart. 17 is the usual
one but not the only such. The thinking (not that there was any thinking, just
survival, but you know what I mean) was that if your predators are on any
sort of multiyear cycle themselves, they HAVE to match your prime factor or
they'll essentially never see you. (Yearly-cycle predators still have to wait
that many years to see you again, and may have changed their habits in the
meantime or been wiped out or learned to sing.)

Dave, and don't forget the coathanger stage
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[lal_truckee]

On 5/17/13 4:24 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> Why is this suddenly being crossposted here to rec.arts.sf.written?

I think it's because they're arguing without even a waving of hands
toward facts and someone therefore thought the thread belonged in the
Speculative Fiction group.

[Will in New Haven]

It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.

--
Will in New Haven

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<b732a3c3-9f56-4078...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
willre...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:

> n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ppint. at pplay")> wrote:

>> > � � � � �big predators occupy large territories

>> > � � � � and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
>> > � � � � itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
>> > � � � � other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
>> > � � � � of whatever species.
>>
>> � Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>
>It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
>a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.

- indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
of the big cats in africa.

- but lions kill both leopards and cheetahs when they
catch them, hunting them down if they become aware of
them in their territories; and especially, or perhaps
most often successfully, female cheetahs with young.
leopards are probably more liable to survive, being
able to climb trees (habitually taking their kill up
into them also), but lions will force them to leave.

- all cheetahs living today are descended from as few
as a dozen and a half individuals, according to gene-
analysis: i believe they are the most marginal of all
the african big cats. lions and leopards do not eat
the cheetahs & cubs they kill, so they are not preying
upon them.

- love, ppint.
[n.b. was re-cross-posted; follow-up re-set to r.a.sf.wr]

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari fleet.
He is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives, be somewhere else"
- delenn, babylon 5

[Tetsubo]

On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
>> wrote:
>>
>>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
>>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>>
>>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?

I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.

[Tetsubo]

On 5/17/2013 11:41 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
> - hi; in article,
> <b732a3c3-9f56-4078...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> willre...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:
>> n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ppint. at pplay")> wrote:
>>>> big predators occupy large territories
>>>> and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
>>>> itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
>>>> other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
>>>> of whatever species.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
>>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
>>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
>>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>>
>> It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
>> a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
>
> - indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
> of the big cats in africa.

Interesting piece of research I once read speculated that hyenas
co-evolved with the smilodons or saber-toothed tigers. Picking up what
the cats with those huge teeth couldn't eat. Not sure if that is what
happened of course. But the scavenging hyenas survived while the
smilodons did not.

[J. Clarke]

In article <kn7f50$ofm$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net says...

For certain values of "survive". Smilodon was a New World species.
There were also New World hyenas. Neither survived.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 18, 4:50 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 11:41 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >    - hi; in article,

> >       <b732a3c3-9f56-4078-9da3-1c12624af...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> >         willreich...@yahoo.com "Will in New Haven" observed:

> >>                n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>                   ppint. at pplay")> wrote:
> >>>>           big predators occupy large territories
> >>>>          and prey upon migratory animals, as a rule; but hunting is
> >>>>          itself dangerous for them, and they are intolerant of any
> >>>>          other (non-pride member, if lion) big cat in the territory,
> >>>>          of whatever species.
>
> >>>    Nonsense. Lions and cheetahs hunt the same ground, but rarely the
> >>> same prey. Hyenas are less choosy and will steal prey from either
> >>> given the opportunity (usually if there are more hyenas than cats)
> >>> Mind you cheetahs usually hunt in groups of two, but still.
>
> >> It doesn't take two hyenas to drive off a cheetah. A big dog can kill
> >> a cheetah. And between lions and hyenas, prey-stealing goes both ways.
>
> >    - indeed, hyenas kill more than do lion, or any other
> >    of the big cats in africa.
>
>         Interesting piece of research I once read speculated that hyenas
> co-evolved with the smilodons or saber-toothed tigers. Picking up what
> the cats with those huge teeth couldn't eat. Not sure if that is what
> happened of course. But the scavenging hyenas survived while the
> smilodons did not.

Except that hyenas hunt more than they scavenge. I think there ought
to be a word for prey-stealing that differentiates it from picking up
some skin and bones that the predator left behind. Hyenas take kills
from lions (and vice versa) and this is not at all the kind of
activity that vultures and sometimes jackals do when they scavenge.

Also, I am pretty sure that the hyena evolved on a different continent
than ol smiley.

[tussock]

ppint. at pplay wrote:
> tussock asserted:
>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>> Tetsubo wrote:
> []
>>>>I see omnivores as the best design for an intelligent race
>>[]
>>>I agree. However if the carnivorous intelligent races generally have
>>>low populations with lots of prey available, then it's feasible.
>>>Gathering an army would be a massive undertaking and the army would
>>>have to feed off the enemy as much as possible.
>>>It's only humans that breed beyond their food supply.
>>
>> Uh, ***no***. Absolutely everything _except_ humans reproduces as hard
>> as it can at all times and a very common result is exausting their own
>> food supply. Animals *suck* at long-term planning, and having almost
>> all of your children starve to death is the _norm_.
>
> - this is not true for the big cats, and nor is it true for most pack-
> hunters; i suspect it is not true for most obligate wild carnivore
> species, as any predator species that destroys one hundred per cent of its
> possible prey species - or anything remotely resembling this - destroys
> itself.

Yes, it is true. Go google up some vids for nice footage of starving
lion cubs when it gets slightly dry. When the food gets low and they can't
keep up with the pride's attempt to guess where some prey might be, they
fall behind. And they mewl and cry, but their mothers ignore it because
slowing down would doom them all.
And that's pretty normal. Not just lions, but cheetah and leopards who
can't successfully feed their young simply abandon them to slow, pleading
starvation. Wolf cubs the same. Young animals with insufficient food get
very weak, very quick, and that's that. Then they abandon the older adults.
Then any males. Then they abandon any who slow slightly though the tiniest
thorn or scratch. Then they split the pride into smaller family groups. Just
like early humans did in tough times.

Eventually, the food comes back. Some of the prides make it, some don't.
If there's too few predator animals, the prey immediately overproduces and
starves even in good years.

Birds? Yes. Plenty of predatory species use chick #2 as a food source
for chick #1 as the feeding requirements grow, and if it's a bad year after
a couple good ones that still won't help because there's just too many
nests. The local starlings maybe fledge one in five, because we have a
growing season not quite matched to thier breeding cycle.


And even when everything's neatly in balance in ancient stable
ecosystems there's still a lot of starvation, because animals get hurt or
get a bad tooth or arthritis or cataracts or whatever and that leads to
starvation, for them and their young. Older animals don't gracefully pass in
their sleep at a specific point, they /starve to death/ because it got too
hard to stay fed, or get eaten as progressive starvation slows them.

> - i believe it's mainly in ecologically marginal territories that they
> are likely to outbreed their food supply to the point of death by
> starvation being anywhere near the norm for their young.

It's /any/ ecosystem with variation, including significant seasonal
variation. They reintroduced Wolves to the US because the Bison were locally
overbreeding and starving themselves without a predator, which was in turn
destroying the things they fed on, which was cascading in very bad ways.

> by and large the big cats spend more time sleeping, lazing, digesting,
> grooming and playing (especially females with their young)

Uh, since when is a feeding mother ... biology, that's as hungry as
she'll ever be, dude. The food is good that time of year, but she's /busy
catching it to make milk/, or feed it to the young directly.

> than hunting - which they would scarcely do, if starving.

Lioness have d4 cubs per year and breed for around six years. That's 15
cubs each. Most of them starve, a few more killed when a new male turns up,
some more by other species (lots of things opportunistically kill young
predators, including the prey species). It's math, eh, the world is not made
of lions, the /average/ lioness ends up with enough to replace her.

Lioness outside a pride almost always have all their cubs starve,
because they're less efficient, but the drive to try is still there.

Drought cycles in Africa are /mean/. Not just for the skinny people you
see on TV every few years.

>> Plants are even worse, naturally.
>
> - very few plants are obligate carnivores, and scarcely any
> are known habitually to go abroad hunting their prey.

In that plants can produce thousands of seeds all seeking the same patch
of soil and sunlight, and almost all of them eventually starve for lack of
it. Yes, plants starve too, withering and dying just like animals.

--
tussock

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 18, 1:46 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>          - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
> >>>               sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>
> >>>>               Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
> >>>>>                          Tetsubo wrote:
>
> >>    BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
>
>         I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.

That was me- hello again, long time no see!

I really miss the discussions with you and Doc and the others- I
occasionally look in on the group but it just isn't the same. I did
post some pics of a nice sirupate I recently acquired and got some
good feedback but not the help in researching it I was looking for. My
own Google-Fu eventually came through but I'm sure Doc could have
identified who made it. ;>)

> --
> Tetsubo
> Deviant Art:http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
> YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

Nice work on deviant art- I'll get around to the youtube thingy
later today.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Tetsubo]

On 5/19/2013 7:16 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On May 18, 1:46 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/17/2013 6:36 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>> On May 17, 5:17 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 16, 9:45 am, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> - hi; in article, <jg8e6axgn2....@scrub2.WOOLEY>,
>>>>> sc...@clear.net.nz "tussock" asserted:
>>
>>>>>> Joanna Rowland Stuart wrote:
>>>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW is that the Tetsubo that used to hang out in ABPW?
>>
>> I don't know who wrote this, but yes I did used to hang out and post there.
>
> That was me- hello again, long time no see!
>
> I really miss the discussions with you and Doc and the others- I
> occasionally look in on the group but it just isn't the same. I did
> post some pics of a nice sirupate I recently acquired and got some
> good feedback but not the help in researching it I was looking for. My
> own Google-Fu eventually came through but I'm sure Doc could have
> identified who made it. ;>)

I do miss the group. But I am not willing to pay for access. Plus my
time is taken up quite a bit by YouTube now. I also haven't sketched in
a couple of years now.

[William December Starr]

In article <kn4tje$ftt$1...@dont-email.me>,

Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:

> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?

Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?

-- wds

[tussock]

tussock wrote:

> Of Tolkien Orcs (drinking their special go-juice), D&D Orcs
> (originally portrayed as the only "evil" race with trade caravans hauling
> grains), or Warhammer Orcs (who are highly psionic plants and live on
> sunlight and WAAAGH); none are great meat eaters.

I just to correct myself after having occaision to crack the 2nd edition
Monstrous Manual, because everything in there not only eats meat, but
prefers humanoids, and extra-specially *really want* to eat humans. Even the
ones who don't actually need to eat, or especially them.

I gave up checking at the Quaggoth, who, while the author admits lose
most of their fights and end up in the pot themselves, live only on other
underground humanoids. That after specifying they're pregnant for ten months
before having one child. Hey, they also eat their own dead, but that doesn't
work when they're already in someone else's pot!


It's not just that you might struggle to support 20-200 Orcs, it's that
half of them don't work at all unless you assume the entry is full of lies.
Which it clearly is. Quaggoth live on shrooms, which grow on darkness, they
like meat for flavouring their shroom soups, but mostly have to eat ... I
don't know, something poisonous to take advantage of their poison immunity,
giant insects or something.

--
tussock

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>>
>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>
> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.

Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
experience out of this?".

Dave

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/21/13 2:28 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> said:
>>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
>>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
>>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
>>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
>>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
>>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
>>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
>>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>>>
>>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>>
>> Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
>
> Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
> experience out of this?".

Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting; I
wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of collecting
more points.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>

: Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for

: most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
: gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting;
: I wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of
: collecting more points.

What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
you're breaking character.

Of course, that only moves the problem to a different level.
Since the role is being played for points, the issue really isn't
"what's the best way to gather experience points here", but "what's
the best way for me to get experience points without breaking character".
There's still going to be some warpage of the character due to the
meta-level influence on the player *playing* the character. So it's
a sliding scale of 4th-wall breaking until ya can't stands it n'more.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 21, 2:59 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/13 2:28 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-05-21, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/20/13 10:42 PM, William December Starr wrote:

> >>> Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> said:
> >>>> Let's say the player characters were hired to wipe out the local
> >>>> population of Big Baddies. Being graduates from the Von Badass
> >>>> School of Monster Elimination they succeed. But the Big Baddies
> >>>> were the natural predators of the fantasy cicadas about to hatch
> >>>> and burst forth from the earth. The player characters have already
> >>>> moved on like the murder hobos that they are. They hear a rumor
> >>>> that things have gone pear-shaped in the province they recently
> >>>> cleansed. What do they do? What can they do?
>
> >>> Why are you assuming that they'd even ask themselves those questions?
>
> >>        Because most PC groups are heroes, and heroes ask questions like that.
>
> > Though usually their immediate answer involves "how can we get more loot and
> > experience out of this?".
>
>         Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
> most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
> gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting; I
> wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of collecting
> more points.

I never saw character decisions motivated purely or even mostly by
getting experience points. In fact, a group of my characters ran into
a drunk in a bar and he, being intoxicated and willing to tell people
things they were not meant to know, described experience points and
how one got them.

They decided that they didn't _want_ any. Of course, PCs in my game
were rarely self-styled adventurers and/or heros.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/21/13 3:37 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> : Depends on where you game, I guess. That was rarely the question for
> : most players/PCs in my experience. Which is pretty extensive (started
> : gaming in 1977). Of course, it's going to be somewhat self-selecting;
> : I wouldn't play with people for whom the game was a matter of
> : collecting more points.
>
> What with it being a "role playing game", and the character, role and all,
> doesn't know squat about experience points, and often has a role that
> should not care about loot, and all. If you care about experience
> and/or loot in those circumstances, you aren't playing the role,
> you're breaking character.
>
> Of course, that only moves the problem to a different level.
> Since the role is being played for points, the issue really isn't
> "what's the best way to gather experience points here", but "what's
> the best way for me to get experience points without breaking character".

No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally
don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do I
get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and that
doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly can.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>

: No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally

: don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do
: I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
: that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
: can.

Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
with groups that don't track XP at all. (The gold and loot thing
is still going out of character, is it not.)

Or possibly... you don't object to going out of character at all,
as long as it's character breakage that's directed at your prefered
goals? Which seems a little... well... a bit out of the spirit of
the thing, innit?

( That's actually a question, not an asseriton in the form of a question,
since I don't really do RPGs. )

( also, xref the start of GrrlPower
http://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/48
)


"My real power is dice karma!"
--- Sydney Scoville, Jr.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/21/13 11:51 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> : No, that's again only for players where that's the issue. I generally
> : don't play with players where that's the issue. The issue is "how do
> : I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
> : that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
> : can.
>
> Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
> with groups that don't track XP at all. (The gold and loot thing
> is still going out of character, is it not.)

Depends on the character. Poplock Duckweed, as shown in _Phoenix
Rising_, isn't averse to finding a way to fill up his pockets (or
neverfull pack) with money while hero-ing. Kyri Vantage, on the other
hand, wouldn't THINK of it without being poked about it.

>
> Or possibly... you don't object to going out of character at all,
> as long as it's character breakage that's directed at your prefered
> goals? Which seems a little... well... a bit out of the spirit of
> the thing, innit?

No, you stick with character. But choose characters that can work
together; you don't want the anti-hero near-sociopath in the same group
as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
without going out of character.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 22, 12:29 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/13 11:51 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com>

> > : No, that's again only for players where that's the issue.  I generally
> > : don't play with players where that's the issue.  The issue is "how do
> > : I get to do cool stuff and get spotlight time", if it's anything, and
> > : that doesn't necessarily translate to XP and gold, though it certainly
> > : can.
>
> > Seems the simplest approach to im plement that plan is to only play
> > with groups that don't track XP at all.  (The gold and loot thing
> > is still going out of character, is it not.)
>
>         Depends on the character. Poplock Duckweed, as shown in _Phoenix
> Rising_, isn't averse to finding a way to fill up his pockets (or
> neverfull pack) with money while hero-ing. Kyri Vantage, on the other
> hand, wouldn't THINK of it without being poked about it.
>
>
>
> > Or possibly... you don't object to going out of character at all,
> > as long as it's character breakage that's directed at your prefered
> > goals?  Which seems a little... well... a bit out of the spirit of
> > the thing, innit?
>
>         No, you stick with character. But choose characters that can work
> together; you don't want the anti-hero near-sociopath in the same group
> as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
> to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
> without going out of character.

I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
that's life, er death.

[Tetsubo]

That us 'unfun'. Screwing your fellow players over for your own
enjoyment is a dick move. Are you a Libertarian? If you knew me, you
would know how severe of an insult that was.

I'd game with Sea Wasp any time. You, not so much.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

It's disruptive to the game, leads to arguments, or in worst case to
in-party fighting. This (A) isn't fun for most players, and (B) is
highly counterproductive in two ways. First, you could end up with some
player characters getting taken out of play because of what other PCs
do, wasting the many hours put into developing those characters. And
second, *I*, as the GM, am throwing all sorts of problems your way. You
don't need to make more for yourself.

Unless the POINT of the group was to make a bunch of people who didn't
work together, and see how they come apart, but that's not really
interesting to me or most players I've dealt with. We can see THAT in
real life.

[dr...@bin.sh]

In rec.games.frp.dnd Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ? ? ? ? No, you stick with character. But choose characters that can work

>> together; you don't want the anti-hero near-sociopath in the same group
>> as the good-guy crusader unless both players are VERY good and know how
>> to design such characters such that they somehow CAN work together
>> without going out of character.
>
> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.

man, what is it with all the tools in new haven?
something in the water?

--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey put a portable hole inside a bag of holding,
|_|_[T]_|_| and no void appeared -- out of fear of Ryan Dancey."
-- der_kluge

[Will in New Haven]

So your _character's_ loyalty to a cause is less important than your
friendship with the guys around the table. Some roleplaying.

In the most recent example, a character helped the other characters
find and obtain a major item, both magically and symbolically, and
wanted the King he served to have it. He, the player, knew that he
would probably die in the attempt and he did. Sure, an NPC could have
played that role but Jack wanted to and his character was suited to
it.

Are you a Libertarian?

Small l, but yes.

If you knew me, you
> would know how severe of an insult that was.

I don't know you well but I don't give a flying fuck.

>
>         I'd game with Sea Wasp any time. You, not so much.

Not my problem. Your One True Way does not appeal to me.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 22, 10:17 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

In a sense, the most recent major example of this was a character who
did what an NPC could have done but it suited his character and he
enjoyed doing it. He did end up taken out of play, dead, and he had
taken many many hours to develop but the hours were fun and so was his
fate.

>
>         Unless the POINT of the group was to make a bunch of people who didn't
> work together, and see how they come apart, but that's not really
> interesting to me or most players I've dealt with. We can see THAT in
> real life.

The adventuring party is an artificial construct and sometimes we
don't observe its boundries.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

One player character in...maybe all the way back to the second first
incarnation of Mike Ford's magical 17th-century campaign...ended up
dieing in a duel with one of the other player characters after causing a
bit too much collateral damage -- at the level of poisoning the entire
village to get one person we were after. (Basically the entire rest of
the party challenged them, somebody fairly early on killed them.)
Playing ones character to the hilt!
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Lots of styles. My first character in Steven Brust's Dragaera campaign
incarnation #2, or some such, challenged a goddess to a duel. Didn't
end well, but what else could the character do? Wouldn't have been
right to just let it go!

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> that's life, er death.

Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/22/13 1:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>> that's life, er death.
>
> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>

"Show us this... loyalty. Throw yourself onto your sword."

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in
news:ylfkhahu...@dd-b.net:

We once had a character who poined a village well. The reward for
capturing him was less than the reward for killing him. He ended up
collecting the reward himself - the character, not the player -
dead, by use of a Magic Jar.

I have seen a player with two characters leave one behind to be
killed (and probably easten) by the bad buys, after the latter did
something incredibly stupid.

Confilict between characters, even deadly confilict, *can* be fun,
if it's handled right, and everyone knows that's the point.
Generally, I use it as an excuse to kill characters while they're
distracted, as a message to the players.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 22, 1:51 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

By the way, I never said this shouldn't be _rare_ In fact, if it isn't
memorable it is happening too often.

[Will in New Haven]

On May 22, 1:54 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> Will in New Haven <willreich...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
> > tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
> > same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
> > that's life, er death.
>
> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.

I don't think the characters in my games have used the word "party" in
that sense more than half a dozen times in (counting) forty-three
years of playing.

--
Will iin New Haven

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:

> On 5/22/13 1:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> I bet you regard not being able to work together as some sort of
>>> tragedy. I have had characters with incompatable goals involved on the
>>> same adventure several times. Sure, someone gets the short straw but
>>> that's life, er death.
>>
>> Sometimes requiring "loyalty to the party" in a GURPS-type campaign can
>> at least clearly signal what kind of working together is expected.
>
> "Show us this... loyalty. Throw yourself onto your sword."

Since it's to the party, not to some individual leader, I think that
could easily be rejected.

Or I could throw the sword down flat and then lie on it :-).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

One thing that helps is a setup where losing your character doesn't lose
you a place in the adventure. New characters get created on a rough par
with the power levels of wherever everybody else is, for example.

The problem of a player you decide you didn't want in the group is
harder, but we haven't had much trouble with that. (I've done very
little gaming, and nearly all of it in rather exalted company.)