Quote from: jhkim;1079815Apropos of the OP, who was interested in the medieval city of Cahokia, I think it's a major gap that it's very existence is nearly unknown to most people, when we've been studying it for decades.

Re Cahokia, it's the biggest for sure, and impressive. If it's moundbuilders you're after, there are many other sites in the region that might inspire. All smaller, some much older. Also in the SE, where I believe the OP is from.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079820Re Cahokia, it's the biggest for sure, and impressive. If it's moundbuilders you're after, there are many other sites in the region that might inspire. All smaller, some much older. Also in the SE, where I believe the OP is from.

Moundville is one of those sites, near Tuscaloosa, and it's pretty cool.  Even after being forced to go like every school kid in the area.  It was a center of worship and has some neat artifacts.

Quote from: jhkim;1079651Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Some of that used to be taught in NA and local history in my home town and I know some Great Lakes NA folk who still gold grudges against this or that western tribes for things done long ago. Others seemed fairly blase about it. Probably due to the span of time. And yes slavery did happen as some NA tribes were selling slaves to europeans same as some african tribes were. I guess it is one way to really get rid of someone without killing them.

The fascinating thing about so many tribes is the rich political intrigues, diplomacies, and dealings that went on and that we know now only fragments of. That and just how civilized some tribes were while others were not. And how they interacted too. Just in the Great Lakes region alone there was alot going on.

Then add to that the fact that animals back then were vastly more dangerous and it can make for a grand setting to explore. And that isnt even touching on anything supernatural.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079817No argument from me. Just look at all the people who say "little is known." Yes it's a shame it isn't more widely taught.

And now the History Channel is mostly just reality TV, it's hard to even learn it from television.

PBS used to have some really nice historical pieces on various regions back in the 70s. Wish I could remember what they were called.

And I miss the original Discovery Channel as it used to be a great source of all manner of historic, documentive, and scientific shows.

And yeah the History Channel started to change more and more for the worse.

Quote from: Omega;1080141PBS used to have some really nice historical pieces on various regions back in the 70s. Wish I could remember what they were called.

And I miss the original Discovery Channel as it used to be a great source of all manner of historic, documentive, and scientific shows.

And yeah the History Channel started to change more and more for the worse.

Too right. PBS still does the odd thing, joint ventured with NatGeo or the Beeb or both but yeah, pretty slim pickings.

Quote from: Omega;1079968Some of that used to be taught in NA and local history in my home town and I know some Great Lakes NA folk who still gold grudges against this or that western tribes for things done long ago. Others seemed fairly blase about it. Probably due to the span of time. And yes slavery did happen as some NA tribes were selling slaves to europeans same as some african tribes were. I guess it is one way to really get rid of someone without killing them.

The fascinating thing about so many tribes is the rich political intrigues, diplomacies, and dealings that went on and that we know now only fragments of. That and just how civilized some tribes were while others were not. And how they interacted too. Just in the Great Lakes region alone there was alot going on.

Then add to that the fact that animals back then were vastly more dangerous and it can make for a grand setting to explore. And that isnt even touching on anything supernatural.

Cool to hear, Omega.

So, if someone were running a game set in Cahokia, what part would be most interesting to you?  I am now thinking of having a game set in a version of Cahokia with a swashbuckling theme, where the PCs are members of a force of royal guards parallel to musketeers. It would be set around 1200, just as the palisades are being erected and there is growing danger of assault from enemy forces. So there would be some missions out to deal with problems, plus probably some political intrigue in the big city. I think I will have a religious figure parallel to Cardinal Richelieu in opposition to the king and queen, who runs the Chunkey games. And there would be Chunkey matches instead of duels.

Another thing to consider are traditions, customs and especially taboos.

Some tribes had taboos against for example how your shadow fell in things. Others had areas that were avoided because they were home to the "little people". Or a certain way food was cooked. WHO was cooked. (Some tribes did eat fallen foes.) Or even how the dead were handled. Some tribes were really intent on not allowing their dead to fall into enemy hands. Others had special procedures for the dead.

Quote from: jhkim;1080169So, if someone were running a game set in Cahokia, what part would be most interesting to you?

A city based campaign could go about anywhere really. Theres likely to be some political jockying and possibly some religious jockying too. How is the population supported? Farmmands? Trade? If trade. How secure are the trade routes?

Theres also the land itself. How hostile is it? Are there wolves, boar or bears in the area? An organized pack of the larger wolves can be a serious threat. A bear, especially the bigger ones like a grizzly can be devastating if they get on the rampage. Or are all the threats from people, either internal or external?

Depending on how "realistic" you wanted to be, animals maybe pose little threat. Even the Pleistocene megafauna were no match for ordinary humans. Maybe if you were alone and it was a surprise encounter things could get hairy, but otherwise I think you'd have to fantasy it up a bit.

Now if the animal wasn't really an animal, but a transformed shaman with human intelligence, flight, and maybe other magical powers, then that might be a whole 'nother thing.

In fact, if I was interested in a First Nations rpg, I might well go for a bitter rivalry between two shamans as the basic framework to hang the whole thing on, especially at the outset. One shaman from the PCs own village (or city compound/neighbourhood if you are going Cahokia), and the other: more powerful and hostile.

Quote from: Zirunel;1080295Depending on how "realistic" you wanted to be, animals maybe pose little threat. Even the Pleistocene megafauna were no match for ordinary humans. Maybe if you were alone and it was a surprise encounter things could get hairy, but otherwise I think you'd have to fantasy it up a bit.

Your idea of "realistic" is unrealistic.

And we are not talking about hunting game. We are talking about mostly predators as a viable threat that may be the ones doing the hunting. Bows and arrows, or spears may not necessarily stop some of the larger animals on the first, second or even third hit. And considering how fast some can move. One or two may be all you get. And that isnt even getting to pack hunters. Depending on the animal. It is one thing to put an arrow into something that doesnt know you are there. And a very different matter to do that if said beast is bearing down on you chooses to attack when you are unarmed or unprepared. About the same difference as with a person. Except some animals may have natural advantages not the least of which is speed.

Dragon Magazine way back had at least one article on the subject as well.

Quote from: Omega;1080334Your idea of "realistic" is unrealistic.

And we are not talking about hunting game. We are talking about mostly predators as a viable threat that may be the ones doing the hunting. Bows and arrows, or spears may not necessarily stop some of the larger animals on the first, second or even third hit. And considering how fast some can move. One or two may be all you get. And that isnt even getting to pack hunters. Depending on the animal. It is one thing to put an arrow into something that doesnt know you are there. And a very different matter to do that if said beast is bearing down on you chooses to attack when you are unarmed or unprepared. About the same difference as with a person. Except some animals may have natural advantages not the least of which is speed.

Dragon Magazine way back had at least one article on the subject as well.

Dragon Magazine. Okay.

Yes some animals are dangerous. the risks are non-zero. Bears, wolves, cougars, wolverines. People have been attacked and injured, even killed. Polar bears are especially dangerous. But I'll say it again. If you are in even a small party, and you don't take the animal by surprise, you are a) unlikely to be attacked in the first place, and b) more than capable of fending it off until it disengages, or even killing it, especially if you have any implements that extend your reach (not necessarily formal weapons, I have seen shovels used successfully to drive a bear away)

it takes knowledge and skills to actually kill them, but First Nations peoples knew how to handle these animals, and don't forget, all of these animals were actively and eagerly hunted, if not for meat (bears) then for hides, organs, bones, claws, or teeth. So we kind of are talking about hunting game.

Quote from: Omega;1080334Your idea of "realistic" is unrealistic.

And we are not talking about hunting game. We are talking about mostly predators as a viable threat that may be the ones doing the hunting. Bows and arrows, or spears may not necessarily stop some of the larger animals on the first, second or even third hit. And considering how fast some can move. One or two may be all you get. And that isnt even getting to pack hunters. Depending on the animal. It is one thing to put an arrow into something that doesnt know you are there. And a very different matter to do that if said beast is bearing down on you chooses to attack when you are unarmed or unprepared. About the same difference as with a person. Except some animals may have natural advantages not the least of which is speed.

Dragon Magazine way back had at least one article on the subject as well.

Greetings!

I used to have a friend of mine that was an experienced big-game hunter. Every year, he would take a hunting trip to Africa. He explained that unlike the vast majority of animals here in North America, which tend to run away from hunters during a confrontation, he said that animals in Africa are far more aggressive, and extremely dangerous. He further explained that many animals in Africa, for example, Elephant, Rhino, Hippo, Water Buffalo, Lion, Wild Boars, amongst others, when they are shot, instead of fleeing, they customarily charge you, enraged, seeking to kill you and take you out with them, even if they are likely to die. He recounted several stories of such animals trampling, goring, or biting members of the hunting expedition.

I would think that when hunting Pleistocene Mega animals, that they would have a similar aggressive response.

Interestingly, of all animals in the world, in current times, Hippos kill and eat more people than any other animal. I saw figures that said Hippos kill over 1200 people every year. Hippos are known to be absolutely fearless. I also saw a video of a large crocodile approaching a young Wildebeast trying to swim to shore in an African river. The nearby Hippo didn't like it, and was pissed off that the Crocodile was entering the area. The Hippo went all slow at first towards the Crocodile, then rushed the Crocodile in a blur of water, biting the Crocodile and throwing the Crocodile around like a helpless, ragdoll. LOL. The Crocodile was huge, too. The Crocodile never knew what hit him, with the Hippo chomping him like a fucking train! The Hippo stood there, looking at the Wildebeast, who scampered gratefully to the safety of the riverbank.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1080349I would think that when hunting Pleistocene Mega animals, that they would have a similar aggressive response.

Maybe. Certain of them might. And yet humans enthusiastically sought them out and killed them anyway. And without guns, just atlatls and spears.

Humans are real good at this stuff.

African animals co evolved with humans. That is why they are far more dangerous to humans than animals in the rest of the world. Where Humans mostly wiped out the megafauna once they got there.

I would run a fantasy Pleistocene game with aggressive megafauna, but in a true historical North America game they would be literally easy meat.

Quote from: S'mon;1080382African animals co evolved with humans. That is why they are far more dangerous to humans than animals in the rest of the world. Where Humans mostly wiped out the megafauna once they got there.

Yup, yup. That's why some archaeologists and anthropologists have come to term the fauna of Africa as "the living Pleistocene." The animals that evolved with humans to survival were the ones that were aggressive enough to keep us mostly in check. It's almost like off-the-charts aggression was an evolutionary adaptation to our threat level...