Quote from: Trond;1126275BTW someone should definitely make a campaign, or perhaps a glorious B-movie, about Homo floresiensis. They were miniature ("hobbit") people, who sometimes fought against komodo dragons (which would have been even bigger by comparison) and hunted miniature elephants

The Asylum did that. They are the company that makes knockoffs of blockbusters. Their version of The Hobbit was like that.

Quote from: Trond;1126275BTW someone should definitely make a campaign, or perhaps a glorious B-movie, about Homo floresiensis.

Clash of the Empires.

The rating of 2.2/10 is unjust, it probably deserves a 2.3.

Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126266Thanks Trond, yes that's what I'm thinking.

I have a home-brew campaign setting set in Southeast Asia during the last Ice Age and there seems to be some evidence that Denisovans intermingled with our ancestors.

I fudge the history already somewhat to give the human cultures a tech level ranging from Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity. This is all inspired by fringe archaeological research about the area (out of Sundaland model).

So I'm not looking for historical accuracy but something that is somewhat plausible for my tastes.

It would be easy to to describe the Denisovans as the noble in touch with nature types or as brutish barbarians, but perhaps there are other possibilities?

My take on the Denisovians, and perhaps the Neanderthals is that they didn't need language because they were natural empaths or telepathic. They had much larger brains than we do, and there is no evidence their brain matter was less advanced than our own, only the bias of our not so objective scientists, but that fits well with them not having spoken and written languages. The presumption that ancient is more primitive than modern may not be correct as well. They navigated the globe without maps, compasses, or any modern tech, built boats, small settlements. There is no evidence that they did not have any religion, they might have been deeply spiritual without being vocal about that. They did hunt alot of megafauna almost to extinction. Prove me wrong about them. There is every evidence that the most homicidal, cannibalistic. and rapey of all the hominids was the Homosapiens (i.e. that would be us, modern man... who wiped them out).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4251[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4252[/ATTACH]

Quote from: TimothyWestwind;1126223I'm trying to think of ways the cultures of early human species could be different from our own.

And trying to avoid tropes such as: They're more aggressive (not Orcs). More in touch with nature (not Elves).

Etc.

Any ideas?

Dragon Magazine has at least two articles for playing a prehistoric campaign. One in the Ice age and not sure when the other is set. Thers an older thread or two on the subject and related.
Other RPGs that have taken a crack at are things like Gurps Ice Age and the like.

Quote from: Omega;1126357Other RPGs that have taken a crack at are things like Gurps Ice Age and the like.

I like GURPS Ice Age, but it's primarily focused on the real world, and it was written in 1992. Things have changed. No hobbits, no Denisovans.

That said, it's a decent overview, game-focused, a quick read (64 pages), and easily worth the $2.99 on Warehouse 23 or DTRPG.

Edit: And if you can find a copy, "Thrills and Chills: Ice Age Adventures" in Dragon #68 is by Arthur Collins, who was a veritable font of DM-wisdom. It's not really focused on the different types of human, as much as making the life and death struggle to provide for the clan gameable, but it's really sound advice for building a campaign.

Neanderthals:
They have a great sense of smell, unlike us.
They are much stronger than us.
Their shoulder joints aren't great for throwing, so they use spears and clubs.
They use spears and clubs to hunt enormous Ice Age monsters - they are Metal.
Both males and females hunt enormous Ice Age monsters - they have less sexual dimorphism than we do.

'Beastmen' - Neanderthals - play a fairly big role in my Primeval Thule games. They have powerful female shamans; they certainly have language, and fire, but no writing or metalwork. At this time (ca 25,000 BP) they are a fading race, and resent their declining status. Normally bitter foes of humans, they are still capable in some cases of empathy and even coming together to face the Great Doom - the Ice - that will one day destroy the Thulean world.

From an older thread.

Lets see.

AD&D: Axe Beak, Baluchiotherium, Cave Bear, Hyenadon, Irish Deer, Cave Lion, Mammoth, Mastadon, Woolly Rhino, Titanothere and Dire Wolf. Think Fiend Foloio added the Megetherium?

2nd Ed adds some more in MC3.

3e module called Frostborn? Glyptodon, Megaloceros, Smilodon, Woolly Mammoth, and Zeuglodon, and more in Frost & Fur? Coelodonta, Chalicothere,

5e: Aurouch was added in Volo's Guide.

5e fan-made: Gorgonopsid and Megacerops.

But more impressively Issue 137 and 167 of Dragon added alot more each. Get those two issues and you are fairly set. Also great source material for running that Ice Age cave man D&D campaign.

More animals
Issue 176 Added more animals from the Paleozoic era.
Issue 204 adds Cambrian creatures.

And three setting articles.
Issue 68 has "Thrills & Chills"
Issue 118 has "Out of the Stone Age"
Issue 175 has "The Perils of Prehistory"

Still havent found the one was looking for though.

Still havent found that Pillsbury Ice Age article. But did find 2 more dinos in issue 66 of Dragon.
The issue 68 article is pretty thorough though with tables for encounters, weather effects and more.

The Euparkeria and the Compsognathus.

GURPS Low-Tech covers early human specias.
GURPS Fantasy 2 - The Madlands covers some hunter/gatherer tribal culture.

Both are fantastic resources in this area.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1126330My take on the Denisovians, and perhaps the Neanderthals is that they didn't need language because they were natural empaths or telepathic. They had much larger brains than we do, and there is no evidence their brain matter was less advanced than our own, only the bias of our not so objective scientists, but that fits well with them not having spoken and written languages. The presumption that ancient is more primitive than modern may not be correct as well. They navigated the globe without maps, compasses, or any modern tech, built boats, small settlements. There is no evidence that they did not have any religion, they might have been deeply spiritual without being vocal about that. They did hunt alot of megafauna almost to extinction. Prove me wrong about them. There is every evidence that the most homicidal, cannibalistic. and rapey of all the hominids was the Homosapiens (i.e. that would be us, modern man... who wiped them out).

Well, there's the evidence of incest, and then there's this:
https://www.livescience.com/1187-neanderthals-cannibals-study-confirms.html

Our understanding of Neanderthals has certainly evolved over time.

Neandertals have a faint genetic presence, yet pervasive. Nearly all populations outside of Africa can discover some Neanderthal genetic legacy. It was once postulated that red hair was a Neanderthal legacy, but that has since been disproven. Also, it was thought that they had no spiritual side to their character as for a long time there were no graves discovered with grave goods. In contrast, humans buried their treasured dead with spears and other tools that took considerable time to make, thus a significant loss of effort when they were buried. Relatively recently, however, there have been some finds where there have been Neanderthal graves with some ritualistic aspects to it, so that is now in question.

They were unquestionably stronger and possibly better adapted to the cold. They were probably clannish; we have a lot of cannabalistic evidence, but also the tell-tale healed femur. A member of the tribe was cared for a long time to allow that bone to heal and have that member rejoin the hunt. As S'mon mentioned earlier the joint changes that allowed for a greater strength may have prohibited them throwing something any great distance. There is some interesting research in genetic shadows going on. There are a number of places where there is a chance someone might have Neanderthal DNA. There are also other places where there is never Neanderthal DNA. For some reason, having those particular genes was fatal in the human population.

Some coagulopathy disorders and Type-II diabetes are thought to have Neanderthal origin. In this case it may have been that Neanderthal's blood clotted quickly, and could possibly lead to strokes, &c., later in their lives.

Whether or not they could speak is an interesting question. They only part of the voice box that would last is the hyoid bone, and that is easily lost since it's the one part of the skeleton that isn't connected to any other bone directly. And, it's rather small. A theory is that if they could talk, their language might sound "thick". Instead of "Look out for that lion!" we might hear "loog uht for taht liun!" And they might have a lower limit that we do for the volume of a shout. There is the FOX-2 (?) gene discussion as well. That is thought to be the gene that allow us to cognitively construct speech. It is present in humans, but not Neandertals, chimps, bonobos, or gorillias or their fossils. They might have been confined to a form of sign language, which other primates can learn. There is quite a lot of conjecture there, however.

For Densivoians, there's practically nothing. The genetic presenence is slightly greater, but usually limited to populations SE Asia. So, maybe they were slightly shorter and slimmer than Neanderthals or Out-of-Africa humans. Right now about the only heritage that we think still exists is that some humans might have gained an improved tolerance to elevation from them (Nepal / Bhutan / Tibet, &c.). But, again, lots of speculation.

For my D&D game, my humans are H. sapiens with +2 to CON (we are the foremost pursuit hunters). Dvergar (dwarves) are H. neanderthalis with +2 STR (broad chest, large muscle anchor surfaces in the joints). Henggrin (halflings) are H. denisova with +2 DEX, mostly just for symmetry as we don't have more than a few bone fragments.

Quote from: SHARK;1126265Greetings!
I also saw some documentary about Neanderthals found in the Alps, where they had fur clothing, as well as clubs, axes, and bows and arrows.

I've never seen any evidence that Neanderthals used bows (or atl-alts for that matter). Are you maybe thinking of Otzi the Iceman?

Its not what you are looking for but I have been treating Orcs as fantasy Neanderthals. They are stronger, more resilient, more pragmatic, less creative and not green. The idea that you can have non-sterile half orcs means that they along with Elves are the same species as Humanity (biologically speaking).

I love the idea of the Hobbits hunting komodo dragons and riding mini elephants.... that's got to go into a setting somewhere....

Quote from: Mjollnir;1127015I've never seen any evidence that Neanderthals used bows (or atl-alts for that matter). Are you maybe thinking of Otzi the Iceman?

Greetings!

Hello, Mjollnir! I'm not certain if it was Otzi the Iceman or not. It was a documentary about Neanderthals in the Alps, how they must have hunted and survived, and how they think that the Neanderthals in the north may have been engaged in trade or something with Neanderthals in the south. They showed they had fur clothing, primitive axes and clubs, and primitive bows. I'm sorry I cannot remember the name of the documentary. It was from a number of years ago.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1127102Greetings!

Hello, Mjollnir! I'm not certain if it was Otzi the Iceman or not. It was a documentary about Neanderthals in the Alps, how they must have hunted and survived, and how they think that the Neanderthals in the north may have been engaged in trade or something with Neanderthals in the south. They showed they had fur clothing, primitive axes and clubs, and primitive bows. I'm sorry I cannot remember the name of the documentary. It was from a number of years ago.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Very unlikely. Neanderthals used thrusting spears not bows, large thrusting spears because they went after big game like Mammoths and Giant Sloths and such. They had to, ...you know, fight Sabre Tooth Tigers, so they needed BIG weapons that delivered LOTS OF MASSIVE DAMAGE. Bows were used against smaller creatures, and in areas where the larger creatures had been hunted to extinction. The new tech (bows) was all about making precision ranged weapons (unlike a large heavy spear or atl-atl) that could take out small fast targets like birds and small fast mammals. As long as they had large slow moving game, Neanderthals and early people didn't need bows, so it wasn't invented. Oldest hunting arrowheads ever discovered come from Africa and have been dated to 64,000 years before the present (stone arrowheads), Sibidu Africa. The oldest bone arrows are from the same region and date back to 61,000 years ago.The oldest bows  ever found in Europe are from Germany and Denmark and date back about 10,000 years ago. The oldest arrowheads found in Europe date back to the Solutrean period 22,500 Before present to 17,500 years ago, and were found in France and Spain. 11,500 years ago there was a mini ice-age, and 21,500 years ago most of Northern Germany and Denmark was covered in half a mile of ice. Only the immediate Mediterranean area was temperate. North Africa was a verdant lush grassland with many swamps and heavy annual rainfall. The Sahara wasn't a desert and large rivers flowed on the surface in Libya and Tunisia, and all of North Africa was rich in Wildlife. That is why there were so few settlements in Europe.

Clovis points are found throughout North America and date back to about 13,500 years before the present. Most of them were spear tips, but there were also some Atl-Atl tips, as well as some smaller arrows that would only be used with a bow or very small atl-atl. It is quite possible there were bows in North America, before there were bows in many parts of Europe though.

Pointed stone and bone objects have been discovered on many Middle Paleolithic archaeological sites, such as Umm el Tiel in Syria, Oscurusciuto in Italy, and Blombos and Sibudu Caves in South Africa. These points were probably used as thrusting or throwing spears, by both Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans, as long ago as ~200,000 years. Sharpened wooden spears without stone tips were in use by ~400–300,000 years ago. Bow and arrow hunting is at least 70,000 years old in South Africa but was not used by people outside of Africa until the Late Upper Paleolithic, about 15,000–20,000 years ago. The atlatl, a device to assist in throwing darts, was invented by humans during the Upper Paleolithic period, at least 20,000 years ago.

The youngest Neanderthal sites date back to about 40,000-35,000 years before the present time (In Spain), so Neanderthals had died out before bows were commonly used.

Your new vocabulary word for the day: Archaeotoxophily (Archaeology = the study of antiquities; Toxophily = archery)

Holmmgaard Bow dates to 7,000 BC ~9,000 years old
http://www.theinfinitecurve.com/archery/the-oldest-bow-in-the-world/

Solutrean Flintmaking (France & Spain)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean

The Meare Heath Bow ~4,800 years old
http://www.digitaldigging.net/meare-heath-bow-reconstruction/

Greetings!

Interesting stuff, GameDaddy!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK