Why are villages so comfy? Is there a way to justify a setting

>>49772099

Geography? People will only build settlements where they are likely to have the resources to survive. If those locations are few and far between and don't support more than a certain number of people . . .

>>49772099
Humanity evolved in the pack/tribe as the basic unit. Villages and the like are considered comfy because there's a great deal of familiarity between those involved, and you have enough people around that nobody's struggling but everyone's contributing. Ideally.

Same reason in a post-apoc setting you'll have survivors invariably cluster into a group of like 5-20. It's a size most people can easily handle.

>>49772099
Are you nuts? I was born in a village. It's a constant grind of the same fucked up people grinding on each other until they die. Since it's a village you can never get away with anything and if you speak up against the wife beaters, drunks and general assholes you better be sure he's not gonna come around at night and burn your house down. Fuck villages man.

Armenia. No, seriously. Have the entire setting area you want villagified become Armenia. Massive, hard to traverse mountain ranges that make large settlements impossible, dotted with hundred of fertile valleys. If there's one village in the valley, then perhaps they're looking to conquer other valleys, but if you want only villages and conflict, just have two villages in one valley fighting for arable land, surrounded by mountains. I like fantasy additions to this idea like larger mountains being home to Dragons and Kobolds, with Syrinx Monasteries on the peaks and the constant wars of Greenskin and Dwarf in the lower mountains. It can be a vibrant, energetic world, but entirely rural in scope, barring some exceptions.

>>49772099
>Is there a way to justify a setting where most people live in villages without being neolithic or post apocalyptic?
what are the middle ages? what is the modern age (minus a few years, perhaps)?

anyway, early middle ages are quite suitable because power of nobility wasnt as consolidated yet.

>>49772099
You should look up the scottish raiding culture, its where the angry violent scott stereotype comes from. Basically a bunch of towns just "robbing" each other with the tacit agreement that killing the next town over for sheep wasnt cool, but fuck letting them keep all them sheep if they cant defend them. The Glorantha setting for runequest uses it heavily as does the game King of Dragon Pass, a sweet little game that uses the setting.

>>49772099
Dude. Most people lived at the countryside until fifty years ago. I mean, were you born with a peanut growing out of your brain?

>>49772099
Literally any pre-modern setting will be a setting where most people live in villages.

Europe was only majority urbanised in the 19th century, the world as a whole in the 20th.

>>49772941
>I mean, were you born with a peanut growing out of your brain?
More likely a soy latte in his hand and a fair trade imported cigarette in his mouth. Fucking cityfags.

>>49772099
Only because you never lived in one. There is nothing as claustrophobic as a place where everyone knows every drunken mistake and everything you did when you were 13, want to beat you up for being a faggot, burn you for being a witch, or cross themselves when your shadow crosses their doorway.

Because you fucking learned to read.

>>49773020
I was born from a family that still has both feet in the country and a lot of people there also think that a minority rural population is a relatively older thing than it is.

More importantly, fuck this wannabe rural elitism. The country is somewhere I visit, not somewhere I live, and I wouldn't trade that for any of the mythical "pros" of village life.

Anytime I think about how nice it might be to settle in the country near family, I remember how shitty and claustrophobic it feels to be near them more than once a month.

>>49773027
maybe some are good and some are bad? iunno.

>>49773068
Sure, yeah, there are good people too. But speaking from a Scandinavian background, where pretty much everything was villages until very recently, there are a lot of drunks, a lot of feuds, and a lot of what >>49772932 was saying.

I do love the Tolkien style romanticized villages and inns as much as the next guy. But growing up in that kind of environment is more like an Innsmouth feel.

>>49773162
aw shit, man. I am scandinavian. Norwegian, actually.

>>49773189
And like village life? I'm Danish, maybe it's an alcohol thing, idk. Norway is great, though, always nice to visit.

so...
smalltown > metropolis > village
r-right, guys?

>>49773349
Small towns are even worse than villages, surely?

Villages are at least quaint, and pretty much everyone is equal in having jack shit

Small towns have a whole load of bullshit (the one industry, the small-pond big fishes, etc.) added to the village problems >>49773027 mentions, with very few of the amenities that come with a bigger population

Small towns compete with suburbia in being even more terrible than villages, but at least suburbia is usually just a city's bedroom

>>49772099
>Why are villages so comfy
Those views you hold are probably influenced by a lot of complicated factors. Safe to say, a lot of people disagree for good reason.

I'm fond of making something that looks comfy and friendly also be creepy and terrifying beneath the surface. A lot of horror flicks take place in small, mostly isolated communities too.

>Is there a way to justify a setting where most people live in villages without being neolithic or post apocalyptic?
Most did until recently. Degree of "recently" vary from country to country. Small towns or villages supported large parts of the population for a long, long time for varying reasons. Either you huddled houses together to defend better against raids, with fields spread around like big, weird petals around a flower. Or the village would have sprung up around a crossroad for trading. Local farming or logging might take a lot of land, either way.

>>49773349
>Smalltown anywhere other than rock bottom

>>49773349
Small towns are like the worst part of both cities and villages with few to none of the benefits.

Though they do tend to have really nice local diners.

File: welcome to nord-norge, now get out.jpg (81KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x378px

>>49773238
Nah, cityboy, I am.
From the capitol of the north!
And I fffffuckign hate it!
Nice nature, yeah. but the city is SO ugly!
Idunno, I guess I have too much past with it. Moved to another city, but just as I did the oil industry took a hit and the job market became super tight. I might have to move back north.

I really just want to live alone in the woods...
personal blog.gif

>>49773498
>>49773522
>>49773556
okay, then how about towns? once a town hits a certain size, say 20,000 or 40,000, you surely don't have the claustrophobic aspects anymore. you have a better supply with goods than in villages, it's less cramped then in big cities. what's not to like?

Every place sucks for different reasons.

>>49773655
>I really just want to live alone in the woods...

Me too, me too. Modern Danish cities are ugly and depressing beyond anything. Everyone is working so hard to erase everything that makes them Danish.

Maybe start a collection or something and start a Northern Lights Inn Village, with old style living, open to /tg/ refugees year round. I'm in.

>>49773655
Makes me glad I live both close to nature and close to an actually pretty city, the ACTUAL capital of the north.

>>49773910
That shit takes money

>>49773912
Sure thing, buddy

>>49774009
Sorry, I have to act snotty about it. It's expected of us, for some reason.

>>49772099
>Why are villages so comfy?
Less people means you're more likely to know and remember the people you meet. I recently moved from the second largest city of my country to a smaller one (not really a village but close enough) and you can really notice the difference. Over here, people are more likely to greet you when you pass by, are overall friendlier etc.

>Is there a way to justify a setting where most people live in villages without being neolithic or post apocalyptic? I like them autonomous from bigger states and kingdoms
Uh... most people in the middle ages lived on the countryside? In the middle ages, people had to work the land the old fashioned way. That means a hell of a lot of people worked on farms, so not many people could afford living in cities. I speculate we might return to de-urbanized living if we ever hit the level where oil becomes too expensive to be viable as a fuel, if we don't find a cheaper and more sustainble alternative

>>49774043
What are you, a swede?

>>49774074
We'd probably have to solve overpopulation first.

>>49774082
Yes.

>>49773162
Jesus Christ buddy we get it you don't want to live in the country move the fuck on.

>>49774110
im torn between denouncing your comments and extending a brotherly hand of sympathy and mutual hate towards the southerners...

Country living is great.
Cities fuck with people's minds.
Hamlet > Village.

>>49774110
I'm torn between discarding your comment and extending a brotherly hand of sympathy and mutual hatred towards the southerners ...

>>49774158
>>49774198
Huh, that was fuckingg weird

>>49774158
>>49774198

I want to believe that this is both the norwegian guy and the danish guy acting in hivemind.

>>49774188
What's the difference between a village and a hamlet anyway?

>>49773162
>d
COMING OVER HERE (Scotland) RAPING OUR LAND, SALTING OUR WOMEN, YET YOU HAVE THE DEPRAVITY TO TALK ABOUT IT?!

Also just like to say, Fuck Aberdeen I would STILL steal their sheep if I could. And Inverness are just English, Edinburgh is Half English, Fife is just inbred retards really Dundee and Glasgow are the only options.

>>49774224
Sadly just my iPod acting up

File: 1410329389660.jpg (29KB, 638x540px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 638x540px

>>49774106
Who is "we"? Because it sure as fuck isn't Europe. It has an underpopulation problem which it thinks it can solve through the overpopulation problem of other parts of the world.

>>49774268
I think he meant the earth in general. Also, Europe might be sparsely populated but it's kinda small and not THAT sparsely populated.

Honestly, as far-of as it seems Mars seems like the only viable solution at the moment.

Overpopulation is more of an economy thing. We have plenty of Availble land for houses

>>49774324
Mars, Titan, Europa and Ganymede we might live to see colonised. Also Northern and Western Europe is pretty sparse but some of the east isn't *Cough* Turkey *Cough*. Also in fairness the low population is probably good for us in many ways most people are idiots, we don't have the industry for all those extra guys and it'd just hamper scientific progress most likely.

>>49774324
Or we could just do what we've been doing for a while, is which is providing for ourselves and our people and telling the other, Shittier nations that can't stop fucking each other to eat shit when they run out of food.

>>49774324
>I think he meant the earth in general
The developing parts of the world can't even feed themselves. As cruel as it sounds, the problem will have to solve itself. Any attempts of the West to alleviate the problem only make it bigger in the long run. Even if we solved world hunger today, it'd make the third world dependent on the West and in 10-20 years their population would once again have exploded past the means of the West to provide for them.

>Also in fairness the low population is probably good for us in many ways most people are idiots, we don't have the industry for all those extra guys and it'd just hamper scientific progress most likely.
You know that -even including mass third world migration- Germany's population by 2060 will be 30% retirement age, right? Surely a country where a third of the population is too old to work and entirely reliant on a state with an ever shrinking base of taxpayers is one that will lead the world in the sciences!

>>49774506
>The developing parts of the world can't even feed themselves.
You realise that the main reason for that is the inability to make money for farmers when westerners dump their surplus for free, yes? And that you're conflating the whole third world with Africa

>>49774553
>You realise that the main reason for that is the inability to make money for farmers when westerners dump their surplus for free, yes?
And why do they do this? Because they see big-eyed black children starving on their televisions. Because subsistence farmers aren't able to feed the entire overpopulated country.

We're effectively arguing for the same: western intervention only makes things worse, and we need to sit back and watch the problem solve itself.

>>49774324
>I think he meant the earth in general
Overpopulation isn't a thing any more then "running out of fossil fuels" is. The earth can comfortably support another 2-3 billion people, before even getting into more advanced agricultural stuff like vertical farming. It's just a question of infrastructure.

>>49774401
I fully expect a permanent base on mars and maybe more well within my lifetime, but I doubt I'd live to see anything more than perhaps a manned mission to Jupiters moons.

>>49774587
Big eyed black children are a minority of the third world, that also includes most of Asia and South America, where most states are food exporters most years

Your non solution is as morally bankrupt as what it purports to be the problem.

>>49774618
>Big eyed black children are a minority of the third world
Oh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Uganda
In Uganda, close to half of the population is younger than 15 years. You don't understand the extent to which the African population is exploding.

>that also includes most of Asia and South America, where most states are food exporters most years
Most of Asia and South America aren't exactly third world. They have some incredibly shitty slums, but they're downright advanced compared to Africa. In fact, most Latin American countries (a noteworthy exception being Haiti) are textbook examples of Second World countries.

>Your non solution
You know it's the same as your non-solution, right?

You know who are net food importers? Japan, the UK, Germany, Russia.

>>49774677
>Most of Asia and South America aren't exactly third world.
They are, I don't think you understand what thebig words you use mean at all.

File: LDC_map_1500x936[1].jpg (207KB, 1500x936px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1500x936px

>>49774700
Here's a map of what the UN considers the worlds Least Developed Countries. Notice all the South American countries that aren't on there? Notice all the Asian countries that aren't on there?

It's like I said: most of Asia and all of South America except Haiti is pretty much second world.

>>49774750
>Notice all the South American countries that aren't on there? Notice all the Asian countries that aren't on there?
Notice how it doesn't say third world, but least developed, because these two things are literally not the same thing.

File: Percentage_population_living_on_less_than_$2_per_day_2009[1].png (56KB, 1348x644px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1348x644px

>>49774797
>Notice how it doesn't say third world, but least developed, because these two things are literally not the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
>Over the past few decades since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term , the Global South, and developing countries to describe poorer countries that have struggled to attain steady economic development
>Third World has been used interchangeably with the least developed countries
Sure thing mate.

But just to cement how wrong you are even further, let's look at poverty rates. Even the poorest countries in South America (again, Haiti is the exception) have poverty rates comparable to China. And even these countries are the minority, with most of Latin America being on the same level as Turkey, which is considered a second world country.

You underestimate how well Latin America is doing and how shit Africa is. But please, keep denying my claims without providing any citations in your favor.

>>49774916
Global South has never been a synonym with "the poorest parts of subsaharan africa"

File: Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue[1].jpg (106KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x683px

>>49774969
No, but it has been used as a synonym for "Third World". And The LDC also includes multiple countries in Asia, Oceania and one in the Americas making your entire point moot.

I'd tell you to learn basic reading comprehension or lean to read a map, but I think it'd be more worthwhile for you to just pull your head out of your ass. You've entirely lost track of the original argument because you so desperately want to prove me wrong even though the facts are against you at every turn.

Just stop.

>>49774689
>Chain of several thousand tiny islands and four small-to-medium ones, most of which are too small to live on, are volcanoes, or are 75% mountainous even though they're livable - tl;dr what farmland?
>small group of small-to-middling islands with only slightly more room for farmland than the first
>I don't really know what to say about this one
>consists primarily of frozen, near-uninhabited wasteland, with a few large and well-populated cities the closer you get to Europe, as well as like one city on the tail end near the Pacific

I can see why, at least.

>>49775644
>>consists primarily of frozen, near-uninhabited wasteland
While that's true it also has the most farmland in Europe.