Making a magical forest and jungle world

[Yora]

I've been recently unhappy with the state of the world I've been working on and remembered some concept ideas from a couple of years back, that I've seem to have mostly forgotten as I went ahead building.

There are currently a couple of interesting looking videogames in development that are set in prehistoric inspired worlds. Wild, Horizon, Far Cry Primal, Hellblade, and probably even some more. I think such a kind of world would work great with elves, dragons, and undead.
I've been reading Clark Ashton Smith's Hyperborea stories a while back and they reminded me of the Chaotic Good corner of the Planescape multiverse. (Beastlands, Arvandor, Ysgard.) I also like the atmosphere of Morrowind (though it's highly overcrowded for technical reasons) and the old German RPG Albion.
Aside from some crappy Conan-esque Fantasy shlock in the 2000s (Scorpion King, 10,000 BC), such an idea of fantasy seems to be very rare for some reasons.

How would you approach making such a world?

I think the most obvious first step would be to limit technology to Stone Age and Bronze Age technology, with perhaps some crude iron items like pots and arrowheads, but no shiny swords or any plate or mail armor.
And I would also keep the world free of cities and empires. Something I've been running into over and over with my previous work so far is to constantly focus way too much on major cities and their rulers, while all the action is supposed to take place in the wilds. I think what would work pretty well is to have major settlements that are basically a castle with a village in front of the gate and a wooden palisade around it all. Like the home of the King of the Rohirim in Lord of the Rings, or Whiterun in Skyrim.
Also, war is done by warriors, not by soldiers. When there's a war, the biggest and toughest people of the community get their helm, shield, and spear, and when the enemy is defeated they go back to their farms, hunting, or building boats. A king is mostly a guy who get the people to work together during a war, but otherwise each village mostly governs itself. If it even has a king.

In regard to making it a magical world, I think a good start is always to make the landscape big. Huge mountains. Huge trees. Huge cliffs. With huge waterfalls. And perhaps a huge moon, or even several of those. And of course huge animals, like mammoths, and tigers, and bears. Also dragons. In a majestic wilderness, subtle won't do.
Something I like about Morrowind and Albion is that the plants and animals are often also very strange. Like mushroom trees or big reptiles as work animals.
And to make such a world really feel different, I would also go with lots of nature spirits everywhere. Tree spirits, river spirits, shapeshifting animals. Mountain gods and lake gods. And they should be powerful. People should be afraid of angering the god of a lake or afraid to be ambushed by spirits that come from their homes under the earth during the night.

Do you have any cool ideas how to make such a kind of world more exciting and interesting?

[sktarq]

One of the first things that comes to mind is making those spirits a big central of the game. When the Grove of Oaks has an avatar players take it seriously. And frankly it screams to land is alive and can not be ignored. Also it means that the "empty wilderness" is never empty and there is always something for the social characters to do.

I would lean away from the classic DnD system as players end up so powerful and epic as to need major foes. Then the whole scale of conflict changes -it is no longer enough to save the village so there is pressure to save a city. And the opponents need support systems and by high level those could well need societal works on a larger scale than you want in your setting. So perhaps P6/P10 DnD, or a well trimmed shadowrun, or even oWoD based system (which has good spirit groundwork) perhaps.

Also a focus on crafters would be a thing. Without full time militarilies there would very few full time weapon or armor smiths.

Also come up with a list of what types of adventures you would want the players to go on. Because in most games social systems based on a larger scale society are foundational to how the game is played-see currency as an example. While in smaller societies favors and reputation often matter far more.

Also - you may need to limit knowledge so the the unfamiliariarity of things beyond their village becomes interesting. Possibly using very different names for similar things across races/cultures. Making a lack of a trade tongue a divider so that travel and social barriers are stronger. Giving strong skill bonuses to very "home territory" types perhaps - because knowing how to find food in one forrest may not translate well into a different forrest-even one basically similar if the flora is convergent but unfamiliar.

Make the mundane important. Perhaps different crops or meats have short term mechanical effects like weak potions. Or since Steel/Mythril/etc are all but legend then you have room to make natural variation that is normally considered in one catagory a bunch of different things with different mechanical effects- Arsenic vs Tin vs Alum bronze. Blow out the "Studded Leather" catagory into several.

Social bonuses for making an impression (with looks, followers, and lots of equipment bonuses possible-even simple things like red or purple dyed cloth-possibly with a different set for spirits or other races)

[Yora]

Very good point about emptiness. While such a world would have to be mostly empty of people, it can still be full of things. And probably should. And with the inclusion of spirits, you can even have inanimate things that are more than just background. Groves that offer protection from evil creatures or help healing the wounds of those who show reverence, or caves and small islands that are hostile to intruders by causing cave-ins or landeslides.

Giving each community a strong and distinct identity and culture probably is also a very good idea. It helps enfore the idea that each community is independent and that there is a strong distinctions between members and outsiders. And it might quite well help creating a feeling that they are all relatively isolated and don't have regular exchange between them.

[VoxRationis]

Make geographically distinct regions, and then geographically distinct sub-regions. Again using Skyrim as a reference point: Skyrim is identified as being a cold and mountainous place, which separates it in terms of geography and ecology from neighboring regions. Yet even within that region, each hold has a distinct sort of vegetation and terrain typical to it (and which are often, but not always, variations of the main terrain type): Eastmarch has those volcanic vents, the Rift has the only deciduous forests in the province, Hjaalmarch has the cold marshes, etc.
So if you come up with a region defined as "tropical rainforest," come up with a number of subdivisions of the rainforest:

A highland region with rocky outcroppings emerging from the canopy;
The great, totally-not-the-Amazon river, of enormous depth and width, with entire floating gardens and ecosystems that never touch the soil;
A region dominated by a particular kind of plant or animal (take, for example, the devil's gardens, which are tended by ants which systematically remove unwanted plant species);
Flooded forest or swamps;
Etc.

Then come up with as many local (possibly even endemic) species of fauna, with as riotous and unusual an appearance and lifestyle as possible (while still adhering to typical rules such as "bilateral plans work best for advanced, motile creatures" and "limbs and digits are lost if there's not a good reason to have them"). In a high-productivity environment such as a forest or jungle, with a fairly accommodating abiotic environment, diversity abounds and all kinds of out-there adaptations and lifestyles can be found.

Edit: Of course, don't forget the importance of transitional zones between these biomes. Doing so makes for unrealistic (verisimilitude-breaking) worlds, and ignores the potential for truly interesting habitats.

[Yora]

Oh, I really, really like that. Most people seem to approach worldbuilding by starting with a realistic natural landscape and then drawing borders and locating peoples. Which I think is not really that great when building a "setting", where exciting stories are to take place in amazing locations. Having a world that is designed towards a purpose instead of evolved by whim means you have exactly the elements you need for adventures that fit the theme of the setting, and you also can put all your attention to those interesting parts. I never had fully thought this through to it's logical conclusion regarding geography.

Thinking of areas with similar terrain as one region is a bit different from thinking with borders and territories. Conventionally, a big river is usually a border between two regions. But with this approach both sides of the river would be pretty much identical and form a unit, with the river itself being the main central feature and not something between two areas.
So far my general view of my setting has been mostly a big blur of green surrounded by blue and now it seems very sensible to highly stylize or even over-stylize individual areas. Games like Skyrim, being a visual medium, can show a clear difference in looks with relatively modest changes in plants and terrain shape. When you have to describe environments verbally, you probably have to make the unique local elements considerably more extreme. Which kind of follows the same line of thinking as my previous idea to make things majestically big. I think it might help to think of individual valeays, mountain ranges, or parts of forests in a way similar to dungeons. With their own architecture, creatures, and humanoid inhabitants.

Transitional zones are certainly important, but I am a bit uncertain how to implement them. I think this style of setting lends itself very well to leaving a lot of blank spots on the map. Since you usually won't have big armies fighting over control of territory, any action will be mostly "site based". Extreme jumps in environment between two areas that are bordering each other would generally be bad. But I think you could very well have several clusters of such individual, highly distinct areas, and then leave big gaps between them where you just say "and they sailed 2 months by ship until the coasts of their destination came into sight at the horizon".

Another nice thing is that I believe the "Every planet is a village (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Planetville)" phenomenon is really not a problem at all in this kind of world. One or two main settlements per area might often be enough, because even relatively big areas would have very small populations.

[MrZJunior]

Perhaps you should forbid wizards or other spell casting classes to make magic rare and unusual, perhaps even terrifying.

What sort of adventures would work in this world? It sounds to me as if you need some way to make exploration interesting in and of itself.

[sktarq]

Are you planing to publish this or use it yourself and how botanically inclined are your players? To me a Black Locust or Holly tree is a clear an potent image while to others they will paint a mental image of whatever classic broadleaf forest.

Also with large scaled forests that mean much of each places distinctiveness will be far enough above the players heads for them not to care-the trunk varietion would become all they see. Also you loose the options of forests where the base of the canopy is deer nibbiling height - and the restrictions and claustrophobic feel that can come with that. Also big forest trees need rather big spaces between them while say a giant bamboo forest could be both highly useful to you and add a different feel.

Also while the place may be dominated by forests/jungles I'd recommend taking a look at elephant grass regions-I think it holds to your feeling well and again adds variety.

[Yora]

I think magic should be "common", but not "utilitarian". The shaman consults the spirits before warriors go on a journey and casts blessings on them before a battle. People build warding posts or signs around their villages to keep out evil spirits, and wear talismans to protect agaist hostile magic. People make all kinds of sacrifices, make magic hand signs and say protective prayers all the time, and runes are written on all kinds of stuff. To the normal person, magic is everywhere all the time.
But very few people can throw fire, fly, or turn into birds. And nobody has swords that glow in the dark, rings that protect against fire, boots that let them jump over rivers, or just a pot that cooks food without a fire. I agree that in such a setting magic should not be a substitute for modern technology. It's not a tool for everyday tasks.

Every village needs a shaman or a witch, and when a village has only 50 or 100 people that's actually a lot of shamans and witches in the population. And since the heroes are usually the strongest and most important people in their homes, I don't see why they shouldn't be shamans or witches themselves? As long as there are only two in a village and the master stays home while the apprentice joins some warriors on an adventure, I see no problem with having spellcasting heroes.
However, I think a magic system for such a world probably should be relatively low powered, especially when compared to something like high level D&D.
The rules I've been using for my setting so far are: No teleportation, no creation of objects from nothing (though rough shaping of rock or wood works), no manipulation of time, no raising the dead (except for reviving the mortally wounded), and no divination other than asking spirits for cryptic advice. I am also not using any magic items. There are some potions from magical plants that speed up healing and counter poisons, but that's mostly it. No spells in a can.

Regarding adventures, I don't think "exploration" is a viable adventure. You need to have some kind of story emerging and wandering around and running into monsters doesn't really do that. You need some kind of quest to leave the village and go out into the wilds.

There's a number of great things for heroes to do:
Something near the village is killing people and you have to stop it.
The spirits are upset about something nearby and you have to find it and end it.
Someone is planning to attack your village for food or slaves and you have to prevent it.
Someone has attacked your village for food or slaves and you have to get them back.
You find yourself trapped in a dangerous place and have to find a way out.
Someone else is trapped in a dangerous place and you have to get them out.
Someone is planning to murder or abduct one of your people and you have to prevent it.
Someone has murdered or abducted one of your people and you have to avenge it.
An enemy shaman has found an object of great power and you have to steal or destroy it.
Some curse is affecting your village and you have to find an object of power to stop it.

Any of these can involve a lot of exploration, but it's all about finding the path to a goal and not a land survey. And even i you do each item on the list only once, that could still last you for a very long campaign. Especially once you start making a lot of friends and enemies over the course.

[Yora]

I've been thinking a lot about mythology yesterday. My first instinct would be that cultures of this type would have to have a lot of creation myths and hero stories. But would that add anything of relevance to the setting? Would anyone care to hear about those stories? The setting seems to demand it, but I don't see any benefit from investing serious work into it.

[AMFV]

Well the chief problem I would have is : "Why isn't the world advancing?" "Why aren't they cutting the trees?" Limiting it to Bronze or Stone Age tech is one solution, but that feels inelegant, to me at least. I think you might as well go all the way, have the forest actually be magical, have it resist attempts to pacify it or make it into plains. That would be how I would do it. It would definitely produce a more interesting cultural thing. As a disclaimer this probably results from enjoying Mirkwood in the Hobbit too much.

[Yora]

Who says it's not advancing? Just because it's Bronze Age now doesn't mean it has always been and will ever be. The "proto-historic" period on Earth covered about 8,000 years. The primordial forests of central Europe lasted even a 1,000 years beyond that before there was substential clearing. Hot and dry climates obviously take a lot longer than tempereate wet regions for trees to grow back after being cut, though.
That's a lot of time for people to have the impression that things have pretty much always been mostly the same as they are in their own lives.
Though giving plants a supernatural growth boost certainly should help.

[AMFV]

Who says it's not advancing? Just because it's Bronze Age now doesn't mean it has always been and will ever be. The "proto-historic" period on Earth covered about 8,000 years. The primordial forests of central Europe lasted even a 1,000 years beyond that before there was substential clearing. Hot and dry climates obviously take a lot longer than tempereate wet regions for trees to grow back after being cut, though.
That's a lot of time for people to have the impression that things have pretty much always been mostly the same as they are in their own lives.
Though giving plants a supernatural growth boost certainly should help.

Fair enough, I think it may have been the other Forest World thread that got me thinking that, since folks were arguing for bronze age tech being a limit. I certainly think that supernatural elements could go a long way to explain why there's forest over the entire world. It also could help you develop the mythology and cosmology of the setting, which is a pretty critical aspect. Particularly since dark forests tend to provoke that sort of thinking (think of the Schwarzwald, or other similar)

[Yora]

Yeah, technology rally isn't a limitation in that regard. People have been able to clear half a continent's worth of forest with just neolithic or even mesolithic technology. All you really need is fire and using it regularly in areas with slow regrowth rates.

[AMFV]

Yeah, technology rally isn't a limitation in that regard. People have been able to clear half a continent's worth of forest with just neolithic or even mesolithic technology. All you really need is fire and using it regularly in areas with slow regrowth rates.

True, I'll admit that I'm not terribly familiar with that historical period. I just came in to advocate for a living magical forest. I mean the forest is one of the most terrifying things to us, it's dark, it's primal, it's a part of nature that we humans didn't really evolve in, it's about as removed from the savannah as you can get. You can't see, you can't hear where things are coming from. I think that a world of forest would be terrifying. Historically if we look at how people look at forests, up until very recently they've been terrifying, so a living forest would certainly have that aspect.

Also why have humans evolved in that world? Are they natives? I mean there'd be a large difference between humans that evolved in the forests, and humans that evolved in the savannah. If you're using standard humans you may need to explain that bit. I always like the humans from another place (which also would make the forest more alien). Although I'm not sure if that's quite what you're going for.

[Yora]

Peoples who are afraid of forests usually live i n clearings. I am sure tribes in Brazil or Indonesia don't think of forests as threatening. It's the only place they know. Similarly, Romans going on campaigns into Germania where unsettled by the forest. The German tribes they were fighting probably had no such fears as they were familiar with it.

Someone said "Humans are afraid of the dark for good reasons, because they know there are dangerous things in the darkness that try to eat them, like tigers. Tigers are not afraid of the dark, because they know that the most dangerous thing in the darkness are tigers."
The fact that a terrain consists of forest should not be in any way disconcerting to people native to it. Instead the threat has to come from specific spirits known to live in specific places who are outright hostile to people. Everything is forest, but it's the territories of individual spirits that are to be feared. Which generally leads to tabus. Certain rivers must not be crossed and herds not be driven beyond a specific boulder, because doing so will provoke a spirit that will bring danger to everyone. For more remote areas that have not been explored, it would be necessary for the spirits to mark their territories in some way themselves. More humanoid ones might build actual markers while other might leave traces that would be very obvious any shaman. Even really cliched ominous signs could work very well to bring these areas to life. Absence of birds or a strange fog would not be something that people dismiss as nothing, but very unambigous signs of having entered the territory of a dangerous supernatural creature. Or to quote Monty Python: "Look at the bones!"

For a magical forest world, instead of a more naturalistic stone age setting, it's probably better to not simply assume spirits to be present in ordinary natural surroundings, but to have them leave very visible impacts when they are particularly powerful or hostile. Or friendly. I think some golden sparkles or blue glow in places of healing or protective power wouldn't be inappropriate but fit right in.

[sktarq]

Pre-Script: I'd recommend looking at the Ravenloft curse system for possible ideas of what pissing off the local spirits might do.


Ya know for funzies I'm going to play devil's advocate on the magical limitations you put down.


First: No Teleportation. As a normal pair of spells teleport and teleport without error are fine to drop but Gate-being rare (9th level) and perhaps giving it more costs (needing to go to other location and set an anchor/focus for example-or needing a henge and a solstice) could have good story possibilities. Gates to the "other" are a classic part of ancient historical tales with lots to mine. Also cursed items that reappear on people when they try to dispose of them are easier to deal with by some form of teleport-unless you make it carried by the spirit world or something. Also what about spells like ethereal jaunt or shadowwalk?

No creation from nothing. Well that's the evocation school gone then by definition. Magic missile is a bolt of energy from nothing-is that what you mean? All the wall of spells would seem to qualify too (which may be a good thing). A quiver that never runs out of arrows would be out too. . . Might I toss out a twist - no creation spell lasts longer than caster levels in rounds-no permanence allowed. It would get to the idea I think your going for no?

No time manipulation. This one is tricky on two parts-could a spell mimic a time manipulation spell and have been researched that way-so a slow spell works on a biological level for example. Or viewing the past of an object is actually about compeling the spirit of an object or touched by the object to tell the stories of the past-it would have the same effects. On the second issue oracles and things that see through time/fate are a classic part of stories of the classical and preclassical age. Getting rid of it entirely cuts off a lot of stories-that said useing a high cost to add a disincentive would be a very usable path. Just make the costs HIGH. Permanently sacrificing a body part for the wisdom, killing an innocent to see the crimes of their ancestor etc.

No raising to the dead. Two issues first is killing off the undead foes. A possibility is that only corruption of the spirit world can actually raise undead but even then necromancer wanting to take advantage would be a thing. Do you want to strip out the undead? If so why? If you just ment no returning the dead to life that's my second issue. It is another classic of ancient tales-particularly going to the land of the dead or with items like cauldrons that return to dead to life. I would say keeping those stories open is worth a bit of work-making player character death more than a quick trip to temple and gold outlay I totally get though (and also the societal effects of murder and inheritance issues). So make it undesirable in some way/ways. Examples even for various ways of returning the dead: Spirits hate the returned as unnatural-any blessings of an allied caster must make an immediate caster level check every time the risen gets within 100 ft-and the caster takes a -1 penalty to all level checks for each allied risen within 100 ft. In order to return one person to life the spirits of death must be bribed with more life than they return-so two hit dice/levels of innocents must be sacrificed for each level/hit dice of the risen. The caster must return an object stolen from the land of the dead in order to get the spirits of the dead to bring back the soul to raise-which the spirits think is fair as they will get the soul again eventually. The caster binds the life of the returned to another who now share one cup of life-if either is damaged both take the full amount where ever they are (but do not share healing spells) and if either dies both do).

No divination. No identify spells? No detect spells? Divination is a big school. Also no local shamen asking about portents of what next week's weather will be? I get wanting to put serious limits on divination but since so much of ancient magic was about ancient magic was about divination (see all the weird "mancy"s I'm not thinking it would help the feel to toss it out. I'd say look into limiting clear information and uping costs -f you want to limit usage. As seeing through time could also be divination in its purest form those costs would be appropriate here. Loss of blood, killing people/livestock, or even just time. Want to cast commune with nature? Sure but you have to pick a natural pool/rock whatever as a focus and not move more than three miles from it for more than a year in order for the spirits to be in tune enough to do their part of the spell that makes it work on the three nights of the year it can)

So yeah-there my counter to your magic bans-Building mostly on the themes of sacrifice to the spirits to make magic work.

[AMFV]

Peoples who are afraid of forests usually live i n clearings. I am sure tribes in Brazil or Indonesia don't think of forests as threatening. It's the only place they know. Similarly, Romans going on campaigns into Germania where unsettled by the forest. The German tribes they were fighting probably had no such fears as they were familiar with it.

The stories we get are from the German tribes. I grew up in the forest, and it is still scary. It's not that it's unfamiliar, it's that it's not the type of threats that humans are best equipped to handle. Our technology (particularly at pre-modern levels) becomes less useful in a place where you can't shoot, or throw, or get around trees. Our ability to see over distance becomes less useful. Our lack of amazing hearing and smell becomes a much bigger hindrance than it would be in other environments. People that live in the woods respect the woods, for the same reason that people who live in the tundra respect the ice and the glaciers. It is dangerous, and as such we treat it as dangerous.




Someone said "Humans are afraid of the dark for good reasons, because they know there are dangerous things in the darkness that try to eat them, like tigers. Tigers are not afraid of the dark, because they know that the most dangerous thing in the darkness are tigers."
The fact that a terrain consists of forest should not be in any way disconcerting to people native to it. Instead the threat has to come from specific spirits known to live in specific places who are outright hostile to people. Everything is forest, but it's the territories of individual spirits that are to be feared. Which generally leads to tabus. Certain rivers must not be crossed and herds not be driven beyond a specific boulder, because doing so will provoke a spirit that will bring danger to everyone. For more remote areas that have not been explored, it would be necessary for the spirits to mark their territories in some way themselves. More humanoid ones might build actual markers while other might leave traces that would be very obvious any shaman. Even really cliched ominous signs could work very well to bring these areas to life. Absence of birds or a strange fog would not be something that people dismiss as nothing, but very unambigous signs of having entered the territory of a dangerous supernatural creature. Or to quote Monty Python: "Look at the bones!"


Again, people who live in forests are scared of the dangers there. The birds stopping in the forest normally isn't a sign that there's a spirit present, but it certainly might mean that a bear or a tiger is around.

The other consideration is that your players and potential readers and what-not, are not from the Jungles of the Amazon, they're going to have the same concerns about forest that most people do. So the emotions that the setting is going to induce is not going to be the emotions that you would see from a native, but the emotions that you would see from somebody for whom a large forest is unusual (particularly since we've destroyed ours).



For a magical forest world, instead of a more naturalistic stone age setting, it's probably better to not simply assume spirits to be present in ordinary natural surroundings, but to have them leave very visible impacts when they are particularly powerful or hostile. Or friendly. I think some golden sparkles or blue glow in places of healing or protective power wouldn't be inappropriate but fit right in.

As a finishing note, I'm not saying that it should be scary, only that that would be what I would think of immediately for that sort of setting.

[Yora]

I think that applies to any setting that isn't modern or idylic faux medieval. When you step out of your village, there are real dangers. It's not a forest specfic thing, but generally speaking you're of course right. Overland travel should not be treated as a walk through the park or a camping trip. It's always a march through hostile territory once you travel out of sight of your village. Even when there are no people, there are still tigers. And probably much, much worse.
No need to constantly fear a monster behind every tree, but certainly a situation where you wouldn't want to go to sleep without your weapon in reach.

And yeah, I wouldn't use d20 D&D/PF for a campaign like this. The level and magic system don't seem terribly suited without a complete overhaul. The only thing that D&D does well is D&D worlds.

[AMFV]

I think that applies to any setting that isn't modern or idylic faux medieval. When you step out of your village, there are real dangers. It's not a forest specfic thing, but generally speaking you're of course right. Overland travel should not be treated as a walk through the park or a camping trip. It's always a march through hostile territory once you travel out of sight of your village. Even when there are no people, there are still tigers. And probably much, much worse.
No need to constantly fear a monster behind every tree, but certainly a situation where you wouldn't want to go to sleep without your weapon in reach.


But again, you're missing the main point, which is that humans aren't developed to excel in that environment so much as they are in others. So the dangers become that much more pronounced. It's very much like a setting in the Frozen Tundra. People persevere there (and in dark forests), but it's extremely difficult, particularly if you can't clear large sections of it.

[Yora]

Assuming that's actually the case. What impact would that have on the worldbuilding process in your opinion?

[raygun goth]

I've been recently unhappy with the state of the world I've been working on and remembered some concept ideas from a couple of years back, that I've seem to have mostly forgotten as I went ahead building.

There are currently a couple of interesting looking videogames in development that are set in prehistoric inspired worlds. Wild, Horizon, Far Cry Primal, Hellblade, and probably even some more. I think such a kind of world would work great with elves, dragons, and undead.
I've been reading Clark Ashton Smith's Hyperborea stories a while back and they reminded me of the Chaotic Good corner of the Planescape multiverse. (Beastlands, Arvandor, Ysgard.) I also like the atmosphere of Morrowind (though it's highly overcrowded for technical reasons) and the old German RPG Albion.
Aside from some crappy Conan-esque Fantasy shlock in the 2000s (Scorpion King, 10,000 BC), such an idea of fantasy seems to be very rare for some reasons.

Sweet. I love wilderness adventures, and I have a soft spot for the early days of spec fic. Caprona, Hyperborea, Hyboria, Pellucidar!


How would you approach making such a world?

Well, this is a question I can certainly answer; I've been running such a world for 20 years.


I think the most obvious first step would be to limit technology to Stone Age and Bronze Age technology, with perhaps some crude iron items like pots and arrowheads, but no shiny swords or any plate or mail armor.

The Spanish had shiny armor and guns, and it didn't help them much to make colonies or conquer large numbers of people - they had to rely on disease and infighting. Without a guide, Lewis and Clark would just be a bunch of dead guys in the woods, starved to death eating nothing but berries. Technology level doesn't really matter, just as long as there's huge, untouched wilderness to explore, because anyone exploring it won't have easy access to repair or build their fancy technology. This could roll into...


And I would also keep the world free of cities and empires. Something I've been running into over and over with my previous work so far is to constantly focus way too much on major cities and their rulers, while all the action is supposed to take place in the wilds. I think what would work pretty well is to have major settlements that are basically a castle with a village in front of the gate and a wooden palisade around it all. Like the home of the King of the Rohirim in Lord of the Rings, or Whiterun in Skyrim.

The cities of Sumer and Ur were large, powerful city-states. Perhaps you could say that city-states are about the limit? You can't even build those unless you have enough people to build a wall first. Alternatively, you could make cities be hives of decadence and corruption. You build too big a ziggurat and the safety of human engineering dials down and starts attracting the wrong kind of spirits. City-state dwellers have no sense of propriety, they eat the flesh of one another during famines and festivals alike, and they lay with anything that moves - so they say. Cities march armies into the grand wilds, never to return. The fools assume you can simply burn it away without asking permission first. City life has driven them mad, possessed by dark spirits and ruled by inscrutable gods.


Also, war is done by warriors, not by soldiers. When there's a war, the biggest and toughest people of the community get their helm, shield, and spear, and when the enemy is defeated they go back to their farms, hunting, or building boats. A king is mostly a guy who get the people to work together during a war, but otherwise each village mostly governs itself. If it even has a king.

Baked-in adventuring culture! Awesome.


In regard to making it a magical world, I think a good start is always to make the landscape big. Huge mountains. Huge trees. Huge cliffs. With huge waterfalls. And perhaps a huge moon, or even several of those. And of course huge animals, like mammoths, and tigers, and bears. Also dragons. In a majestic wilderness, subtle won't do.
Something I like about Morrowind and Albion is that the plants and animals are often also very strange. Like mushroom trees or big reptiles as work animals.

Yeah, you definitely want to do huge. Go big or go home. Roots so wide you can use them as roads. Mushroom forests that shed motes of light downward. Enormous flowers. Fields of open flowers that glow under moonlight. Vines and Miyazaki moss on everything. Weird geographical formations that imply that business went down there - a giant stone hand, sculpted as if severed from the arm of a god. Rivers filled across the bottom with quartz crystals instead of stones. Massive bone spires with plants growing all over and around them. Floating rocks covered in their own biomes.

Biomes in weird places, or made of weird materials - an ice elemental set up shop in the middle of a jungle, and the jungle still twists and grows, though its green boughs and wandering vines are formed of strange ice. A place where plants and animals seem to be composed of soft light. Giant seashells far from the ocean, surrounded by thick plants.


And to make such a world really feel different, I would also go with lots of nature spirits everywhere. Tree spirits, river spirits, shapeshifting animals. Mountain gods and lake gods. And they should be powerful. People should be afraid of angering the god of a lake or afraid to be ambushed by spirits that come from their homes under the earth during the night.

In my world, the act of building and living in a house is a message to the spirit worlds that you have claimed a domain. Sometimes a spirit might show up to challenge you, but only during daylight hours and always loudly. Villages work the same way - there's a practice where they mark out the edges of where they want to build the village with a truck, then there's a ritual that "claims" all the space inside. They put up a small wooden wall, young men dance in the center, young women fire rifles into bushes and treetops, and most spirits ritualistically flee, while others emerge to test the dancers in skill, combat, and performance, and if they "pass," spirits tend to avoid that area.

Most magic in that setting works the same way - practice and perception can force result. If you bargain, plead, debate, or demand an action from spirits for long enough and often enough that you have a good reputation, things just do what you say. Magician power grows not just with skill at debate, but also with clout and respect. Spirits look at your "magic resume" and go "oh yeah, this guy's good for it." You have to balance that with the fact that some spirits don't like you interacting with others, and spirits only like doing what they are - house spirits like housing people, keeping monsters out, keeping things warm or cold, keeping things secret, and stopping rain and wind. They don't like blowing things up or helping find things and so on - and sometimes they'll see you associate with campfires a lot, and be reluctant to help you outside their physical capacity.


Do you have any cool ideas how to make such a kind of world more exciting and interesting?

If more comes to me, I'll come back, def.

[AMFV]

Assuming that's actually the case. What impact would that have on the worldbuilding process in your opinion?

Well it depends... Which is a copout answer I know. As I said earlier, Humans that developed on that world would likely be very different, and therefore they might not have the same kind of difficulties. If they do, then it's likely a result of something that caused them to develop like us. So a lot rests on how you think that the forest world came about and on how people came about. That's going to play a lot into it. Also a lot depends on how thick the forest is, if we're talking deep thick jungle throughout, or dark old world forest, it's going to be a lot more frightening. Sort of like a world that's set in the Underdark. If you have sections of relative clear, then it's in many ways going to be very similar to our world.

The lack of agriculture, or at least cleared land, will have some pretty large implications to the entirety of civilization. Although at Bronze Age and Early Man standpoint it might not, since you're looking at hunter gatherer culture. Otherwise societies will likely develop that are very different from ours, since hunter-gatherer societies cannot support large populations. So you might need to account for that disparity.

If the forest is largely coniferous that would mean that you wouldn't have as many visible seasons, in places where it's particularly dense, you might not see any evidence of them at all. In a deciduous forest the seasons would have a dramatic effect. I would try to figure out as many of the nitty gritty goals first. Or at least figure out what you're overarching world is supposed to be like. Then from there you can figure out what you would need to have that effect. A world that's completely forest would be a world very alien to people.

[sktarq]

Actually making hunter gatherer culture predominate may be good idea anywway. Even just seasonal nomads is enough to unmoor most of player expectations. Uphill downhill would be a big migration seasonally. Semifarming - where prefered plants are planted and nurtured may be a significant thing. Also layered agriculture-veggis/root crops under orchards with other useful trees (like candlenut, mulberry (for bark paper, birch (paper bark), nut, or silvaculture lumber. Another place to look is the American Pacific NW where seafood was plentiful enough to permanent villages and "civilized" developments without normal agriculture.
Also groups like the maya would leave a few big trees in their field (usually thought to be because with stone tools the work of clearing it would not be worth the rewards)

One classic group of non agriculturalists that would be at a disadvantage would be horse nomads. Such groups have problems is forested lands-from easier to loose livestock, that equine movement advantages are weakened by cover, lots of roots etc.

Also Bread fruit and bananas. . Tree based cores of diets that may fit better in your world than grain.

One other thing-Trees are often limited by too low rainfall in our world-that's where grasslands form quite often. So to have a very forested world implies a very wet world

[Yora]

Well it depends... Which is a copout answer I know.

Not a problem. The goal here is to engage our imagination and consider interesting options. Suggesting fascinating directions is more useful than presenting fixed destinations.

Something that I was just thinking about is making the awesome might of the forces of nature manifested and represented in creatures. Terrible beasts that are more spirits or demigods than animals. For my setting I selected six "Thunder Beasts", that perhaps are less enemies to be fought and killed and more serving as motives of iconography for the people, who use them in pictures on their shields or as part of various expressions. I chose Dragon, Sea Serpent, Manticore, Roc, Rancor, and Giant Crab Spider. They are not just threats, but also omens that something big is about to happen.
Or really just the idea of totem creatures and expanding them from ordinary animals to purely fictional ones like owlbears, wyverns, or griffons.

Another way to bring the spiritworld into the homes and everyday lives of the people would be something like the genasi from Planescape, who are people with the blood of elemental spirits. These probably wouldn't be seen as monsters but as being blessed by the spirits and given great power to protect their village.

[THEChanger]

One classic group of non agriculturalists that would be at a disadvantage would be horse nomads. Such groups have problems is forested lands-from easier to loose livestock, that equine movement advantages are weakened by cover, lots of roots etc.



While horse nomads specifically would have issues in a huge forest, that archetype of people - the constantly moving group tending to herds of livestock, and using those livestock to move - could still exist in this world. What kind of animal would provide a similar kind of movement advantage in a forest environment? Something with the ability to move vertically, I would think. A climbing kind of livestock, or possibly flying.

Maybe instead of horse nomads we have hawk nomads. Or sloth nomads. Sloths that move fast.

[VoxRationis]

Yeah, you definitely want to do huge. Go big or go home. Roots so wide you can use them as roads. Mushroom forests that shed motes of light downward.
Minor quibble: You can have large mushroom stands (perhaps because wind patterns favor height for the purposes of spore dispersal?), but they should probably be an understory layer or something, as mushrooms are not in fact a sort of organism that can dominate a biome on their own.

[raygun goth]

Minor quibble: You can have large mushroom stands (perhaps because wind patterns favor height for the purposes of spore dispersal?), but they should probably be an understory layer or something, as mushrooms are not in fact a sort of organism that can dominate a biome on their own.

Well, yeah. But if the roots are large enough to use roads you can certainly have oversized fungus-based ecosystems in little pockets.

Also, eh. Giant floating rocks. The mycelium could be made of literal fire here. There could be multiple overlapping mycelium and instead of spreading spores, the mushroom itself could be part of the vegetative portion of the fungus.

There's a lot of ways a fungus-heavy biome might evolve, and there's plenty of room. And loads of magic. This is pre-consistency brainstorming.

[kraftcheese]

While horse nomads specifically would have issues in a huge forest, that archetype of people - the constantly moving group tending to herds of livestock, and using those livestock to move - could still exist in this world. What kind of animal would provide a similar kind of movement advantage in a forest environment? Something with the ability to move vertically, I would think. A climbing kind of livestock, or possibly flying.

Maybe instead of horse nomads we have hawk nomads. Or sloth nomads. Sloths that move fast.

I guess you wouldn't even need all livestock to be able to climb or move vertically, not necessarily; you'd just need something better adapted to moving through undergrowth and between trees, maybe little deer like the Tufted Deer (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tufted_deer ) which lives in wet mountain forests, or little goat-like critters, or EVEN flightless birds (think edible-egg-laying cassowary, or giant fowl-type beasties).

[VoxRationis]

I'm intrigued by the concept of riders on large flying creatures, and I'm trying to think of an ecological niche in a forest that would create a flying creature large enough to ride. The chief problem here, of course (aside from the normal issues of flying at a large size), is that trees kind of get in the way—a significant wingspan is required to bear aloft anything close to a human's weight. There are some very large birds in jungle habitat, but they don't come anywhere close to that size, which would end up being somewhere around that Quetzalcoatlus at least, and for good reason.

So what I'm thinking is one of the following possibilities:

The trees are simply enormous, and create enough dead space under the canopy (between the trunks, that is) that a large owl or something acts as an aerial predator on the inhabitants of the forest floor;
There is a large river with abundant megafauna in it that result in a niche for large aerial predators, while opening space between the trees for said predators to fly;
There is a significant emergent layer above the continuous canopy, and somehow enough food in that layer to support large carnivores (possibly a beefy herbivore in the treetops?—the trees would have to be quite large);
Massive sauropod-like megafauna roam through the jungle, and they are preyed on by large aerial predators when they break through the canopy;
The large flyers aren't in fact apex predators, but there's a food source (abundant fish too deep down for storks of normal size? Difficult-to-digest plants which grow quickly in patches separated by water?) which is intermittently distributed, encouraging flight, while at the same time both providing and selecting for large body size.

[kraftcheese]

I'm intrigued by the concept of riders on large flying creatures, and I'm trying to think of an ecological niche in a forest that would create a flying creature large enough to ride. The chief problem here, of course (aside from the normal issues of flying at a large size), is that trees kind of get in the way—a significant wingspan is required to bear aloft anything close to a human's weight. There are some very large birds in jungle habitat, but they don't come anywhere close to that size, which would end up being somewhere around that Quetzalcoatlus at least, and for good reason.

So what I'm thinking is one of the following possibilities:

The trees are simply enormous, and create enough dead space under the canopy (between the trunks, that is) that a large owl or something acts as an aerial predator on the inhabitants of the forest floor;
There is a large river with abundant megafauna in it that result in a niche for large aerial predators, while opening space between the trees for said predators to fly;
There is a significant emergent layer above the continuous canopy, and somehow enough food in that layer to support large carnivores (possibly a beefy herbivore in the treetops?—the trees would have to be quite large);
Massive sauropod-like megafauna roam through the jungle, and they are preyed on by large aerial predators when they break through the canopy;
The large flyers aren't in fact apex predators, but there's a food source (abundant fish too deep down for storks of normal size? Difficult-to-digest plants which grow quickly in patches separated by water?) which is intermittently distributed, encouraging flight, while at the same time both providing and selecting for large body size.


I'd imagine something that flies like an insect (such as...uhh....a giant insect i guess...or a big hummingbird) would have an advantage in a jungle/dense forest environment as well; the ability to hover and fly nimbly would be very useful if its a critter that lives in thick vegetation.

Bee-riders? Flying mounts that also make sweet, sweet bee milk....(honey)

Or the "large aerial predator" of the river megafauna could be some enormous terrify yellowjacket kinda thing (I know a bug big enough to lift a human isn't very realistic and that their exoskeleton wouldn't be able to hold their tissues up but its a fun idea).

[VoxRationis]

I'd imagine something that flies like an insect (such as...uhh....a giant insect i guess...or a big hummingbird) would have an advantage in a jungle/dense forest environment as well; the ability to hover and fly nimbly would be very useful if its a critter that lives in thick vegetation.

Bee-riders? Flying mounts that also make sweet, sweet bee milk (honey).

Unfortunately, that style of flight doesn't scale up very well. Moving one's appendages so quickly becomes extremely energy-intensive when the appendages are a meter or more in total span.

[kraftcheese]

Unfortunately, that style of flight doesn't scale up very well. Moving one's appendages so quickly becomes extremely energy-intensive when the appendages are a meter or more in total span.

Oh of course; its not realistic to have an insect big enough to lift a person (from what I remember the biggest Carboniferous-period flyers (Meganeura, etc) were roughly hawk sized, and theyre the very biggest flying insects we know of) and if the OP wants to stay close to realistic, bugs are off the table as flying mounts. I can understand that 3m wasps would wreck some peoples' verisimilitude haha

Kitten-sized bees that make honey wouldn't be TOO far-out though, would they? I mean you'd probably run into the problem of "how are they getting enough nectar/pollen from enough flowers to give them enough energy to hold their baseball-sized bodies up in flight AND have extra leftovers to vomit up and store as honey?"

[sktarq]

While horse nomads specifically would have issues in a huge forest, that archetype of people - the constantly moving group tending to herds of livestock, and using those livestock to move - could still exist in this world. What kind of animal would provide a similar kind of movement advantage in a forest environment? Something with the ability to move vertically, I would think. A climbing kind of livestock, or possibly flying.


Disadvantaged from one of the most successful civilizational models does not mean it is unworkable-just less successful than it was in our world. The advantages of horse nomads over other forms of pastoralism are most of what disappears in a forest. A cassowary riding group who herd cattle even would be better than horses in a forest but the horses distance speed is the hardest part to translate into a forest environment.

As for Arial predator I'd look to the Harpy or Monkey Eagles for inspiration.

[Yora]

I guess you wouldn't even need all livestock to be able to climb or move vertically, not necessarily; you'd just need something better adapted to moving through undergrowth and between trees, maybe little deer like the Tufted Deer (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tufted_deer ) which lives in wet mountain forests, or little goat-like critters, or EVEN flightless birds (think edible-egg-laying cassowary, or giant fowl-type beasties).
I think deer and goats would make for a good default choice for domesticated animals. Muskox and takins are really huge for goats, and reindeer are semi-domesticated in some areas. And given how big elks can get, it should not be a big stretch to imagine deer bred for riding.


I'm intrigued by the concept of riders on large flying creatures, and I'm trying to think of an ecological niche in a forest that would create a flying creature large enough to ride. The chief problem here, of course (aside from the normal issues of flying at a large size), is that trees kind of get in the way—a significant wingspan is required to bear aloft anything close to a human's weight. There are some very large birds in jungle habitat, but they don't come anywhere close to that size, which would end up being somewhere around that Quetzalcoatlus at least, and for good reason.
Mountains that reach above the trees would be an easy solution. I think that's where most really big birds are already living.


Oh of course; its not realistic to have an insect big enough to lift a person (from what I remember the biggest Carboniferous-period flyers (Meganeura, etc) were roughly hawk sized, and theyre the very biggest flying insects we know of) and if the OP wants to stay close to realistic, bugs are off the table as flying mounts.
No, stone age simulation has been done dozens of times. A wilderness world should feel like a consistent ecosystem (unless you want to do something like Planescape where all laws of physics are only suggestions), but my interest is on things that look amazing first, and on making it relatively plausible second.

[VoxRationis]

I could easily see the vertical distinctions between layers translated into rivalry or enmity between different tribes of forest inhabitants, if the ecosystem is large/productive enough to sustain people on multiple levels. The cassowary-riders have a historic hatred of the owl-riders, who swoop down on them from above and plunder their livestock, and the owl-riders rarely break the canopy, for fear of the eagle-riders...

Do you want dragons in your settings, and if so, what do you want to make the dragons? Intelligent, unintelligent, semi-intelligent?

[Yora]

Having different cultures based on different environments in the same areas seems like a pretty good idea to consider. But I think it probably would be a bit much to literally stack them on top of each other. Regularly catching sight of your enemies would be an incentive to constant fighting until one group abandons the area, even if they are not in direct competition.

My current image of dragons is probably about as intelligent as people. They could talk if they cared to, but being giant fire breathing lizards they just do whatever they damn well please. Which usually is hunting and eating any big animal that looks tasty.

I think dragons make a very good candidate for the very top of the food chain. And a major force of nature. The ultimate symbol that nature does what it wants and people have to try to adapt to that or get thrown aside. Based on that, dragons would not have to be great sages and masters of ancient magical lore. Simple desires and clear priorities seem more suitable for such a role.
I see treants (and to a lesser degree spriggans) in a similar role, though without any desire to bring trouble to people if they stay away. If they don't and the treants are displeased, they will get kicked out with little they could do about it.

[sktarq]

Actual if you have different tribes using the same geographic areas in non-similar manners (say ground vs canopy) there may not be much rivalry. The mixed bag of relations between agriculturalist vs herders vs hunter/gathers in east/great Lakes africa would be the clearest models to work from.

As for Moose/Euro Elk domestication I'd point you to Russian modern attempts. Most success has been with harnesses and sleigh. The only deer/antelope that have had much success has been the reindeer/caribou of the Sami and Siberians and some modern work with Southern African Eland.

[Yora]

I think domestication is mostly a matter of enough effort for long enough time. It's possible to train tigers and bears, which aren't domesticated at all. Breeding for domestication is probably primarily to get animals to become easier to train and more agreeable to obeying orders, and to make their bodies better adapted to being efficient at the tasks you want them to perform. But once you have horses, oxen, or camels, why go through the effort of breeding deers with more strength and stamina? In South America they did breed llamas and alpacs to carry loads, which are of pretty similar size and stature to deers (though actually more related to camels).
The reason I am personally using domesticated riding deer and pack goats is because I had already previously decided that there wouldn't be any horses and cattle in my setting to get some steps away from generic medieval fantasy. As an alternative I think they make sufficient sense. As an addition to horses and oxens they might be somewhat fanciful, though.

How tribal groups are living together side by side under normal conditions is always very difficult to interpret. Because any tribal people we've collected data on in the past 200 years where under significant pressure from industrialized states pushing into their territories and disrupting all established social order. Those closer to civilization get pushed deeper into the wilderness and then have to access local resources that resident groups had previously had all for themselves. And any new discivery of a new tribe happened because civilization had already advanced to the border of their territory. I wouldn't be surprised if there is not a single study on tribal people whose live had not already been disturbed by outside interruption.
So my assumption is that most of the time through human history, tribal groups were usually less likely to have hostile relationships than we can see in the 20th century. Of course it only takes one medium scale natural disaster to put a handful of groups to resort to desperate measures to get their food, which then ripples outward to the other nearby groups who become more edgy about protecting their own food. And some natural disasters are happening all over the world all the time. So I am not buying the idea of tribal groups living in a state of perpetual harmony for thousands of years either.
I think that the normal state of things is that the groups of any given area are living in some kind of equilibrium where every group is able to sustain itself without stepping on each others toes. And they would benefit from trading with each other, especially once they reached a neolithic level of society and technology, as well as mixing people through marriage to other groups. War happens when a group is worried that it's food suplies are threatened. Either because something disrupted their own food production, or because they have heard that some other group has problems with food production and might start raiding. Or because certain events and signs make it seem very likely that someone will experience food shortages in the near future. (Volcano starts rumbling or something like that.) As worldbuilding goes, there are more than enough reasons to get the people in a given area on edge and ready to attack each other. But I would treat tribal warfare as limited periods of crisis that last for a couple of months or a few years. Not as a permanent state of constant warfare that lasts for decades or several generations without breaks. Losing people to battles and raids hits small populations pretty badly and most just won't survive more than a handful of big fights before they are too weak and the survivors either have to be adopted by other groups, get enslaved, or have to flee the region. And of course, any food and other resources have to be produced somewhere. You can't have a whole mountain range in which every clan gets all its resources from raiding other clans.

[sktarq]

I think domestication is mostly a matter of enough effort for long enough time. It's possible to train tigers and bears, which aren't domesticated at all. Breeding for domestication is probably primarily to get animals to become easier to train and more agreeable to obeying orders, and to make their bodies better adapted to being efficient at the tasks you want them to perform. But once you have horses, oxen, or camels, why go through the effort of breeding deers with more strength and stamina?

NOOOO totally wrong here.

People spent thousands of years trying to domesticate cheetahs, gazzelles, Pelicans, Both forms of Elephants, several types of deer (including elk) to no avail. Peccaries? sure they seem just like wild boars but actually they can't be domesticated. The list of traits needed for domestication is long and missing any one and the species basically will not be domesticatable. This has changed somewhat in the last 100 years with greater understanding of genetics and biochemistry. Which is why species that have resisted domestication attempts are having new attempts show some signs of success today. Trainable is not the same as domesticatable-which has a whole secondary set of necessary characteristics of predator response, breeding needs, herd dominance structures etc. In all the thousands of animals over 100 kgs in world humands have only domesticated 14 (EDIT possibly 15). 1 Horse (possibly twice), 2 Auroch Cattle (2 or 3 times), 3 Banteng, 4 Yak, 5 Dromedary, 6 Guanco (Twice-Llama-and Alpaca?), 7 Sheep, 8 Goats, 9 African Wild Ass (Donkeys-an the Onager can be tamed but not domesticated), 10 Reindeer, 11 two Humped Camel, 12 Water Buffallo, 13 Pigs (probably several times-all of the same species) and 14 Guar/Gayal (EDIT possibly 15 as various sources seem to disagree on the ancestry of the Alpaca with Guanco the Vicuna and both being mentioned be various sources EDIT OF EDIT-okay DNA evidence appeared in 2001 and locked in a few years later but was slow to percolate out-learn something new every day). So 14 Species out of all the large animals on earth. and since 5 are bovines, 3 are members of the camelid family, 2 are Equines, and 2 are Caprinates (Goats and Sheep are close relatives) so that is less than 5 groups-and since several of the more wide ranging species were domesticated more than once that indicates a good chance that most species that could be domesticated were.

Also historical attempts to domesticate various animals are well known _ the Egyptians were rather aggressive about it but had basically nothing to show for it-captive and semi captive breeding herds that can be harvested. Attempts to domesticate Moose/Elk have a long history too-issues of being able to live where traditional livestock had trouble-being far better able to handle winter that traditional livestock needed major help with etc were understood as major advantages to such a beast. Russian Princes were major fans of the idea and dedicated major resources to it-eventaully so did the soviet union and that is why some results have sprung up.

Plus in areas where there were no Horses (like Africa or pre-Columbian Americas) no similar animal was domesticated. If what yo propose is true the Maya/Aztecs would have had domestic Peccaries, the Iroquois would have had domestic Bison or Deer, the Four Corner region would have had domestic versions of the Bighorn Sheep (which is very comparable to Mouflon-the European/Anatolian ancestor to domestic Sheep). . .I could go on but the lack of any large native domestic species in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas having a grand total of one (EDIT two) large domesticated species I think covers it.

Now you could use magic to get around parts of these problems to "domesticate" any animal you want but your premise that it is a matter of time and will is not supported by evidence.

[Yora]

Okay, I grant that elks are a highly improbably candidate since they are solitary. Probably would really need a druid using some magic to make one his personal mount.
And most mid-size deers are probably too skittish to get them reliably following commands.

A hypothetical deer species that is suitable for domestication, and since it's fantasy we can make one, would probably be big and strong enough to be dangerous for predators to approach, so they wouldn't rely entirely on running away when threatened. And live in mid-size groups that allow for a hierarchy, which very much helps with taming. (Though goats and sheep seem to lack these qualities.)
Something like llamas and guanacos would be a good reference, though these are home to dry mountains and not thick forests. Not quite sure what substential difference it would make.

My approach is to treat them as llamas with antlers. That should be plausible enough. :smallbiggrin:

[sktarq]

My approach is to treat them as llamas with antlers. That should be plausible enough. :smallbiggrin:
So pack animals? Llama were not ridden.

It's mostly a matter of figuring out what you want in the story. . . perhaps creating a wild version to anchor it and figuring out how it fits into the societies that raise it. If you want dig though recent biological history there are plenty of interesting seemingly closely related candidates you can by fit make domesticatable too. Deer included.

If you are going have them as mounts - Id point you to the Horse antelopes over true deer-Like the Sable antelope or Oryx (most are desert or semi desert dwellers but there are thorn forest members) or perhaps something like the Bongo. If you want true deer I'd start with Fallow deer as they have had some degree of human kept evolution (in game parks) that you can play with.

Do you want cavalry and riding animals? There would less effort spent on the complex systems used to train, equip, and care for them in a mostly forested world (as much of the development of riding was done on the plains-where the payoffs were big and then migrated into the forest) so it could be pretty rare. Like how ride water buffalo in South Asia-it happens a lot but the water buffalo is not a riding animal. That said if you do want it it wouldn't be too hard to have the be some advantage in to some corner of the world even if it is just status within a large enough group of people.

[Yora]

From a military perspective I don't think cavalry would have much use in forests. A running animal would probably have to follow paths in the terrain, forcing them to either spread out widely or to move in single files. Or they might have o move rather slowly through undergrowth. All scenarios wouldn't make them very effective in combat.
Unfortunately, I'v not been able to find any information on pre-19th century forest warfare. No clue if and how mounts have been used for fighting inside forests. But to carry supplies they would be very useful.

A different thing that occured to me as a great idea for a nature heavy setting is to have a good amount of established magical plants and special brews that can be made from them. I especially like the idea of plants that allow a warrior to be possessed by a spirit to gain extra strength.

[AMFV]

I hadn't thought of this previously, but your comment about medicines popped it into my head. You should do some research on Northern Indian and Mayan Civilizations. Those are some of the most successful civilizations that were principally housed in deep forest (although they may be slightly ahead of your world, but that's good since you can backtrack a bit). That might be a good starting point (although since you were mentioned the Llamas it's possible that you're already doing that.

[Yora]

There certainly would be a lot to learn. But I've never really been able to find much useful information about them regarding their use and interaction with their environment.

[sktarq]

Actually looking into Thai and Khemer empires may also be of use and there are good books on the Dayak peoples of Borneo that if anything are some of the closest for what you are looking for. The Iban Tribe being probably the most written about.

Also I'd consider you look into the Rule of 150. Which basically concludes that Human are set up for the maximum size of their tribe to be 150 people and that groups who stay under this number work better together while groups larger need enforced and invented social structures to succeed (basically under 150 natural socialization can keep the systems working well) This could be natural split point between larger more advanced villages in your world and the smaller hamlets and nomads. Also this is the number for humans-other races may have a different number (it does appear to be linked to brain capacity but not perfectly).

[Yora]

Certainly an important thing to remember. You can't just scale human societies up or down arbitrarily without losing a sense of realism. At least for an audience that knows a bit about that topic. While the term king can get used across a very great spectrum of community leaders, that doesn't mean the way they rule is in any way comparable. You should know what you mean when calling a leader a king or queen.

One element that I always enjoy a lot in exploration adventures is discovering ruins. In a setting of early societies and small populations that's a subject that requires some special thought.
What always works is lost ancient civilizations. But of course this has been done an endless number of times and introduces a theme of decline to the setting. Tolkien did it because his story was about decline, and I suspect post-apocalyptic barbarian worlds from the 60s and 70s were in many ways commentaries by the creators about their own contemporary times. You can do it, but I think in a setting that is primarily about nature, it would be really nice to have the natural wilds stand on it's own legs instead of relying on contrast to the weakness of 20th/21st century civilization. Nature can be good without humans having to be bad, so I rather want to avoid littering the world with "hightech" civilization debris.

One approach that could be interesting is to give ruins a very primitive feel as well. Perhaps starting with a natural cave first to which earlier people have added new passages and some new walls and floors in some places. The ancient Nord tombs from Skyrim being an example, or the elven graveyard on Sundermount in Dragon Age 2. You also can have abandoned villages where everyone had to flee after a plague or draught. But consisting of a small number of small wooden huts there probably wouldn't be much to explore and not many places to hide interesting things.

One idea I've been tinkering with foe a while is to have advanced cultures that exist alongside the more primitive onea, but very strongly separated with no regular interaction. Like a technically advanced mountain city or a remote island inhabited by sorcerers.
In my setting the separation is maintained by these advanced cultures being located in the spiritworld, consisting of fey folk and naga. They have little interest in mortals, people fear getting near them, and thy live very long and can use magic to build their castles. Which I think makes it somewhat plausible why they are not taking over the whole world with industrialized empires, while still leaving behind the occasional ruin with some amazing magical wonders. As spirits they don't have to worry about economics, politics, natural disasters, or raiders. They don't need to advance or expand.

[sktarq]

One element that I always enjoy a lot in exploration adventures is discovering ruins....Nature can be good without humans having to be bad, so I rather want to avoid littering the world with "hightech" civilization debris.......
In my setting the separation is maintained by these advanced cultures being located in the spiritworld, consisting of fey folk and naga. They have little interest in mortals, people fear getting near them, and thy live very long and can use magic to build their castles. Which I think makes it somewhat plausible why they are not taking over the whole world with industrialized empires, while still leaving behind the occasional ruin with some amazing magical wonders. As spirits they don't have to worry about economics, politics, natural disasters, or raiders. They don't need to advance or expand.

To toss out an idea - perhaps things change and are disturbed in the spirit world from time to time to explain why the spirit ruins wouldn't have been carefully cleaned out when they were abandoned. Perhaps volcanic eruptions or other events have spirit world/ley line/whatever repercussions or war like events between spirit factions or opens gates to darker unsealie/hellish parts of the spirit world which leads to invasions that target the other spirit world inhabitants. The spiritual echo of natural disasters, hurricanes, and transformational wildfires. The idea that the spirit world does shift in particulars but not in its overall nature. It would provide hooks in various ways, provide stories for ruins, and could even anchor things like monsters or setting key linked to spirit presence that has since left in a dramatic fashion.

[kraftcheese]

To toss out an idea - perhaps things change and are disturbed in the spirit world from time to time to explain why the spirit ruins wouldn't have been carefully cleaned out when they were abandoned. Perhaps volcanic eruptions or other events have spirit world/ley line/whatever repercussions or war like events between spirit factions or opens gates to darker unsealie/hellish parts of the spirit world which leads to invasions that target the other spirit world inhabitants. The spiritual echo of natural disasters, hurricanes, and transformational wildfires. The idea that the spirit world does shift in particulars but not in its overall nature. It would provide hooks in various ways, provide stories for ruins, and could even anchor things like monsters or setting key linked to spirit presence that has since left in a dramatic fashion.
So you mean that the Spirit Ruins have had to be evacuated quickly because of/inhabitants have been slaughtered by invading extra-planar entities?

I guess you could also have areas of congruence between the Spirit and mortal worlds as well; manifest zones where things can pass through the thin veil in either direction to explain why these forts and settlements are there (to protect from mortal incursion into the Spirit world/vise-versa).

[sktarq]

So you mean that the Spirit Ruins have had to be evacuated quickly because of/inhabitants have been slaughtered by invading extra-planar entities?

In part-but also volcano/earthquake etc changes the math on why a settlement is in a particular place. That was my idea behind say a ley line shift which cuts off whatever energy the spirit world inhabitants use as food for example.

[Yora]

My originally plan had been that some spirits had build castles in the mortal world and captured savage elves as slaves, teaching them to work in their fields and mines, but then simply leaving the slaves behind when they left. Because they got bored of ruling over mortals or something like that.

Changes in the environment that have huge significants to spirts even though they don't seem too bad to humanoids are a much better idea then "they just lost interest".
Though it's not something that needs to be too deeply explored or explained. Often it's probably better to leave it very vague, but it's always something very useful to know when you're writing the background for a ruin. An unsolvable puzzle is always a lot more fascinating then a place that feels like there is reason at all behind its existance.

[Yora]

I think that often the difference between adequate worldbuilding and great worldbuilding lies in giving the people a distinctive culture. Not just in how they grow food, build houses, and wear clothing (which you might call material culture), but even more so in the way they interact with each other and their environment. Their social organization, their values, traditions, and so on.
When you can get into the mindset of the people, that always does a big job at helping to make the world feel deeper and more fascinating.

What things about Iron Age tribes in forest environments might have an impact on the customs of such peoples?

I mentioned warfare before, and one thing that always strikes me as the most significant is the need for mutual protection and revenge. When there is no higher authority to provide protection and to punish criminals, the only way to avoid getting raided is to clearly show to everyone that trying to mess with you is going to hurt them badly. It does not have to be about justice and you don't have to get even. If you lose three people to avenge a nonfatal attack against one of your people, it's still worth it. Everyone will think twice before trying to attack one of your people again. That is the most important part. Paying a big compensation for having commited a crime can also be acceptible. Even though no blood has been shed in revenge, the offender still suffers by losing a good amount of wealth. As long as the offender would have been better of if he never commited the offense in the first place, the other party has shown everyone that nobody should try to attack them.
In addition to that, the only people who are in any position to prevent someone from commiting a crime are his friends and family. They can hold him back and they have a duty to do so. From that logic follows that targeting friends and family members is also an effective method to prevent crimes against your people. It's a strong motivation for people to not let their friends and brothers do stupid things. If they do, it's not just their own problem, but all their problem.
You also can't only avenge people who you like. Even if a crime that is commited against a cousin you hate, you still have to avenge him to protect the rest of your family. If you don't avenge him now, people might get the idea that your family is not dangerous. You have to avenge your brother because he's your brother. Not because of some sacred bond between brothers, but for the safety of the whole family.
The underlying logic is not justice, but (what might seem counter-intuitive) prevention of violence. You have to teach others a lesson so they won't do it again. Obviously it doesn't work all the time, but without courts and police, there is no other alternative. Not something specific to forest environment, but perhaps one of the most significant differences between the perception of the world in civilized states and tribal societies.

Another interesting concept is tabu. Violating a tabu is not necessarily evil, immoral, or sinful. It simply is breaking a rule that some spirits insist must be adhered to all the time. You don't have to understand it and you don't have to agree with it. You just have to do it. If you break the rule, the spirits get angry and that can have disastrous consequences for everyone. When a tabu is broken, certain actions have to be performed to fix the situation and get the spirits to stop being angry. In the logic of the people who believe in it, these actions don't necessarily have to be a punishment for the person who broke the rule. Something has been broken and it needs to be fixed before something terrible happens. It's not about values or about feelings, but an objective damage to the spiritual environment.
Pretty common tabu rules are that certain places may not be visited by certain people, or certain activities not be observed. It does not have to mean that certain people are better than others, but that they are simply different and that this difference has actual effects on keeping the spirits peaceful. Some places, events, or activities might be forbidden for men, or for women, or for children, or for people with diseases, certain occupations, or who don't belong to a specific group. This can often develop into prejudices against certain groups of people that don't have anything to do with the original tabu that affects them, but it does not have to. When it comes to worldbuilding I think it's probably best to have a mix of both cases. Some differences in treatment that are seen as completely free of value judgements, and some cases of prejudice linked to ritual discriminations.

[AMFV]

Well one thing to remember with taboos is to consider whether they're motivated by a sense of morality or one of disgust. There are many disgust based taboos in tribal cultures, less so in our modern culture. There can be taboos involving food preparation or illness that may not necessarily vary based on the wood setting. In terms of the woods, you would probably have some cultural prohibitions about going outside or into particularly dark areas at night (except potentially as part of your challenge of manhood, or womanhood).

As far as warfare goes, that depends entirely on the scale of your cultures. Small tribes don't tend to have ultraviolent warfare in the same way that we do now. They'll have some violence, but there's a lot of trading of hostages and capturing. At least in most cases we've observed. Generally the hostages keep people in a state of relative peace, since peace is much less destructive than war in almost every sense.

My experience has been that tribal cultures tend to differ to elders and precedent as far as laws go. There may not be a lot of written laws, but there are certainly traditions, and usually the elders are the ones that get to dictate what the results of breaking those are. This isn't always the case, but it often is.

[Yora]

You have to distinguish between behavior that is considered annoying, behavior that is considered immoral, and behavior that is considered destabilizing the supernatural world. In the real world we can assume that most laws of the third kind originally developed out of the second kind and are being maintained out of fear of the spirit, even if social values have changed over time.
But in a fantasy setting I would treat it that at least some of rules that are atributed to keeping the supernatural world stable are actually doing that. Could be fun to add some superstitions that are actually completely meaningless, or you could keep it completely straight and make every violation be a real serious threat. And going with that, you could also have special supernatural rules, which people then apply universally to all of their culture.

Say a spirit demands that women bringing sacrifices to a cave have to wear a special dress, that among many other features goes down to the feet. After some generations it becomes customary that women wear long skirts at every ceremony out of habit. And some times later it becomes mandatory to wear long skirts at all times and people come up with some reason why short skirts are immoral.
Lots of possible combinations you can do with these concepts, but while working on the worldbuilding I think it's probably a good idea to know into which category a certain social norm is meant to fall.

Very good point about old people. One thing about these kinds of societies is that there tend to be not a lot of them. Much fewer than we have today. So any time you have some kind of social function for which old age is useful, the few old people you have are very precious to the community. Getting a lot more young children is easy. But the chances of any of them ever become very old elders is very low. Given that forests without roads are pretty hard to navigate compared to most other terrain, old people probably would not be traveling much if it can be in any way avoided. Even more so when you have villages up in the trees.
One possible consequence I could see from that is that everything that includes the presence of old people will take at their home. No matter how important it is or how high the status of the other person, old people don't come to you. You always go to them. When you have a sick person and need the help of an old healer, you'd try to carry the sick person to the healer if in any way possible rather than asking the healer to come to you. If an old healer has to move, it means the situation is extremely dire. I also like the idea that because it is customary to go to elders instead of having them come to you, it becomes expected that you always go to them even if you could send a messenger. Making the journey grows from being a practical consideration into a sign of respect.