Space opera setting common

Attached is actually pretty good. Just use evens-odds on dice if you don't want to mess with stones. There's also

drivethrurpg.com/product/196205/Wurm--Roleplaying-in-the-Ice-Age-Wurm

if you want something more complex. And, GURPS Ice Age is a very good resource

A little too simple
Could follow the adventures of a whole tribe with its own primitive speech, main purpose it's to stay alive. Everything can kill you and death it's too common.

Its not that the setting on itself wouldnt be interesting but there are a lot of aspects essential to adventure rpgs that become hard to justify without civilization

>no architecture = no dungeons
>no politics = no overaching plots
>no philosophy = no moral conflicts
>no economy = all loot needs to be material
>no transportation = everything needs to happen in a relative small frame

just to list some off the top of my head

Honestly, I feel that a nomadic lifestyle doesn't lend itself well to traditional campaigning. In almost every single rpg, "the world" is all about settlements, organizations, and the threats those things face. And the players are adventurers who exist outside those settlements, facing the threats that the common man is shielded from.

A nomadic caveman setting, on the other hand, HAS no settlements pretty much by definition. There are no safe places for the everyday man to reside in - the everyday man is out there trying to survive just like the PCs.

I suppose it could work as an OSR-style game with a strong emphasis on tribe-building and leadership, but then you end up with a wilderness-taming simulator, not an adventuring simulator. May as well be a board game at that point.

tl;dr RPGs need settlements to support player characters, otherwise the game becomes about building a settlement.

Also cavemen have very limited personalities and intelligence. Roleplaying one would get a little boring after a while.

Roles for players are also extremely limited outside the traditional 'Adventurer' types. You can't really play any kind of craftsman-type role, since technology is too limited - Space Operas, Cyberpunk, Modern and Victorian all lend themselves to scientist/tinkerer types, Medieval and Age of Piracy lend themselves to smiths, artisans and engineers. Caveman settings only really lend themselves to Og, who cut rock best.

There's also a distinct lack of questing goals outside finding immediately useful loot or surviving. You can't quest to dispose of the evil king/wicked corporate tycoon, because people of that scale don't exist. Nor can you search for great caches of wealth/unobtainium materials/etc. because these things have no relevance. There are very few stories to be told, and very few characters to be payed.

Oh, and combat. Stone age combat is basically medieval combat but with less stuff. Not only are there fewer weapon and armor options for the players to mess with mechanically, but less historical context limits role-playing options.

Man, the more I think about stone age RPGs the worse they sound. It does seem like it'd lend itself well to one of those one-page games designed for oneshots, though.

1. That's not caveman at all.
2. Are you fucking kidding? I could agree about literal cavemen, but early bronze age is an amazing setting.

>>>no architecture = no dungeons
Wilderness encounters instead. Or, have a precursor race that left crap behind. Really, though, this sort of campaign should be more focused on politics and survival

>>no politics = no overaching plots
Tribal, inter-tribal and possibly even inter-species conflicts and relations can provide a very rich tapestry

>>no philosophy = no moral conflicts
I... you... Do you really believe that early peoples had no concept of right and wrong and just went around murder-raping everything and everyone they came across? Even if it was nothing more complex than "this won't promote the benefit of the clan/tribe/species" they would have had *something*. And we know from paintings and fetishes left behind that they did have spiritual beliefs, meaning philosophy.

>>no economy = all loot needs to be material
True, but barter is a viable economy and fairly easily adjudicated. See Totem for a good system.

>>no transportation = everything needs to happen in a relative small frame
Sleds, canoes, rafts... all of these existed. Look at pre-contact Amerind societies and the trading they did for examples

Again, it can be about survival and politics rather than that sort of thing. Or performing tasks to propitiate the gods/spirits/manitou/whatever. Or exploration. There are plenty of options

Crafting is more basic, but possibly even more important to survival than in other settings. Again, check out Totem above for something on that. And, seriously, what game setting really has crafting as a focus of the game rather than something incidental? Hell, I'd say it's MORE important for a stone age game because you can't just hop down the street to buy a new sword or whatever. You have to either make what you need or make something you can trade to someone else for what you need.

>Bronze Age
>Not rad
LaughingEgyptians.avi

>There's also a distinct lack of questing goals outside finding immediately useful loot or surviving.
Quest to find a new source of good flint. Quest to find a way to calm the wrath of the water spirit that Fast Hare pissed off with his stupidity and which now won't let us fish or drink from it's river. Quest to depose the tribe chief that's trying to gather enough warriors to his side to become a despot. Quest to find the home of those ogres that look like less polished versions of Us that are squatting on the hunting grounds we want for ourselves. Quest for fire.

Word

Yeah cause who needs running around outside in RPGs, right? What's next, setting camps for the night? Fighting monsters? Fucking weirdos, they'll probably make a game about adventuring or something.

>Crafting is more basic, but possibly even more important to survival than in other settings
It doesn't matter how important it is if it's not interesting. If I present my players with a Crafting system, then tell them they can craft:
-A spear
-A Sling
-A good Rock
-Food
-Assorted situation-specific items like boats
they're going to have zero interest in it. Because it lacks any depth - it's just "roll to own a boat."

Og
Wolf-packs & Winter Snow

And that's not true of other systems? I can't think of any where it's not just "Okay, you've got your ingredients. Roll to Craft."

What do you mean by cavemen?

>Wolf-packs & Winter Snow
Vancian magic. Is this some D20 spin-off?

Also, let me just say that this looks like a fantastic setting. Gonna have to look for similar images.

Variety of technology allows for a wider variety of outcomes. There are limited outcomes in a crafting system set this early in the technology timeline. Og the Caveman is not going to spend weeks designing some complex new variation on the crossbow, because the most complex thing that Og can design is a slightly sharper spear, or a slightly more sturdy boat.

>no politics
>no philosophy
>no economy
Who gives a fuck?

>no dungeons
You're saying there aren't enough chances to go in a cave in a caveman setting?

Wouldn't be hard to do in most systems. Just restrict weapons to spears, clubs, bows, slings, etc, characters can't use magic except maybe the tribe shaman, and the game would focus mostly on survival (not just monsters, the elements too) and figuring out where the fuck you're going to find your next meal.

In D&D the classes should be limited to barbarian and druid, and levels should be limited to like 3 or 4 and only be acquired via special events- surviving a mammoth stampede or something, I dunno. You gradually get better and the best hunter or fighter in the tribe is pretty clear-cut, but there's still a significant chance of getting killed in a single powerful blow from a rival tribe or an animal, and environmental hazards remain significant threats.

A long time ago I considered how to port some early homonid ancestors as fantasy races; Humans were more or less the elves with their taller, slimmer bodies with better vocal range and good archery/throwing abilites. Neanderthals would have ancestor worship and be a bit stockier. Homo Erectus is a bit of a shitty goblin-esque race and Homo Habilis was a bit more generic. Never got too far, especially in trying to "balance" them.

I once created a setting that was originally meant to be all about cavemen, but quickly devolved into Native North and Central American fantasy.

I had metal be extremely uncommon; fit only for rare heroes or rich kings who could afford it. Since the people of the world followed nature-based religions they weren't allowed to dig for ore, so the only ore they were allowed to use was metal shards that rained from the sky (meteorite), and occasionally one of their priests would bless them to dig up just a little copper from the earth, let it turn green and oxidize and become magical sacred copper that burnt monsters like acid when it touched them.

The problem was I started to add in way too many generic animal people and fantasy races, and stole too much from native american mythology; making the setting feel less original and more like a shitty SJW sounding world. I quite liked my magical Aztecs but porting something similar to a fantasy/early bronze age style society and world into caveman sucked away what made it fun.

I think tribal fantasy should be more based around survival and dumb mythological quests like this. However you need a rules system that supports it, and a magic system that feels right.

Wolf Packs and Winter Snow was a D&D game that uses tribal living as a theme; having a literal saving throw category being Weather and getting XP for reclaiming caves to live in and retrieving meat from hunts were some great idea, but porting Vancian magic to it was pretty shit. Otherwise it's an interesting entry to the 'genre'.

No, but he might spend a week or two making a new fetish that will, say, imbue him with the spirit of Horse, allowing him to run faster, or the spirit of Glyptodon, making him more resistant to injury. And, again, when would any of this ever really be a thing in most campaigns? Unless you're trying to find, repair and assemble the parts of the Kosmic Godsmiter! (C) to banish not!Cthulhu before he can wreak his havoc or whatever, crafting is an incidental thing. It seems rather odd to me that you're hung up on it.
I mean, I don't know about you, but when I belly up to the table my goal is to find adventure, not spend a few hours describing how I lovingly craft a magic dagger of Bitch Shanking.
Seriously, when have you ever been in a game where crafting was a major focus?

>Wolf Packs and Winter Snow was a D&D game

Not worth the price tag, then. Thanks

Stone age =/= no civilization
It literally just means no metal tools.
You can have architecture.
You can have politics
You can have philosophy
You can have an economy
You can have transportation. Did you think animals were only domesticated post-bronze age?
Jesus fuck what is wrong with people
You could literally have a roman empire tier civilization just without metal tools. The real problem is answering why metallurgy never took off in that case.

He seems very much stuck in a D&D dungeon crawling mindset. Fight monsters. Get loot. Buy and make more powerful equipment to get stronger. Repeat.

Not that guy, but I've done exactly that in the past and it didn't really work. Advanced societies don't mesh well with tribal/stone age fantasy despite them being perfectly feasible. Having non-metal tools and using beads as currency and shit is cool, but once you add in those advanced or more modern concepts things get less interesting.

You must have terrible imagination.
> Having non-metal tools and using beads as currency and shit is cool, but once you add in those advanced or more modern concepts things get less interesting.
So basically you want to play a stereotype and get disappointed when your not-thought-out setting is terrible so you added analogues and then still got disappointed because you were playing generic fantasy with a different coat of paint?

>Tribal, inter-tribal and possibly even inter-species conflicts and relations can provide a very rich tapestry

Thats no stone age

>Stone age =/= no civilization

Thats literally what stone age is

Indirect (going through LotFP) B/X spinoff.

Red Reeds clan vs Moon Brow clan
Bear tribe vs Lion tribe
Human vs Neandertal

Seems like it to me

What part of inter-species conflicts requires metal tools?
Stone age, courtesy of merriam-webster:
>the first known period of prehistoric human culture characterized by the use of stone tools
I guess you could say they can't have record keeping, but it can be argued prehistoric is relative. If all data of human history was lost right now we would technically be prehistoric.

Oh. I assumed modern D20. Still not the best rules system, and this from someone who likes LotFP, but better than Stonefinder or the like. How's the fluff?

>Caveman settings only really lend themselves to Og, who cut rock best.
Only if we ignore the possibility of playing the first mad bastard who discovered fire.

>me face when I want make boulder-throw man and GM grunt that I rip off Chuck Rock

Or the Wheel.

Learn to read nigga
I've done literally everything you've talked about before. I'm not saying it isn't interesting conceptually, but from an in-game perspective it loses a special magical tribal caveman element once you start introducing societies. None of your ad hominem "arguments" are going to change that.

I think you are confusing stone-age for paleolithic ( which is just descriptive, not prescriptive anyways )
stone-age runs the gamut from pre-human to the first metal forge.
Unless you think humans we literally incapable of civilization before forges were invented but magically able immediately after.

Veeky Forums really suffers from "technology and history advances like a video game" mentality. A civilization could be greek or egypt tier without metal tools, as long as the question of how they shape their stone and wage war is answered. You could go the monster hunter route and say that animal parts are so sturdy that metal forging never took off to replace it.

Before neolithic generally. That's what most people mean.

That's just bullshit. Behaviorally modern humans (that is, from around 50ky ago) had roughly the same intelligence as modern people, and all the same personalities (probably, there are alternative theories, but whatever). They also had normal language, although somewhat limited compared to modern languages. Like, they likely didn't have adjectives, no words for colors other than black (dark), white (light) and red, no words for numbers higher than 2, mostly talking in simple sentences etc.

What would be the extent of such conflicts?, apes throwing rocks at each other?, we are talking about troglodytes not modern tribes

What is the difference between interspecies conflicts and cavemen conflicts if they are all dumb apes with rudimentary sense of preservation?

OP asked especifically for a CAVEMAN setting, you and your lot of retards are streatching it out with you ACKTHUALLY bullshit

>didn't have adjectives
Sorry, meant to say didn't have adverbs.

>but from an in-game perspective it loses a special magical tribal caveman element once you start introducing societies
So,,,exactly what I said you did?
>None of your ad hominem "arguments" are going to change that.
But you just admitted to doing what I accused you of doing.
>Before neolithic generally. That's what most people mean.
Neolithic is relatively advanced. What they mean is paleolithic:
>relating to or denoting the early phase of the Stone Age, lasting about 2.5 million years, when primitive stone implements were used.
This is the og rock ugh head time frame they meme about.
>What is the difference between interspecies conflicts and cavemen conflicts if they are all dumb apes with rudimentary sense of preservation?
See >Behaviorally modern humans (that is, from around 50ky ago) had roughly the same intelligence as modern people
Really depends on the time frame you mean.
Of course if you are talking about the time when humans were scarcely different from animals it wouldn't be interesting: you're playing as something scarcely better than an animal!

You could get that caveman feel with post-apocalyptic, where guns and modern tech are so rare that they're seen as relics. You'd even get chances to explore ruins and finding various holy relics like an MP3 player or a calculator.

>You could literally have a roman empire tier civilization just without metal tools
Or you could go with the empires that was literally in the stone age for it's entire existence, the Incas and Mayans

Says cavemen. Has a picture of modern humans in a 'lithic setting. I think his intention was clear to everybody but you.

Incas and Mayans never developed metal tools and yet developed complex astronomy and class systems and such

>Space opera setting common
>Cyberpunk setting common
>Modern era setting common

All futuristic settings that let us imagine a reality more advanced than our own.

>Victorian era setting common (albeit with steampunk)
>Age of Piracy era setting common
>Medieval era setting super common

All settings that have an air of romanticism and legend to them. Gentlemen and Adventurers, Pirates and Privateers, Knights and Dragons.

>Ancient era setting rare

Romanticism and legend fading...

>Caveman era setting unknown

Romanticism and legend gone.

There's not much setting outside of the mechanics. Most equipment is self-made, if you clear all the monsters out of a cave you can establish a tribe there, creating and understanding maps requires art expertise, magic-users use caves/monoliths/etc. for spellbooks, stuff like that.

Sure, lets pretend he was talking about tribal settings (even though they are common) instead of obviously refeering to actual early humans surviving in the wilderness

They knew how to work metals, they never used them as tools because they didnt have good metals

He/she said cavemen, and showed early modern humans. That's all. Anything else about his/her preferences is pure supposition. Don't go accusing us of the exact same thing that you're doing and then act like you're the one who's right

>show hollywood cavemen
>asks for cavemen
>you: "ackhtually humans were not cavemen during the entirety of the stone age :^)"

>He/she

>I want to play a retarded hollywood stereotype cavemen
>why does not one want to write about this?
Because the jokes are already played out in the 1 hour run time
And you think you can run a campaign on such a emaciated concept?

Its clear by this point that you just wanted to be a smartass and tell everyone they are wrong by purposely misinterpreting the topic, no one is this dense

>You're saying there aren't enough chances to go in a cave in a caveman setting?
kek

No, user, no one is so dense as to assume OP was actually interested in why nobody plays stereotypical Hollywood cavemen.

If you wanted a shitty ug smash head with rock cavememe thread you should have just made one of those instead of asking why x setting isn't used then have the whole thread demonstrate why ( they think neolithic and previous humans are literally retarded ape-men even though humans have been anatomically modern for a few tens of thousands of years )
Kind of difficult to have a coherent setting when you want the audience to self insert into literal animals. There OP I answered your question.

>no architecture = no dungeons

Why would you need manmade dungeons when you've perfectly fine forests, valleys, and cave systems to explore?

>no politics = no overaching plots

Another clan of cavemen have been invading your berry gathering grounds, killing your elks, and shitting on your sacred human sacrifice rock, are you bad enough caveman to kick their hairy asses? Your tribe has been driven from the valley you lived in for generations. can you find/take over another place to live in before the tribe either tears itself apart or gets driven to extinction by the harsh stone age world. Shaman is out of magic leafs and mushrooms he needs to communicate the spirits, the forest where those things grow is far away, filled with hostile beasts, and controlled by a tribe that hates your guts, time to get your asses moving and get drug plants your medicine man needs.

>no philosophy = no moral conflicts
To kill the enemy tribe's children or take them with you and raise them as your own, that is the question.

>no economy = all loot needs to be material

Probably the only valid complaint.

>no transportation = everything needs to happen in a relative small frame

Fucking Homo Erectus was capable of building rafts capable of crossing (narrow 100km or so max) seas. There is no reason why you can't build a boat and use it to travel somewhere and kick some fucking foreign ass.

Just making a point about assumptions. Hell, OP might even be an it/they/other/BBQ. Who the fuck knows (or cares)?

Not him, but clearly the whole idea is that OP left it extremely broad and there is no right interpretation. The one in the wrong is the person saying, "Hurr durr primitive, sub-human cave dwellers are the only cavemen possible".

'Caveman' is a generic term referring to everything from neandertals to archaic humans. It is not a precise thing in any way despite your attempts to make it seem so

Its pretty clear that we were talking about early nomadic humans, no one asked for your "but muh early civilization" thing that is common as dirt

I was in a 10,000 BC (the more recent one) style campaign once. We added in a few "evolved" dinosaurs and Ancient Aliens/Atlantis style stuff. Towards the end the Nephilim also popped up and ended with the deluge. It was a pretty good time.

Sounds fun. I'd have gone with pleistocene creatures instead, but that's just personal preference.

Love me some terror birds.

>why does no one use hunter gatherers as their setting?
Because if everyone is a murderhobo, no one is

There were Pleistocene creatures.

The evolved Dinosaurs were spoopy lizardmen who wanted to eradicate humanity. There were also fishmen and other monsters.

>Early Bronze age
>isn't advanced enough to entertain us

Sumeria, Kemet, Indus & Shang civilisations are taking a stern look at you right now.

And I would play the shit out of a Stone Age game. Paleo, Meso or Neolithic age. Meso would probably be the most interesting as tool complexity was booming there, before farming became a thing.

Well, that just means you don't have to focus any on the "hobo" part. :D

Excellent. I do enjoy gonzo "muh ancient aliens" settings.

My game-thing am unga!
Your game-thing am bunga!

I feel like this could work with the right players. People who like the Primitive Technology channel.
youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA
People with an interest in animism.
People who don't think fantasy begins and ends with D&D.
If you add fantastical elements like some people have (giants, megafauna, spirits) it could be really hard. There is no safe town to retreat to for rest/resupply. It is basically a wilderness survival game that never ends until you die.

Don't mind me! Paleolithic monument coming through!

Shush, you. We don't need none of your "facts" and "evidence" 'round these here parts

Well, this is pretty unique and we have no idea how it was built. I don't mean technically, I mean how and why did people at that early stage organize to build it. Also, it's the very end of paleolithic.

...

Not entirely relevant, but I once read an interesting short story with magic users in a caveman era. These spellcasters saw their powers as an inner ball of fire and kept it under control by imagining wrapping wet furs around it.

You might have to think of more stuff like that if you want to play with anything other than martial classes. You can't really hand out spellbooks or anything like it.

The Chalcolithic period (beating and annealing copper) is part of the Neolithic period (and goldwork goes as far back as the Paleolithic), the Mayans and Inca didn't leave the Stone Age (develop alloying) until about 300 years before they were wiped out, and the Inca *did* use metal for tools not just decorations.

>Also, it's the very end of paleolithic.
Are you suggesting that Mesolithic and Neolithic aren't also Stone Age?

If we're talking fifth edition the only classes that shouldn't be able to exist are Cleric, Monk, Paladin and Wizard. Some spells and skills might have to be cut or reflavored though, just as weapons, armor and items should be limited. A bard can't have a lute but can reasonably have a drum. A rogue can't have a metal dagger but can easily have a jagged piece of rock that functions as one.

Because the barbarian class exists in certain settings for those that have an interest in playing a fucking primitive.

Muh lol rager = caveman.

Come on. You're not even trying, here. Go to bed, get some sleep and come back tomorrow when your'e rested and can do better.

>can't hand out spellbooks
Given that they could cure hides for clothing and had pigments for painting, some kind of picto-glyph representing the concepts behind a spell should be possible.
They could even have them tattooed onto their skin, which would make gaining spells through defeating a enemy a bit messy!

No, I'm not. Why would you think that?

That comment seemed odd in context.
is a reply to

Tattoos and body paint is cool.

And neanderthals were probably very hairy.

Why wouldn't you want to play as STRONK men on a quest to find new hunting lands to settle, led by a "Fire-Listener" who had an encounter with the spirits when he ate some weird plants and got high as shit?

So what kind enemies/encounters could you add to this beside dinosaurs and stuff? Bronze age Elves?

Only according to Squanch enthusiasts. There'd be no reason for them to be hairier than, say, your average Armenian or Turk.

>megafauna
>fantastical