thread: 2014-08-30 : AW:Dark Age playtest preview: Peoples
On 2014-08-31, gk230 wrote:
If I had not read earlier posts from you about people of obvious African or Middle-Eastern descent in early medieval Europe and similar things, I would still assume that for a game playing in eg. dark England, my choices of languages are Latin, Celtic, English, Germanic, Nordic and Welsh*, or something like that. Is there an incentive that will make me not jump to conclusions and consider other options?
Also, I think having some interesting options to choose from helps avoid it slightly, but similarly, what will really keep me from very insensitively stereotyping, and defaulting to combining eg. Worship the same god/enclave/bronze-brown/Arabic with whatever cultural stereotypes I may have about Muslim in European diaspora?
The main reason to make peoples mentioned on the sheet is to muster warriors from them. Will this skew what peoples are created?
Not knowing a lot about the Migration Period, I just read its Wikipedia article. You mention dispacement by the Empire, but "they grew together by migrating together" is a non-obvious application of "bound by a single common experience". Should that be a more pronounced option? Also, apparently groups that migrated showed a large ethnic internal variety, which I did not know about. Does that mean that "A diversity" should be a more pronounced option (eg. first, rather than last just as "other")?
*) Some of those are more like languages, some more like language families. (If I look at it like this, I miss some languages, but luckily there is an "other" option.) Is that on purpose? Does it have to do with not-yet-implemented multiple scales of peoples?
