PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

[Michael Hopcroft]

One thing Pcs are certain to encounter as they adventure in a fantasy camapign are peasants.

It is traditional in fantasy gaming circles to look down on those farmers as ignroant hicks. However, keep in mind that if you are of European extraction you almost certainly have some of these "serfs" in your family tree if you could trace back far enough ( yiou pribably can;'t because of the the fact that feqw people bothered or needed to keep records of such things in the 11th century, but there you hafve it). Fedualism is not a Darwinistic or mertiocratic system, and even the most intelligent person will never learn (for example) to read if his circumstances prevent him from doing so.

So who are peasants, and what do they know? And can one emerge from the ranks of the Peasants to become an adventurer, or even a true hero, under the right circumstances?

[Curufea]

Animal husbandry, horticulture, dairy produce production (infrequent), carpentry (infrequent), pottery (infrequent), sewing, knitting (infrequent), weaving (infrequent), other craft (infrequent), cooking, vetinary (infrequent), riding (infrequent), geology (infrequent)

And for settings with wandering monsters-
Desolid vs wandering monsters, area effect (entire farm).

[Michael Hopcroft]

And for settings with wandering monsters-
Desolid vs wandering monsters, area effect (entire farm).
Settings with wandering monsters pose a special problem for feudsal societies.

Lords have an obligation to protect their land from wandering monsters. If the Lord and his Knigths are away on some other emergency, a peasant miltia will need to be organzied to deal with it. But armed peasants with better-thamn-adequate fighting training are a fedual lord's worst nigthmare. ("Milord, the serfs are revolting!" "I know that, squire. Disgusting breed, badly dressed, smell awful too. Really bad company all round, that's why they never come to our parties. But what are they doing?")

[Curufea]

It's difficult to justify non-combat peasants if you have wandering monsters.
Unless every farm is heavily fortified and has regular patrols of military men within easy call.

[Kabluey]

I'm currently in the early stages of a campaign set in Harn, which is a much more realistic take on medieval world than most other published settings. All of my PC's are freemen, though two started out as serfs. One's family actually purchased his freedom from the manor lord, but there is the expectation that he will send money back to compensate them. The other was given his freedom after he saved the lord's wife. My plan is that at least one of these will be given a knighthood, after they've achieved some more noteworthy accomplishments.

Also, Harn has a rule that a serf can gain his freedom if he escapes to a freetown and remains there for a year and a day. I don't know if there was a similar tradition in European history, but it does allow the possibility for any serf gaining his freedom. Of course, it's assumed that very few serfs try to escape (the life of a freeman was in some ways worse than that of a serf), and that of those who do the vast majority are caught very quickly.

So, yes, I think a serf can become an adventurer and a hero.

[Kabluey]

It's difficult to justify non-combat peasants if you have wandering monsters.
Unless every farm is heavily fortified and has regular patrols of military men within easy call.

I think MM is correct, a manor lord would never want his peasants to be well armed or trained. It would just be too likely that the peasants would turn that training on their lord. Most likely, rather than giving them extra training, he'd just tell them to flee into the keep when monsters appeared. And if a few peasants died? Well, that'd be a shame, of course, but better that than losing his holding to a revolt.

[Curufea]

That's also assuming the lord is corrupt and universally hated by their serfs and peasants. Which is a big assumption. It seems to be a stereotype that nobles and lords are oppressing the masses, and the peasants are just waiting to throw off the shackles of their slavery. Too much Robin Hood, I guess.

I like Harn, but it is a Dark Ages world setting - not Medieval. It's pre-12th century mostly. Many fantasy players like plate armour, so prefer medieval to dark ages :)

[OddHat]

Time period and geographic location become very important here if you're trying to seriously simulate pre-industrial Europe.

Yes, there were times and places where peasants were treated as little more than disposable property. There were also times and places where a farmer's son had a reasonable chance of becoming a merchant, priest or profesional soldier, and where farmers were expected to make up the bulk of the military, fighting with the same axes and farm implements they used in their daily lives.

You can always have a setting where theres a rigid division between virtually enslaved peasantry and "noble" land owners, but it's not the only historical model.

As to KS or PS for peasantry, you can make a case for anything that didn't require formal education. For most, PS:Peasant and maybe WF:Axe should cover it.

Oh, and "Wandering Monsters". If you have them at all, better assume that every farmer carries a weapon at all times, and that merchants only travel in groups with armed guards. You're looking at a historical period where the nation is either colapsing or just recovering from a colapse; a century or two later in your timeline there should either be no wandering monsters near heavily populated areas or no heavily populated areas at all.

[Curufea]

I'd go for WF: Knife/dagger. Knives were ubiquitous.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I'd go for WF: Knife/dagger. Knives were ubiquitous.
I remembe reading a story where the author used a reference to droit de signeur, the supposed right of the lord to the wedding night of any female who gets married in his domain. Although it is used in fiction (Braveheart, the Marriage of Figaro) the author commented "it does not seem a wise practice in a place where all the women are familiar with the use of fish knives."

Knives were ubiqtuous in all such settings, because they were just too useful as tools. And just about any sharp farm impliment can be converted into a weapon, simply by sticking it onto a pole.

I'm not quite sure where the idea that the classes are automatically and eternally hostile to each other came from. It must have pre-dated Karl marx by several centuries, but it hardly seems a law of nature that must apply in all settings in all circumstances. The fact that many, if not most, european nobility originated as rovi ng bandits/warriors who settled down in one place might have contriubted to that idea; that may very well not be the case ina fantastical environment.

A sort of socially symbiotic relationship may be more appropriate, where everyone has rights and respobilities that are clearly defined and limited if not by law then by custom.

[Curufea]

I think it's a cultural thing - some folk still have hard feelings over their war of independance and have irrational fears of monarchies or nobility ;-p
Doesn't help that the media caters for misinformation. No doubt most fantasy players also think that children marry at the age of 11-13. Or that they all had bad teeth.
Hmm, makes me wonder if there is a compilation of "medieval misconceptions"
to quicly bring up to speed all the folk that take stuff for granted without ever looking up anything.

[Curufea]

Ha!
http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/misindex.html

droit du seigneur
http://www.snopes.com/weddings/customs/droit.asp

[Kabluey]

That's also assuming the lord is corrupt and universally hated by their serfs and peasants. Which is a big assumption. It seems to be a stereotype that nobles and lords are oppressing the masses, and the peasants are just waiting to throw off the shackles of their slavery. Too much Robin Hood, I guess.

It doesn't make the assumption that they're corrupt and universally hated. But they are part of a ruling oligarchy, and oligarchies maintain power by limiting the power of those ruled. It's the nature of the beast (unless you're subscribing to a utopian vision of an oligarchy, I guess). The chance for a revolt even for a beloved lord might be small, but a famine, plague, or bad legal decision could easily raise dissent. And at the end of the day, should that dissent break out into armed revolt, it will be a lot easier to put down if they're poorly armed.

I like Harn, but it is a Dark Ages world setting - not Medieval. It's pre-12th century mostly. Many fantasy players like plate armour, so prefer medieval to dark ages :)

It does have plate, though not full plate as you see in the high Middle Ages. As to timeframe, if anything, I would probably have said Harn roughly equates to about the 12th century, maybe the 11th. Of course, direct correlations are difficult, and it really depends on what part of Harn you're talking about. And bear in mind that Harn corresponds to England, not to France or Italy which are more urban and developed in the 12th century. Still, it's not the High Middle Ages environment that most RPG'ers are familiar with, that's true.

[Curufea]

It doesn't make the assumption that they're corrupt and universally hated. But they are part of a ruling oligarchy, and oligarchies maintain power by limiting the power of those ruled. It's the nature of the beast (unless you're subscribing to a utopian vision of an oligarchy, I guess). The chance for a revolt even for a beloved lord might be small, but a famine, plague, or bad legal decision could easily raise dissent. And at the end of the day, should that dissent break out into armed revolt, it will be a lot easier to put down if they're poorly armed.
I'm not using it as an argument for combat trained peasants - I find the whole concept of wandering monsters to be ludicrious and purile to exist outside of CRPGs.

However - oligarchies require separation of authority from populace that generally didn't happen until later in the middle ages (later than the roughly transitional plate period that Harn sits around).
Early feudal societies - especially before they get kings, who is in charge very much depends on how well they can lead or protect land. Those in authority would award land based on merit (as well as for nepotistic reasons now and then).

[OddHat]

I'm not using it as an argument for combat trained peasants - I find the whole concept of wandering monsters to be ludicrious and purile to exist outside of CRPGs.

Well, it is a silly idea in most fantasy RPG settings. You can make it sort of work if you assume that the situation is only temporary. Say, "Humanity is at war with the Goblinoids; their war parties will continue to raid until we wipe them out or they drive us off this land."

[Curufea]

It works in Perdido Street Station - but that's only because it is a high magic and hostile world in which civilisation has to be hacked out the landscape and rigorously defended.

[keithcurtis]

This is also the case in Savage Earth, where it is the excuse for maintaining a standing army, and farm laborers are never more than a short run from shelter and or a military outpost.

Keith "It's not about realism. It's about a plausible suspension of disbelief" Curtis

[Curufea]

There is a given level of plausible for each setting though. You gotta be careful not to use up all your plausible in one area, just in case you need a bit more plausible in another area later.

[keithcurtis]

True. It does depend on what sort of genre you are emulating. For D&D (which really is its own genre), there's quite a large reservoir of plausible.

Keith "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" Curtis

[prestidigitator]

But armed peasants with better-thamn-adequate fighting training are a fedual lord's worst nigthmare.
Not necessarily. Whatever the roots of a feudal society, a healthy feudal system is one in which the peasants would hardly think of rebelling. They have their responsibilities to their lord, and their lord has responsibilities to them. The lord provides protection, legal judgement, and--when necessary--military leadership. Everyone knows their place; not necessarily to be constrained by it, but to know how it is they best contribute to the whole. Why would a lord fear his subjects? They are the blood of his land. Why would the subjects fear their lord? He is their wisdom and protection.

[input.jack]

I find the whole concept of wandering monsters to be ludicrious and purile to exist outside of CRPGs.

I disagree. Campaigns which have low civilized populations can easily support the "wandering monster" model. Heck, Middle Earth is pretty "empty" by the late Third Age; the concept of small communities of civilized people being occasionally threatened by marauders of less civilized ilk (Goblins, Trolls, Orcs, etc) does not seem far-fetched, at all.

So long as the GM keeps in mind that the typical community should be fortified or walled in some way, everythings fine. Even Bree had a wall and gate.

[Frenchman]

Also remember that even if peasants are skilled in fighting against monsters, that doesn't mean they can challenge their leiges. Peasants may rely on certain forms of combat or certain weapons which are ineffectual against highly skilled and armored warriors. Reduced Penetration and Normal Damage weapons (like most farm implements) are all but useless vs. almost any metal armor.
If I recall correctly, there were a few occasions in "fuedal" Tokugawa Japan of peasants revolting - peasants who were trained in martial arts and wielded farm implements just as nasty as those available to Europeans - and they were easily and brutally crushed by much smaller forces of fairly inexperienced (some of these rebellions occurred in the 3rd and later Tokugawa generations, when real warfare was almost nonexistant) Samurai wielding traditional weapons (swords and armor, as the gun had dissappeared from Japan by this time)
It seems to me that, even in a fantasy setting where peasants can learn powerful martial arts, they would be no match for their (at least) equally powerful and much better equipped leige-lords.

[Frenchman]

So who are peasants, and what do they know? And can one emerge from the ranks of the Peasants to become an adventurer, or even a true hero, under the right circumstances?
As for the actual questions which started this thread...

Who Are Peasants?
In most fantasy settings, the word "peasant" means either a farmer attached to the land he works, but does not own, and little better than a slave (Serf), or anyone who is not nobility, 'classed,' and/or wealthy. Since Serf is more technically correct, I'll address this answer towards that.
A peasant is someone who has a quality of living which can range from that of modern Amish (Pretty Nice, really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish)), to one more akin to The People Who Live Under The Highway Overpass. Depending on the setting and the GM, of course.
Those who are better off will likely 'own' (they technically belong to their Lord in most settings) a few large animals (~50kg+), several pairs of clothing, farming tools sufficient for their field, and maybe even a cart or wagon to take things to town in - they generally won't have to worry about feeding themselves, except maybe in the dead of winter, but they're not really in danger of starving to death even then. Their village most likely has a mill or other important structure centrally located.
The 'average' peasant may 'own' a pig or three, but larger animals (like horses and oxen) will be used by the whole community, as will many of their farming implements and structures- especially the expensive ones like plows, wells, and barns. They'll have only one spare set of clothes, if that, and their single pair of shoes are likely one of their most cherished possessions. Because of the fees they are charged for hauling (by the one man who does have a cart), milling (by their lord who owns the mill inconvienently located in a defensible position), and selling (stall fees in the marketplace are collected by the lord, or they take a loss in selling everything directly to a merchant) their produce, they are often barely able to make ends meet over the course of the year. Thankfully, they are likely intelligent and lucky enough to have a small vegetable or herb garden as well, which can supplement their diet and occasionally earn them a few extra coins as well - so they don't actually risk starving to death except in hard years, but will most likely go on tight rations for the winter monthes.
The really poor, Monty Python-esque peasants are generally only believable in areas and times of extreme hardship - such as under unreasonably evil tyrants or during famines, wars, plagues, or other calamities. They rarely possess a full suit of clothes, and the ones they have are always filthy. They're lucky if they own a malnourished dog, let alone a chicken or pig. Their home is in ill repair if it is still standing, and if their fields are fertile, they lack the manpower to cultivate them properly. These peasants will almost always be background dressing in games, and will be usually end up being comedic if they are explored in depth.

What Do They Know?
Again this relates to the flavor of your world. Peasants can be ridiculously uneducated (probably inbred) rural morons, highly skilled survivors, or crafty opportunists. Since the dumb kind of peasants don't know anything, I won't spend time telling you what they know - oops, I allready did.
'Realistic' peasants will know, as a bare minimum, quite a lot of practical knowledge about agriculture of all kinds - few peasants cultivate only a single crop for their entire lives, especially if crop rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation) is practiced - in a fantasy game where, "civilisation has to be hacked out the landscape and rigorously defended," (Curufea) this practice will arise much, much earlier than it did in Europe, where land was considered a nigh limitless resource in the middling ages. Therefore giving peasants knowledge and skills of Farming, Animal Husbandry, and other agricultural skills is virtually a requirement.
Peasants also have, contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of free time - there are whole seasons where they are either trapped indoors with nothing to do, or waiting for their crops to grow. Even during harvest time, they usually cannot continue working after sunset (simple magic could change this, and shorten harvest time a bit), and have little to do but sit around and watch the stars or tell stories during the night (Nightime at 50 degrees north latitude - Berlin - lasts for 14 hours in October). Therefore, peasants may learn a great range of skills to pass the time, most of which will aid them in being self sufficient. But some peasants, especially children, will spend their free time having fun - be it playing sports or exploring the surrounding area. In a world with magic & monsters, they may spend part of this time learing to defend their village or how to cast spells. Skills such as Hunting, Storytelling, Legends and Lore, or even Occult Lore may not be uncommon among decently prosperous peasants.
Because of this, some peasants will be experts on their local area and the beings that inhabit (or haunt) it. Area Knowledges, knowledge of local plants and animals, navigation skills, and the habits, tactics, and weaknesses of the local monsters could all be appropriate.

How Can a Peasnat Advance Socially?
A serf usually has the ability to buy his freedom, if (big if) they are able to save up enough money to do so. If a peasant runs far enough away (a few counties over) they may be able to start a life as a craftsman or tradesman, since they aren't really important enough for their leige to invest much effort into finding them. Besides, a peasant who runs away may be willing and/or able to start a rebellion against the local leader, so it's better that they're someone else's problem anyhow.
A peasant who develops a particularly useful skill to a high level, especially an artist, tailor, or metalworker, may find himself in the direct employ of his leige, or his leige's leige, and thus able to quickly purchase his and his families freedom.
It's possible (very remotely so) that someone of a higher social status (usually nobility) may bestow favor upon a peasant. The reasons for this can vary - the peasant could save their bacon and earn their gratitude, they may fall in love with the peasant, or the peasant could be a tool of convienence - such as a ruler without an heir claiming some promising-looking peasant as their illegitamate son (see last week's news about Grimaldi for something similar). The end result is the same - the noble takes the peasant in as a servant, employee, or even adopts or marries them, instantly raising their social status.
Finally, there is the most prevalant sort of advancement: War. In just about all societies (including modern America) military service does wonders for one's social progression. A peasant who is skilled and a bit lucky can find himself on the winning end of a few battles and in the good graces of his commander. This can, and has, led to peasants eventually becoming powerful warlords or even legitimate rulers - and often their first action is to attempt to quash the social mobility that allowed them to get there (Hidiyoshi, anyone?).

As always, I am too long winded, too lazy to go back and summarize or streamline it, and wishing that I could make my post have footnotes.
Hope I helped some, and I'm looking forward to being corrected by those of you who are more knowledgeable than I.
Now I must sleep.

[Lucius]

Also, Harn has a rule that a serf can gain his freedom if he escapes to a freetown and remains there for a year and a day. I don't know if there was a similar tradition in European history, but it does allow the possibility for any serf gaining his freedom. Of course, it's assumed that very few serfs try to escape (the life of a freeman was in some ways worse than that of a serf), and that of those who do the vast majority are caught very quickly.

So, yes, I think a serf can become an adventurer and a hero.

Harn took that rule out of European history. Yes, it was a real tradition.

Lucius Alexander

Herding Palindromedaries

[Supreme Serpent]

Being in a fantasy world could also serve to make farmers/peasants and their societies more prosperous.

Having access to magic that helps crops grow, magic bags of neverending seed, enchanted horses that never tire pulling plows, hoes that weed on their own, scarecrows that actively chase pests away, weather and water magics to fight droughts, etc. can all help production immensely. Access to magical healing can help get the injured farmer back to work or heal the sickly milk-cow.

This could even be the reason for and one of the main functions of the manor lords - providing the magic that keeps the system going so well. Either as spellcasters themselves, or ensuring a supply in the area devoted to such tasks.

Say production is 20% more efficient baseline with such methods available. Probably also means then that a single farmer can work more land, so say 30% net productivity increase. This means you can take some of those farmers/agricultural laborers out of the system and turn them into other things, like men-at-arms, adventurers, priests and the like. If you take 20% to do this, you still come out ahead.

Heck, maybe you can get the local pixies to do half your spinning by leaving out a bowl of milk overnight.

Add in the benefits of having active sky gods and harvest goddesses you can enlist the aid of, and a farmer's life can be pretty good.

In a reasonably high-magic fantasy world, I'd expect most farm communities to look more like Tolkein's Shire than oppressed serfs hacking at hard ground with sticks.

[Kabluey]

I'm not using it as an argument for combat trained peasants - I find the whole concept of wandering monsters to be ludicrious and purile to exist outside of CRPGs.

At least on this point we certainly agree. :)

[LoresLost]

Reading this thread it occurred to me that also a peasant/serf in European tradition, as I understand it, are "bound to the land". In a 'high' magic (or even a low magic setting depending on how magic works) the peasants may actually be bound to the land and/or lord through a geas or other magics that either force their loyalty or channel their desires subtly to the culturally 'correct' way of life for their class (And the Geas may be a two way street with the lord of the area being under one as well to enforce cultural norms...)

This would create a very orderly society with some unusual issues.

Most adventures would not be under such a compulsion (they are naturally immune to the spell or are some form of freeman that does not get geased) so they might be considered a danger to these communities and thus always under threat from the some the very people they are trying to help (Hey, a little angst in a campaign can be a good thing.):sneaky:

Edited Spelling Errors

[mayapuppies]

...scarecrows that actively chase pests away...
That would so freak me out! :eek:

[OddHat]

As a GM, I'd also consider how and why the Nobles are Nobles when deciding on how peasant life actually works.

If the Nobles were conquering foreigners a few gernerations ago, they're likely to brutalize some segments of the peasantry, while favoring colonists from their own nation and any decendants of allies and colaborators.

If the Nobles are just rich land owners from the same ethnic groups as those they rule, the life of the peasantry mught be much more tollerable.

And yes, there are many other factors.

I'd also think about an actual Divine Right to Rule. What if the gods really did choose these noble families to rule? What if the king is a vile, deranged idiot, and his nobles no better than brigands, and yet killing him really would rob the land of it's fertility?

Of course, that would be a pretty dark campaign. ;)

[Frenchman]

AI'd also think about an actual Divine Right to Rule. What if the gods really did choose these noble families to rule? What if the king is a vile, deranged idiot, and his nobles no better than brigands, and yet killing him really would rob the land of it's fertility?

Funny! Could make for a great adventure plot.

SupremeSerpent and LoresLost also had good points. In general I don't consider too deeply how magic would affect them, because it's effect has no upper limit of potential.
In most settings creating food and water with magic is easier than altering the weather and most other uses people think up for agricultural magic. If so, then Magic Picnic Baskets could eliminate the need for farmers entirely and essentially create a world of lesiure-seeking artists and craftsmen. Assuming magic isn't used for creating other things as well - then everyone's an artist or a mage.

[CrosshairCollie]

Unless the fantasy game is actually set in Real Life Dark Ages times (which, in retrospect, means it's not a fantasy game, it's a historical game, and you get to roleplay out scratching out a living as a dirt farmer before you die at age 20 from the plague), I don't make a setting that's 'Dark Ages Europe plus monsters'.

Magic changes things.
Nonhuman civilizations change things.
Magic changes even *more* things.
Whether one considers secular authority separate, superior, or subservient to religious authority changes things.

I had (well, have, but I think I've convinced him otherwise) a friend who insisted that his character *had* to be illiterate, because 'In Medaeval* Europe, only a few people who were nobles were ever taught to read because (historical fact, historical fact, historical fact, possible historical interpretation)." He would make arguments on the basis of 'that's the way it was back then'.

My argument: "This isn't the real world. None of that happened. There's been no plague to stifle the population, magic helps the crops grow so you have time to learn to read without having to worry about crop neglect, and there's no huge monolithic church that's leaning on the nobility and peasants saying that you do things our way or burn in hell. It's not a matter of 'back then', since this game did not take place in the history of Real Life Earth. It's more of an 'over there', if you wish to think of it as an alternate historical timeline".

Add to that my tendency to create worlds with generally optimistic lookouts, and peasants can, in fact, be quite upwardly mobile.

*Yes, I know I can't spell that word.

[OddHat]

My most recent Fantasy campaign world was mostly stollen from David Gemmel, with touches of Tom Holt (in Historical Fiction mode). It worked out well. Actual slaves were rare outside of cities, and were treated at Roman standards (i.e. in theory had some hope). The peasantry had considerable hope of advancement thanks to underpopulation, an open frontier, and the fact that magicians could be born into any class and tended to become very influential.

[Killer Shrike]

I really don't see what the problem is. What constitutes a peasant and what their role is in a particular society would vary by region and nation even within the same setting.

But not even getting into that, unless you are just hellbent to run a realistic simulation of a particular period of actual history -- which ceases to be Fantasy HERO in any event and turns into Simulationist HERO -- the purpose of peasants, serfs, nobles, and every other sort of person is simply to support the fabric of the world pursuant to telling a good collective story and having a good time.

Regardless of society youve got people that are privileged and have some measure of power, some other people that do all the actual gruntwork and have a relatively crappy lot in life, and all the other people that fall somewhere in between to differing degrees.

The rest of it is just details and labels.

The "haves" and the "have nots" is a story as old as time, and the dynamics of it isnt exactly rocket science. And ultimately its all just fodder for the story mill.



But to address the question:

What kind of things would a lowly worker person know?

Whatever they need to know to do their job and survive from day to day at an obvious minimum, and perhaps more information stemming from some background element on an individual basis. In some areas this will equate to basic substinence farming, in others it will equate to more advanced farming techniques, in others to fishing, in others to woodcrofting, and so on.

They must know whatever they need to know to eke out a living in whatever environment and circumstances exist in their area of the world. Anything else is possible if it serves the story or adds color to a scene but can otherwise be dispensed with.

Can adventurers originate from the lowly? Of course they can; the peasant hero is a staple archetype. It's not just possible, its common in much of the source material and the genre in general. Its a trope, even.

[keithcurtis]

Response repped.

Keith "where credit is due" Curtis

[garou]

It is traditional in fantasy gaming circles to look down on those farmers as ignroant hicks. However, keep in mind that if you are of European extraction you almost certainly have some of these "serfs" in your family tree if you could trace back far enough ( yiou pribably can;'t because of the the fact that feqw people bothered or needed to keep records of such things in the 11th century, but there you hafve it).


Actually, there are some records - churches kept a passably fair accounting of births, marriages and deaths. The dates are a little spotty, but you can trace lineage. (My dad's hobby is genealogy - he's managed to get some parts traced back to the 11th century or so, but he's constrained by the fact that most of the records he needs are in Europe, and no readily available.)


So who are peasants, and what do they know? And can one emerge from the ranks of the Peasants to become an adventurer, or even a true hero, under the right circumstances?

Well, a peasant farmer is going to know (under normal circumstances) whatever skills are necessary to provide a livelihood for him and his family. Animal husbandry, farming, shearing, carding, spinning, carving, cooking, animal handler, local heraldry, local history, local politics, etc, plus WF: knife/dagger, and possibly WF:Axe or even WF: Spear/polearm (since many pole weapons were derived from agricultural implements). Most of it, however, could be covered by PS: Peasant.

As Frenchman points out, however - there is a lot of free time in being a peasant (or even a modern farmer). For example - my family owns a Christmas tree farm, so, from Dec 25 until April or so, there is no work which needs to be done, or even can be done. Once the ground warms up, the stumps need to be pulled, new trees planted, then pruning and mowing - but really, from mid-June or so until October, mowing and weeding is about it, neither of which can be done after dark, and there is a tendency not to work during the hottest part of the day during the summer. So, learning other skills is certainly a possibility, as long as there is someone around who knows them and is willing to teach.

It is worth noting that many peasant weapons probably would not have reduced penetration or normal damage - chain mail is no defence against a sharp pitchfork*. What really worked to the peasant's distadvantage in a revolt was (1) lack of training (peasants are at base OCV of, say 3, vs the trained warriors base DCV of 4 + 3 levels of DCV - so fewer real hits); (2) support from other local nobles (to prevent a possible rebellion from spreading); (3) lack of armor of any sort (since even boiled leather can provide some defence); and (4) the general unsuitability of farm impliments for warfare. A lone combatant, wielding a scythe, is a potentially dangerous opponent. Several dozen of them, in close order, are more a danger to themselves than anyone else - those things take room to swing.


* Full plate armor (or even plate mail) was a pretty good defence against most agricultural impliments. A sledgehammer, while it may not penetrate plate, certainly can do a number on the soft and squidgy person inside. I recall (but cannot recall the source) that hatchets, mallets and the like were used successfully against unhorsed French knights at Agincourt by English archers.

[Frenchman]

It is worth noting that many peasant weapons probably would not have reduced penetration or normal damage

I should have been a bit more clear - the reason I'd give farm implements reduced pen comes not from their design, but from game design - if you don't want peasants revolting every 12 weeks, then make the 'weapons' they have access to inferior.
My second line of reasoning is one you pointed out yourself:
(4) the general unsuitability of farm impliments for warfare.
While I'd find it reasonable that an individual (especially a PC) build a pitchfork or scythe as a devastatingly effective weapon in their hands, I wouldn't allow average peasant Joe Serf to wield one that could come close to comparing with a knights sword.

[garou]

I should have been a bit more clear - the reason I'd give farm implements reduced pen comes not from their design, but from game design - if you don't want peasants revolting every 12 weeks, then make the 'weapons' they have access to inferior.
My second line of reasoning is one you pointed out yourself:

While I'd find it reasonable that an individual (especially a PC) build a pitchfork or scythe as a devastatingly effective weapon in their hands, I wouldn't allow average peasant Joe Serf to wield one that could come close to comparing with a knights sword.

I don't think it would be much of an issue. All you have to do is presume that a typical Knight has a Spd of 3, vs a peasant 2 (even if the Knight has the extra Spd with the lim "Only for attacks"), and it's not a contest. You could stack an extra -1 OCV penalty on all peasant weapons - they're not balanced, etc, or consider them to be "inferior quality" (or both).

If Knights also know "Follow-through attack" (from Fantasy Hero, basically, a 4d6 HKA with the trigger of "kills opponent in battle"), then our Knight swings at, hits and probably kills our poor unarmored peasant in a single hit. Knight then gets a free hack at the peasant's nearest friend, kills them, and makes a PRE attack, with big bonuses for violent action. Results should slow down the other peasants, if not cause them to bolt in panic.

Oddly enough, the military fork and the trident are considered Reduced Pen in Fantasy hero, and I must confess that I do not see the logic there. I've used a pitchfork, and practiced with a sword, and it was much, much easier to drive the pitchfork through a straw target. (I wouldn't give them AP, just remove the RP on them.)

[Curufea]

* Full plate armor (or even plate mail) was a pretty good defence against most agricultural impliments. A sledgehammer, while it may not penetrate plate, certainly can do a number on the soft and squidgy person inside. I recall (but cannot recall the source) that hatchets, mallets and the like were used successfully against unhorsed French knights at Agincourt by English archers.
I have noticed, wearing plate myself (and even if it tended to happen accidentally) that the reverse can be true as well. A person in plate is equivalent to a hammer. If you elbow, knee, fall on, or just punch someone - there is more mass involved and a much harder surface.
A knight falling off a horse, onto someone would most likely damage them. Possibly equivalent to a club or warhammer.

Other annoyances include a lack of articulation - badly made suits won't allow you to touch your head (so you can't eat in them).

[garou]

I have noticed, wearing plate myself (and even if it tended to happen accidentally) that the reverse can be true as well. A person in plate is equivalent to a hammer. If you elbow, knee, fall on, or just punch someone - there is more mass involved and a much harder surface.
A knight falling off a horse, onto someone would most likely damage them. Possibly equivalent to a club or warhammer.

Oh sure. One oddity (but not a huge one) in many fantasy systems is that, although your movement rate might be reduced when wearing heavy armor, your maneuverability remains the same. I can get to a decent sprint while wearing chain mail, but there is no way that I can start, stop or turn quickly; whereas in most fantasy games, I should just be slowed up 3" (or whatever).

[Curufea]

These kinds of details should be written up.
While they don't have much bearing on the simulation part of the system - I think they really add flavour to the setting and increase its immersiveness.
The details should be mentioned as something that can be used, but not statted out/simulated.

[The Monster]

My thought is that one thing peasants would know is their area - having been born and raised within a few miles of the same place, and being outdoors most of the time, they would know the terrain, the waether, the critters, and the plants to a level that would surprise anyone thinking of them as ignorant slobs. They'd know where the wandering monsters go (especially since they'd follow water or game as a general thing), where they don't go, and see warning signs (flights of birds, animals leaving an area, etc.) when something new comes nearby. Locations within a few days' walk they'd know very well, or someone in town would; someone would have been to just about any given square foot of territory you could walk to in two or three days, so they'd know where the fords are, where the poisonous carnivorous mushrooms grow (and where that new bunch of them appeared just last spring), and so forth.
Extend that to social networks. Eveyrone knows everyone, by name by face and by reputation (not mention by family) - and probably has a pretty good knwoledge of the next village down as well, and then regular contacts among those who go to regional market days. If you can get them to talk to you, they can tell you who's honest, who's competent, and who they wouldn't mind seeing fall on a sword (though they may tell rumors about those they just don't like; witches and vampires, anyone?).
Consider how well you know people in your life, say at work. My work group includes some 20 people, who I recognize at a glance, and I know at least a little about their family, their marriages, hobbies, etc. - and these are people I don't really care all that much for, and with whom I only spend eight hours/five days a week.

[CrosshairCollie]

These kinds of details should be written up.
While they don't have much bearing on the simulation part of the system - I think they really add flavour to the setting and increase its immersiveness.
The details should be mentioned as something that can be used, but not statted out/simulated.

I dunno ... I'd prefer to leave that sort of stuff out as being too big a pain in the butt for too little return. Of course, I assume that, in a setting with known, extant magic, decent blacksmiths may know a spell or two to help them craft better armor so it is easier to move around in. :)

[Curufea]

It's the difficulties in life that help define it and make it more real. There's nothing more galling than absolute paradise with no challenges or inconveniences.
However - this is only for detail-type games. I don't use it for my game, because it's high melodrama and would get in the way of the plot.
If I was running street-level, I would use it.

[assault]

Relatively free peasants could have access to a lot of things. See your average Viking for more details... Or your English yeoman with a longbow, or a Swiss peasant with a halberd or pike. Come to think of it, check out the Hussites.

It's quite conceivable a less free peasant might have some experience in hunting and related skills.

Furthermore, they are likely to have at least some familiarity with their own religion. Even if Holy Books and the like are unavailable to them, they are likely to be aware of the "folk" version of their faith. In particular, that might mean that they are aware of the local "saints" and protective spirits, and be able to make offerings to them that are actually magically effective.

In addition, they may also be part of extended social networks along the lines of, say, the Scottish clans. Even if they are at the bottom of the heap, they may be able to call upon the aid of their more prosperous kinsmen, who may be considerably more militarily formidable.

There are also likely to be local dignitaries, who may have access to magic in a fantasy setting. Witches are obvious enough, but priest types are also likely. Village priests aren't necessarily all that socially distinct from their parishioners, may be literate, and have at least some access to divine magic. Also, there may be wandering holy men - friars and the like - who may or may not be integrated into the status quo. You could probably add some "Gypsy" type conjurers and soothsayers.

There's potentially lots of lower class magic around.

There can also be lower class fighters. Many rank and file mercenaries are likely to be from the lower classes. Foresters and the like can also be efficient combatants too.

The wonderful old ICE "Campaign Classics" series included a Robin Hood book, which focuses on more or less lower class characters, if you can track it down. Its character stats aren't all that useful, but it's full of chunky goodness. More usefully though, just go back to the source material.

[Frenchman]

Oddly enough, the military fork and the trident are considered Reduced Pen in Fantasy hero, and I must confess that I do not see the logic there. I've used a pitchfork, and practiced with a sword, and it was much, much easier to drive the pitchfork through a straw target. (I wouldn't give them AP, just remove the RP on them.)
I agree, I usually make them a smaller attack (1/2d6 to 1d6+1, depending) and autofire. Makes sense to me, since you could spear someone with just one tine.

[Teflon Billy]

While we are on the subject of farming.

What are the usual growing seasons and how much time/care do they usually take?

In my world I've been trying to come up with a reasonable level of education and social mobility for everyone. That is, allow for 18/19th century economics in a 11/12th century society, with 14/16th century technology, all in a high magic AD&D style High Fantasy campaign. To do this plausibly, I need to know how much down time during the day in the growing seasons they would have, and what types of jobs/work they would have to do during the non-growing times of year. Basically, how much time during each part of the year, would children need to work in the fields to properly keep a peasant's farm going (keeping in mind that their parents will be working the fields, along with other hired hands)

That being said: Are there significant differences in how grains are grown from vegetables (particularly in the amount of time needed to tend them)?

When do most crops start to be planted?


In the middle ages, what were the common/semi-common crops in Western Europe/England, or other areas of similar latitude?

TB

[Frenchman]

What are the usual growing seasons and how much time/care do they usually take?

Growing seasons have to do with climate (duh) - meaning temperature and rainfall. The warmer is is (up to a point) and the wetter it is (again, up to a point) the longer the growing season is. A climate with an especially long growing season can be said to have two (or more) of them if a crop can bear yield more than once.
Unless you want to become an agricultural expert, you can consider the growing season to be from early spring (as soon as the ground thaws in places that freeze) to late fall (after the harvest, when plants start dying anyways). Every plant/location combo has it's own particular planting and harvest dates for ideal yield, but you can find generalized ones by looking on the back of seed packets.
As for the amount of time/care/devotion expended upon the plants, lets divide this up into four parts - Planting, Growing, Harvest, and Storage.
Planting - Sowing seeds is work, for many crops, it is a lot of work. It usually involves breaking up the soil (tilling or plowing) and planting each individual seed into its own hole, or several seeds to a hole (depends on the plant). Thats the part the children get into, since they don't have to bend over quite so far and there's lots of 'em.
Growing - The amount of work devoted to the crops in this part of the cycle varies a lot from plant to plant and culture to culture. All fields will need to be weeded and protected from vermin - usually this is fairly easy (if mind-numbing) work that takes only a few hours (max) each day. Some plants, especially fruit, will need culling - the removal of excess fruits so that the fruit each plant yields is bigger, tastier, and more valuable. Nevertheless, even the most vigilant farmer will lose some of his crops to bugs, vermin, or disease - even the traditional Japanese rice-farmers, who spent long hours each day and night in their field inspecting each stalk of rice for bugs and fungus, could expect to lose 10-15% of their planted seeds - but since each seed yeilds several hundred (a guess) more, this isn't a great loss.
Harvest - The most work of the year, but over a very short time, often less than a week. Work is pretty much continous until the whole field is brought in, because at this point the crop will gain nothing, and possibly lose flavor or palatability, if it stays out longer.
Storage - All foods need to be stored somehow. Fruits are jammed or preserved, grains are socked away in bags, barrels, or barns until needed. The smart farmer will only rarely have to worry about doing any work for this part of the cycle, having kept the food protected from rain/flood and animals until the planting begins.

Basically, how much time during each part of the year, would children need to work in the fields to properly keep a peasant's farm going (keeping in mind that their parents will be working the fields, along with other hired hands)

Work comes in spurts, so during planting and harvest the work is non-stop until it's finished (working from sun-up to sun-down or longer), and very little work in between - this is all assuming a one-crop family with no animals. Most farmers grew more than one kind of crop and kept animals, so they would be kept busy by these.

That being said: Are there significant differences in how grains are grown from vegetables (particularly in the amount of time needed to tend them)?

Grains are grown in huge fields, while vegetables (until the advent of the supermarket) were grown in smaller, individual plots. If you know anyone with a vegetable garden in their side yard, then you know about what I'm talking about. Tending to a vegetable garden was about the same as it is today, except the pesticides weren't too advanced - they tended to kill the people and plants too - so there was a bit more time and effort spent on keeping things out of the garden.

When do most crops start to be planted?

Mid-Spring to Early Summer. If you want something more specific, go to a garden store and look on the back of seed packets - they usually tell you when to plant.

In the middle ages, what were the common/semi-common crops in Western Europe/England, or other areas of similar latitude?

If you haven't allready read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jarod Diamond, I'd highly recommend it.
Now, Europe had an unusually large variety of crops available, bute these are the grains: Wheat, barley, millet, rice, each in several varieties. In the Americas there was corn and quinoa, as well as a few other poorly developed grains.
Other types of major food crops around the world are beans, nuts, grasses, potatos & tubers, fruits, and melons/squash. A completly comprehesive list would be insane, but I hope I've given you some idea of the range of possibilities.
For most games, I'd just sang hang the sense and put whatever you feel like on your world's menu, but if you want to go the extra step then consider the size of the continent your game takes place on, and the variety of climates and cultures it has. A good rule of thumb I've found is that for each foundation culture (like egypt, babylon, china, etc in real world) you should have one or two grains, one to three bean-like plants, and a handful each of fruits, nuts, and veggies.

[Markdoc]

Other things to take into account is that different crops give different yields - Northern Europe supported greater population expansion through the medieval period than Southern Europe in part because of fertile lands with plenty of water - but also because of extensive use of water meant that they could sometimes squeeze two crops - grain and a frost tolerant vegetable out of the land (that's why beets and cabbage feature prominently as you go north :D). Potatoes (not medieval, but hey, neither is a fireball) give you between 8-16 times the food from the same land as most grains. Fruit gives you about a quarter. Play with those numbers and you can shape your population density to fit.

So you can make a rough gauge of the years activity (note, based on your question I'm focussing on what you'd expect from a relatively prosperous late medieval region):

Spring - dying time. Late winter/early spring is the worst time of year, when the stored food starts to run short and sickly old people shuffle off the mortal coil. People start spreading manure onto the fields. Hard work and nasty, but usually only about 4-6 hours a day. The rest of the time is spent checking your seed stocks to select out any that have gone bad (those you eat) and repairing tools and stuff for working in the fields. The kids are sent out to find green stuff that you can eat. Nettle soup with ragwort anyone?

Summer. You start digging up and planting in spring and early summer. planting is hard work and everyone is involved - the adults dig, the kids stick the seeds in and cover them up. Summer work is weeding, killing bugs and watering. All in all 6-10 hours a day, depending on fertility and availability of water (and number of people). Animals are sent away from the houses to graze, and encouraged to breed, watched over by the kids and that's usually the full day. Collect the animal dung and pile it up for later use.

Autumn. This is actually party time. Harvest is hard work but usually a short period (you're talking 10-16 hours a day, though). If you have a winter crop, you plant those straight after, so that's another few weeks of hard work. If you have grain crops, you clean up the grains and get them packed (carefully so they don't spoil) and save all the stalks (pluck the leaves off) - that was used for roofs, for shoes, for clothes to make floor covering and (in Japan) damn near anything. That's evening work, as is boiling or pickling fruit and vegetables to preserve it, or fermenting it to make alcohol. Last of all, the animals are gathered, you select the ones you will keep and slaughter the rest, or drive them to a nearby town and slaughter them there. Party! Eat yourself stupid, test the results of the first fermentation and then preserve the rest of the meat (butchering salting, pickling, etc).

Winter. Early winter, harvest the second crop if you have one. Otherwise scour the woods for mushrooms and nuts. Outdoor activity winds down and if you want to travel, late autumn or early winter was the time, while the weather was still OK. There's still lots of work, though. Most small farmers made all their own stuff or traded it with neighbours - tools, preserving jars, plates, etc and often painted or carved the hell out of anything they made - that could be sold or swapped (mostly men's work). There's wool or fur to card and spin to yarn and clothes to make (Women's work). If there are animals, they need to be fed, which often means hauling feed by hand. Last of all repair your tools and make new ones ready to start spreading much on the fields again. Start taking bets if Granma will make it through to St Bede's day again :D

With all of that, evening times or non-farming time were used for:
Lessons. By late medival times, total illiteracy was not the general rule. A farmer needed to be able to read and calculate a little to keep track of his debts. Kids (and some adults) went to church schools for a few hours a day in winter and early spring
Making cheese - most farmers kept a few animals, even if they weren't herders and you can get milk out of most of them
Making stuff (as mentioned above - pipes, shoes, tools, lanterns, clothes, kitchen implements, floorboards, furniture, you name it)
Cutting firewood and carrying water.

One thing that strikes me reading accounts of the time is that farmers were almost always doing *something*. The modern idea of leisure didn't really exist. Mealtime was a big deal and took up a chunk of time - families might pray or read together afterwards - but when dad was reading, mum is going to be spinning thread with the daughters, while the sons polish a hoe handle or carve an eaveboard for the house. Or something. Most people were pretty busy 12-14 hours a day.

cheers, Mark

[Roland]

I'm not using it as an argument for combat trained peasants - I find the whole concept of wandering monsters to be ludicrious and purile to exist outside of CRPGs.

In the real world, wandering monsters are a real problem that peasants have to be able to deal with. Examples:

Wolves, foxes, and big cats poach livestock.
Elephants trample crops.
Bears, raccoons, and deer raid gardens and orchards.

Even when hunting is restricted, peasants will circumvent the law to protect their food supplies. In Africa, farmers sometime run afoul of laws protecting elephants. And in the U.S., gardeners sometimes discreetly kill raccoons, contrary to state wildlife laws. Ranchers around Yellowstone often complain about wolves and grizzly bears, but they can't do much about it under the close scrutiny of federal officials.

And in the real world peasants often made up the bulk of the infantry. In England during the Hundred Years' War, all able-bodied men were required to practice archery every Sunday.

[AliceTheOwl]

Of course they were. If they didn't, they'd never be able to wield an English bow. :D

[Curufea]

In the real world, wandering monsters are a real problem that peasants have to be able to deal with. Examples:

Wolves, foxes, and big cats poach livestock.
Elephants trample crops.
Bears, raccoons, and deer raid gardens and orchards.

Even when hunting is restricted, peasants will circumvent the law to protect their food supplies. In Africa, farmers sometime run afoul of laws protecting elephants. And in the U.S., gardeners sometimes discreetly kill raccoons, contrary to state wildlife laws. Ranchers around Yellowstone often complain about wolves and grizzly bears, but they can't do much about it under the close scrutiny of federal officials.

And in the real world peasants often made up the bulk of the infantry. In England during the Hundred Years' War, all able-bodied men were required to practice archery every Sunday.

It's an odd world you live in if you regard animals as monsters.

[CrosshairCollie]

It's an odd world you live in if you regard animals as monsters.

I think the point was that meandering wildlife that intrudes on the property of farmers and villages, etc, isn't particularly farfetched. Fantasy wildlife simply tends to breathe more fire and be more aggressive.

[Curufea]

Therefore there is an arms race.
Walls to keep out wolves = Wards to keep out magical wolves
Herding of cows to stop predation = Magical slipping powers to stop them being carried off by dragons
Shepherds to tend to sheep = Superheroes to attend to sheep.

You seem to be missing the point of wandering monsters however - as they are generally random, with no cause or affect other than to trouble PCs. If you fit them into the ecology (rather than having them random), then naturally the ecology will adapt to fit them. For every magical power and attack, a magical defense should develop. Most fantasy settings have civilisation lasting 10 times longer or more than in the real world - surely they would adapt?

[Roland]

Of course wandering monsters fit the ecology. But the PCs wouldn't know this if they are just passing through.

Not all real-world wandering monsters are animals. There are also bandits, raiders, and pirates, which, from the victims' PoV, are not much different from orcs.

[Curufea]

Yet more racial stereotyping. Where's the Orc Liberation Front?
;-p

[CrosshairCollie]

Yet more racial stereotyping. Where's the Orc Liberation Front?
;-p

I know someone who painted up a Warhammer Fantasy minis army in pink and lavender and called them GOLF (Gay Orc Liberation Front). Does that count?

I agree that racial stereotyping sucks, which is one reason why I tend to play oddball races whenever feasible, as I grow very, VERY tired of being old I'm 'not playing my (elf/dwarf/halfling/gnome) right' if I give him a non-clone personality.

[Curufea]

Yeah - Where's the Elven Brickie, the Dwarf Hair Stylist, the Hobbit Warrior and the Kobold Paladin?

[CrosshairCollie]

Yeah - Where's the Elven Brickie, the Dwarf Hair Stylist, the Hobbit Warrior and the Kobold Paladin?

Done it, haven't done it, done it with halflings not hobbits, done it.

[Lucius]

It's worth pointing out that an average peasant probably does a lot of work that is not strictly agricultural.

Sure, there are "down times" in the agricultural year. That's when you're making/sharpening tools, repairing fences, making clothes, maintaining your house and maybe other buildings....and not necessarily just your own work, but the fuedal lord may need labor to build a bridge, repair a road, put up a wall around the keep so you all have someplace to retreat to in time of war....

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is mulling it over

[keithcurtis]

This depends on the period and the skill of the peasants. Building a defensive wall is most likely masons (guild-based in some times and places)

Keith "Hire the Incompetent" Curtis

[Curufea]

I don't think peasants had keeps either :)
Although I suppose a knight or lord with a keep could employ peasants to help with the construction.

Certain some peasants would have skills in fencing - otherwise the sheep and cows would wander off. Gotta keep those fields separate. Land demarkation was very important and a major cause of disputes.

Again, I recommend Harn. One of the only fantasy roleplaying games that is based on research rather than whimsy and movies.

[CrosshairCollie]

Again, I recommend Harn. One of the only fantasy roleplaying games that is based on research rather than whimsy and movies.

Well, this assumes you want realism rather than fantasy, and gritty rather than cinematic. I prefer fantastic and cinematic. :)

[garou]

Yet more racial stereotyping. Where's the Orc Liberation Front?
;-p
The OLF became largely defunct on MKRealms after the founder lost his warlord status for telling a certain game company that their policies were foolish and alienating the customer base - and offered suggestions on how to successfully run large events.

[Curufea]

Well, this assumes you want realism rather than fantasy, and gritty rather than cinematic. I prefer fantastic and cinematic. :)
Which is fine - however you're not one of these posters that comes up with frequent questions on this forum in regard to realism.
It happens so often that I see it as encouraging that folk want to get rid of misinformation and game from a base of knowledge rather than ignorance.
Even if the game they run is more pulp, rubber or fantasy - at least they will know why things were and what they need to do to get away with it :)

[CrosshairCollie]

why things were

It's actually this particular line that I construe as the problem. 'why things were' implies that the game is intended to be historically accurate as it pertains to the real world, which is not possible when you have magic, elves, orcs, and whatnot. Harn isn't Earth, so there's no reason that everything in Harn would progress even remotely as it did on Earth.

A 'realistic' game world doesn't need to mimic Dark Ages Earth. It merely needs to be internally consistent with its own history, physics, and all that rot. Unless the game actually takes place on Earth, 'why things were' seems singularly irrelevant to me.

[Curufea]

It's actually this particular line that I construe as the problem. 'why things were' implies that the game is intended to be historically accurate as it pertains to the real world, which is not possible when you have magic, elves, orcs, and whatnot. Harn isn't Earth, so there's no reason that everything in Harn would progress even remotely as it did on Earth.

A 'realistic' game world doesn't need to mimic Dark Ages Earth. It merely needs to be internally consistent with its own history, physics, and all that rot. Unless the game actually takes place on Earth, 'why things were' seems singularly irrelevant to me.
Because when people use stereotypical fantasy settings - they never think about the workings.
As soon as you get players with the least bit of creativity, they will find an imaginative way of doing something, or a particular question, that you will not be able to answer because it wasn't written up, and you never thought about it.
Because history was a working system, and fiction never was.
It takes a lot of effort to make fiction work, and it is easier and quicker to model it on history.

If you actually do create a working fictional world that covers all areas that a player would ever question - then I commend you. You're probably the exception above the 98% of fantasy GMs out there.

That being said - it only applies to non-pulp, non-melodramatic, non-space opera games. Games which are dealing with continuity. If you don't care about continuity, it isn't a problem.

[Lucius]

Just a clarification:

I never said a peasant would have a keep, that is, not as being his own personally. I meant that the entire local community might be expected to put in some work building or maintaining defenses for their LORD'S keep, assuming a fuedal social structure.

Lucius Alexander

KS: Palindromedary

[Curufea]

Just a clarification:

I never said a peasant would have a keep, that is, not as being his own personally. I meant that the entire local community might be expected to put in some work building or maintaining defenses for their LORD'S keep, assuming a fuedal social structure.

Lucius Alexander

KS: Palindromedary
Yeah, sorry about that.
There were far more community projects and things (festivals etc) in those days.

[keithcurtis]

I am not familiar with Hârn. If it is closely modeled on earth historical cultures, technology and so forth, how does it reconcile that with the existence of monsters, magic and non-human intelligent species? Or does it even have any of these?
I like worlds that have creative approaches to these problems.

Keith "Hârn ignorant" Curtis

[Michael Hopcroft]

I am not familiar with Hârn. If it is closely modeled on earth historical cultures, technology and so forth, how does it reconcile that with the existence of monsters, magic and non-human intelligent species? Or does it even have any of these?
I like worlds that have creative approaches to these problems.

It mainly deals with it by having the elf-equivalent and drawf-equivlaents pretty much keeping to themselves and not interacting with the human world all that often.

Not the ideal solution, but with Hârn's emphasis on the low end of both the power scale and the social scale (the rulers of the lands are described lightly, but it is presumed that the PCs will never become invoplved with them directly, or in anything remotely approaching epic, world-shaking events) it is highly unliklely that a PC in a typical adventuring profession will wander the length and breath of the island anyway (and Hârn is a very small part of a much larger world that most PCs will never even hear about, much less interact with, in a halfway-standard campaign).

[Curufea]

I don't think there has been an equivalent setting yet for high fantasy. Harn was not only well researched, but extensively studied by contributers. Unfortunately it is Dark Ages, and low fantasy.

I would like to see a fully detailed setting for high fantasy - one that addresses all the issues of day-to-day life, economy, ecology and so forth. I haven't seen it yet.

[LoresLost]

I am not familiar with Hârn. If it is closely modeled on earth historical cultures, technology and so forth, how does it reconcile that with the existence of monsters, magic and non-human intelligent species? Or does it even have any of these?
I like worlds that have creative approaches to these problems.

Keith "Hârn ignorant" Curtis

I have not looked at HȃrnWorld in ages (In the mid eighties) but I remember it being based primarily on old English culturally with a late medieval economy. Few monsters, elves or dwarves and they all keep to themselves. The biggest issue for the average Hȃrnian was the Hȃrn world equivalent to Vikings/Norsemen.

Here is the link to the present maintainers design decisions http://www.columbiagames.com/HarnPage/Generalintroduction/Robinharnintro.html

Also looking around their site they have a few free pdf items (calanders mainly) for Harn.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I don't think there has been an equivalent setting yet for high fantasy. Harn was not only well researched, but extensively studied by contributers. Unfortunately it is Dark Ages, and low fantasy.

I would like to see a fully detailed setting for high fantasy - one that addresses all the issues of day-to-day life, economy, ecology and so forth. I haven't seen it yet.
That is probably because Harn was designed with logical consistency as a primar consideration, even at the expense of avdneutirng possibilities. Logical consistency is a concept that utterly defies many of the assumptions of High Fantasy; because most High Fantasy settings in literature are metaphors for larger concepts, and most High Fantasy settings in gaming are designed to justify the presence of as many different monsters and as much different magic as possible regardless of the consequences, the result does nto usually make sense as a world where people could reasonably live.

[Curufea]

I have not looked at HȃrnWorld in ages (In the mid eighties) but I remember it being based primarily on old English culturally with a late medieval economy. Few monsters, elves or dwarves and they all keep to themselves. The biggest issue for the average Hȃrnian was the Hȃrn world equivalent to Vikings/Norsemen.

Here is the link to the present maintainers design decisions http://www.columbiagames.com/HarnPage/Generalintroduction/Robinharnintro.html

Also looking around their site they have a few free pdf items (calanders mainly) for Harn.

A better Harn site with more content is here-
http://www.lythia.com/

[Kabluey]

Speaking as a Harn GM, I would like to take some issue with the use of the phrase "low fantasy". While I think it is essentially correct, I think it may give the wrong impression that there is less opportunity for adventure than most other worlds. This is certainly not the case. Want to explore ancient ruins filled with powerful magic? There are Earthmaster sites throughout Harn (Earthmasters were an ancient, very powerful and mysterious race predating any of the current cultures on Harn). Want to fight monsters? There's a god, Ilvir, who lives on Harn and gets his rocks off by creating new monsters and letting them loose in the world. Want to travel to other dimensions? There are Godstones, portals created by the Earthmasters that can transport beings to any number of locations (and even sometimes bring them to Harn, thus another source of monsters and such). Pretty much any trope of the fantasy genre you can think of has its place in Harn (and Harn is really only a small corner of a much larger world). Players can interact with the wildly fantastic and magical all you want. It's just that the wildly fantastic and magical can't be found on every street corner as in most "High Fantasy" worlds. You're not likely to see a flock of griffins mounted by warriors serving as the local kingdom's air force, but there's no reason you can't have a griffin being ridden by a mad mage. Just because your average peasant doesn't encounter magic and monsters doesn't mean that your players don't.

I'm not saying that Harn is for everyone. I'm just saying that equating low fantasy with low adventure is a big mistake.

[Curufea]

True. I use the phrase low fantasy to be about the same as street level cyberpunk. Or street level superheroes.
I'm currently in a low fantasy D20 campaign and quite enjoy it. I've been in it 3 years so far, and have just obtained the rank of knight. We spend most of our time in our village, but occasionally go out on various missions for the knight who owns it (although, after just obtaining the rank myself, I've now signed up with the local Duke for a new war off to the east).
We concern ourselves with the people of the village and their problems - but we still have other adventures. The unearthed tomb underneath the village of Bodwin's Howe - the Orc raids on a silver mine that was a concern of Sir Mordoc's, the annual fair and the kidnapping of his daughter - she being whisked off to a foreign city by a death cult. Our subsequent rescuing of her. The retrieval of ransom moneys for a noble after the backstory war, etc...
(in fact - http://montour.livejournal.com ).
My character had never killed until about the 20th session of the game. And so far - as the only true combatant in the group - he's killed less than a dozen.