"using AI to make a scenario" Topic

Decided to start a new topic spinning off from Bill's general question:

CYNTHIA ANN'S WAR will include a subgame of buffalo hunting, solo for developing skills for young warriors. So far it is mostly a lot of dice rolling and not enough decision points, so we are working on it still. I do now have a herd of 50+ running bison thanks to Knuckleduster's stls and David's printer.

But after the hunt the men are asleep in the nearby hunting camp (because they will have to be up all night to protect the carcasses until the butchering is done, and the meat strips and hides, and there will be wolves and possibly cougars or a bear to deal with.

But during the day the women do the butchering work, and have to deal with birds and coyotes and possibly wolves, with the help of children and dogs. Even an immobile elder can watch an infant and keep a fire going. So it is a chance to use some minis not normally employed (women and children and small animals) with combat as necessary but mostly deterrence. Brigade Games makes a lovely two sets of camp people, and I have lots of dogs. GRINGO40 makes coyotes and vultures and such. New toys!

Soi with the AI's help I decided there would be three families from the same Comanche clan, each with its own carcass to butcher, within sight of each other but not really close. Each family will prioritize its own work but is aware of what is going on with the other two, and can help, maybe. So I researched stuff like how long to butcher a bison, larger bulls versus cows, how important the work of children was (to carry the strips of meat to the drying racks), what the dogs do, how coyotes behave and eagles and vultures. etc. There were a jillion details and the AI accessed modern experiments at Yellowstone. And we discussed the difference between steel knives and stone tools. And the AI produced images of carcasses at various stages of butchering. which I can print and put on the table as the focus of the action.

And each of three families has exact numbers and ages and names, including their dogs, and the AI did that for me and then I adjusted.

I am still painting women and kids and dogs, and making teepees, but it is going to be, I think, an AWESOME game when done, perfect for a con or for teaching a bunch of home schoolers. Cooperative yet competitive: humans versus nature, lots of dogs, with some high drama when a plains grizzly shows up.

The AI probably did half the work, hard to measure because it was constant back and forth questions and answers and more questions. Nothing I could not have done myself, but never would have because the research would have taken me HUNDREDS of hours. Done by the AI in minutes. And making up fifty names with relevant characteristics is hard work and the AI does it instantly.

BUTCHER'S WORK, the game, coming to a table near me soon.

Here is an example of a specific bit of research:

In developing the subgame to CYNTHIA ANN'S WAR of buffalo hunting, where Comanche riders split a vast herd to isolate and kill just a few prime animals before the main defense phase kicks in, your question on organ consumption and bull-vs-cow carcass details is perfect for refining the butchering-party rules and STL miniature designs. This ties directly into the tactical scenario of defending the skinning-and-harvesting teams from circling coyotes, wolves, and the occasional plains grizzly—players will need quick decisions on what organs to claim (and eat on the spot for morale bonuses) while fending off predators drawn to the fresh kill.

Historical Comanche/Plains practices on organs: Yes, male genitalia were included when the kill was a bull. Multiple accounts of Comanche and other Plains tribes note that internal organs were relished—often eaten raw on the spot during butchering for their warmth and nutrients. The testicles were explicitly listed among the top delicacies (alongside the tongue, liver, kidneys, and hump meat), sometimes consumed immediately as a quick "snack" by the hunters or butchers. The penis itself was typically not eaten but repurposed (boiled for glue or other tools), so the "male genitalia" reference in period sources centers on the testicles being harvested and eaten when available. In subgame rules, this could translate to a simple harvesting mechanic: a successful butcher roll on a bull carcass grants an extra "organ token" (testicle bonus) for +1 morale or a temporary stamina boost to the defending party, reflecting the historical preference for fresh organs before predators close in.

The AI routinely volunteered to write rules. I mostly prefer to do that myself, but I do often let it have a go at it, mainly to see what factors it considers relevant in a simulation. I can then keep, discard, or adjust as I please. And playtest, always playtest.

Just how big were Comanche camp dogs? how did they match up against coyotes? and against wolves? How do we resolve a confrontation between an eight-year old child and a dog at a drying rack versus two coyotes?

Here is something the AI did, in few minutes, that saved me hours and hours:

Please give me some plausible names for Comanches, both male and female, with English translations. About 25 of each sex if possible.

Below is a historically plausible, culturally grounded name list suitable for Comanche individuals across the 18th–19th centuries.

A few framing notes (important for authenticity):
• Comanche personal names were descriptive, situational, and changeable over a lifetime (vision quests, deeds, age, family events).
• Many English renderings come from translated meanings, not fixed "given names."
• Women's names often emphasize beauty, skill, endurance, kinship, or natural imagery, not weakness.
• Spellings vary widely in sources; I've used clean English translations you can deploy easily in fiction, teaching, or games.
________________________________________
Male Comanche Names (25)
1. Iron Hawk – Fierce warrior, watcher from above
2. Black Horse – Owner of a prized warhorse
3. Buffalo Bull – Strength, fertility, provider
4. Thunder Coming – Warrior associated with storms
5. Wolf Who Hunts Alone – Independent fighter or scout
6. Red Lance – Blooded warrior, skilled lancer
7. He Who Rides the Wind – Exceptional horseman
8. Stone Knife – Deadly, quiet killer
9. Eagle Who Sees Far – Leader, strategist, lookout
10. Bear Standing – Physical power and courage
11. Sun Over the Plain – Man of presence or authority
12. Painted Shield – Veteran warrior with honors
13. Swift Antelope – Speed, endurance in the hunt
14. One Who Counts Coup – Proven bravery in battle
15. Blue Sky Warrior – Favored by spirits, confident fighter
16. Fire in the Grass – Raiding leader, sudden attacker
17. Broken Arrow – Survivor of wounds or hardship
18. Horse Eater – Wealthy horse owner (status name)
19. Night Wolf – Raider, night fighter
20. Red Earth Man – Deep tie to homeland
21. He Who Takes Many Horses – Successful raider
22. Cloud Shadow – Elusive scout
23. Grizzly Face – Ferocity in battle
24. Loud Thunder – Fearsome reputation
25. Man Who Does Not Run – Exceptional courage
________________________________________
Female Comanche Names (25)
1. Morning Star Woman – Beauty, hope, renewal
2. Woman Who Owns Many Horses – Wealth, prestige
3. Pretty Eagle Feather – Grace and honor
4. Buffalo Woman – Provider, central to family survival
5. Blue Sky Girl – Calm strength, spiritual favor
6. Woman Who Walks Proudly – Dignity and confidence
7. Soft Rain Woman – Gentleness, fertility, peace
8. She Who Carries the Lodge – Domestic authority, endurance
9. Red Dress Woman – Beauty, ceremonial importance
10. Woman of the Dawn – Youth, promise
11. Woman Who Is Not Afraid – Courage, often widowed or tested
12. Little Bird Woman – Grace, alertness
13. She Who Makes Good Robes – Skill, high value
14. Quiet Water Woman – Steadiness, wisdom
15. Woman Who Keeps the Fire – Household leadership
16. Laughing Girl – Youthful vitality
17. Woman with Bright Eyes – Intelligence, perception
18. She Who Sings Well – Cultural importance
19. Wind Through the Grass – Beauty and motion
20. Woman Who Raised Brave Sons – Earned status
21. Golden Hair Woman – Striking appearance (often noted)
22. Woman Who Remembers – Keeper of stories
23. Strong Arm Woman – Physical capability, resilience
24. She Who Survived the Winter – Hardship and endurance
25. Sunlight on Water – Poetic, high-status name
________________________________________
Optional Use Notes (for games or fiction)
• Children often had simpler names ("Little Wolf," "Spotted Fawn") and earned adult names later.
• Renaming after deeds is historically correct and encouraged.
• Captives adopted into Comanche society often received new Comanche names, not translations of their old ones.
If you'd like, next I can:

• Create shortened "table-ready" versions for counters or cards
• Assign names by age, status, or band
• Generate family groups (parents + children + elders)
• Adapt the list for Lakota, Cheyenne, or Kiowa parallels

Please generate three family groups. The assumption will be that in each case they all live together in the same lodge.

Below are three complete, plausible Comanche lodge groups, each structured around a woman-centered household (historically accurate), with men, children, and elders living together. I've varied status, age mix, and social role so they can support different scenario tones (routine camp life, butcher camp, crisis defense, etc.).
Names are given with English translations, and I note relationships and status briefly so you can deploy them immediately.
________________________________________
Family Group I: Established, High-Status Lodge
A prosperous household with horses, experience, and authority.
Senior Woman (Lodge Anchor)
• Buffalo Woman – Senior wife and household authority; organizer of meat and hides
Senior Man
• Painted Shield – Veteran warrior; respected but often absent on patrol or raid
Second Woman (Younger Sister or Co-wife)
• Woman Who Makes Good Robes – Highly skilled; increases household wealth
Children
• Swift Antelope (boy, ~12) – Learning archery and horsemanship
• Little Bird Woman (girl, ~9) – Alert, curious, already helping with camp tasks
• Laughing Girl (girl, ~5) – Too young for work, always underfoot
Elder
• Woman Who Remembers – Grandmother; keeper of stories and ritual knowledge
Tone: Stable, confident, capable of defense and decision-making.
________________________________________
Family Group II: Young, Mobile, and Vulnerable
A newer household still building wealth; more exposed to danger.
Primary Woman
• Soft Rain Woman – Young mother; calm, steady presence
Husband
• Night Wolf – Raider and night scout; often away
Children
• Spotted Fawn (girl, ~7) – Quick learner, watches everything
• Little Wolf (boy, ~4) – Too young to help, prone to wandering
Adopted or Orphaned Kin
• She Who Is Not Afraid – Widowed relative or captive adopted into the family
Elder Man
• Broken Arrow – Wounded former warrior; limited mobility but respected
Tone: Tense, exposed, ideal for "low-level" butcher-camp scenarios.
________________________________________
Family Group III: Large, Multigenerational Working Lodge
A meat-processing and craft-heavy household during a major hunt.
Senior Woman
• She Who Keeps the Fire – Absolute authority within the lodge
Husband
• Bear Standing – Physically imposing; defender of the camp
Adult Daughter
• Morning Star Woman – Recently married or widowed; key worker
Son-in-Law
• Red Lance – Young warrior proving himself
Children
• Cloud Shadow (boy, ~13) – Scout-in-training
• Bright Eyes Woman (girl, ~10) – Quick, observant, trusted with tasks
• Sunlight on Water (girl, ~6) – Cherished, protected
Elder Woman
• She Who Survived the Winter – Hardship-tested; blunt and practical
Tone: Busy, crowded, resilient; excellent for night defense or predator scenarios.
________________________________________
Design Notes (Optional for Play or Writing)
• Each lodge has multiple potential decision-makers, not just adult men.
• Dogs, travois, and meat stores would normally be attached to the lodge, not individuals.
• In a crisis, elders and older children matter—they warn, herd dogs, grab weapons, or protect the smallest.
If you want next steps, I can:
• Assign dogs and horses to each family
• Map who is present at a butcher camp vs. away hunting
• Create personality traits or morale modifiers for each individual
• Generate a fourth lodge that is mostly captives or adoptees
Just tell me how deep you want to go.

Assign dogs and horses to each family and create personality traits. I will include a design note to the effect that these three families give a single family scenario some replay potential, particularly if predators are randomly generated for each game. Also, players may put all three families near one another on a large table. They know each other, of course, and will cooperate, but each will be primarily concerned with protecting its own. This makes a good multi-player game, cooperative but also a bit competitive.

Excellent concept. Below is a table-ready assignment of dogs, horses, and personality traits for each lodge, written so you can lift sections directly into rules text, scenario notes, or player aids.
I've assumed plains-realistic numbers: dogs are numerous but uneven in quality; horses are precious and unequally distributed. Personality traits are phrased so they can double as role-playing cues or light mechanics hooks.
________________________________________
Family Group I: Established, High-Status Lodge
Dogs (6 total)
1. Old Fang – Elder male; scarred, aggressive toward wolves
2. White Ear – Excellent early-warning barker
3. Red Tail – Loyal to children, stays close
4. Swift Nose – Best tracker
5. Grey Pup – Half-grown, curious, unreliable
6. Black Bitch – Protective of meat piles
Dog Trait: Well-trained but aging
Dogs react quickly to threats but tire faster in prolonged engagements.
________________________________________
Horses (14 total)
• Painted Shield: 5 riding horses (2 prime warhorses)
• Buffalo Woman: 3 pack horses
• Household Pool: 6 mixed-quality animals (including 1 mule-like pack beast)
Horse Trait: Deep reserves
This lodge can absorb losses but reacts strongly to horse theft or injury.
________________________________________
Personality Traits
• Buffalo Woman: Calm authority; decisive under pressure
• Painted Shield: Conservative fighter; avoids unnecessary risk
• Woman Who Makes Good Robes: Focused, task-oriented
• Swift Antelope: Overconfident, eager to prove himself
• Woman Who Remembers: Risk-averse; urges caution
Group Trait: Confidence
This lodge resists panic and coordinates well—but may underestimate "lesser" threats like birds or lone predators.
________________________________________
Family Group II: Young, Mobile, Vulnerable Lodge
Dogs (3 total)
1. Patch Ear – Loyal but timid
2. Yellow Pup – Noisy, poor discipline
3. Sharp Tooth – Aggressive, unreliable, may chase predators alone
Dog Trait: Inconsistent defense
Dogs may trigger early warnings—or blunder into danger.
________________________________________
Horses (6 total)
• Night Wolf: 3 riding horses (1 prime)
• Soft Rain Woman: 1 pack horse
• Household Pool: 2 young or worn animals
Horse Trait: Fragile wealth
Loss of even one horse dramatically affects this family's options.
________________________________________
Personality Traits
• Soft Rain Woman: Patient, steady, slow to panic
• Night Wolf: Aggressive, risk-tolerant, often absent
• She Who Is Not Afraid: Hard, practical, quick to act
• Broken Arrow: Bitter but perceptive
• Spotted Fawn: Watchful, good early warning if used
• Little Wolf: Liability; requires protection
Group Trait: Tension
This lodge escalates quickly once threatened, sometimes prematurely.
________________________________________
Family Group III: Large, Multigenerational Working Lodge
Dogs (8 total)
1. Big White – Dominant male, fearless
2. Crooked Tail – Excellent night guard
3. Brown Bitch – Protective of children
4. Two Pups – Distracting but trainable
5. Black Runner – Fast messenger dog
6. Silent One – Rarely barks; attacks suddenly
7. Old Grey – Nearly blind but stubborn
Dog Trait: Numerous and noisy
Strong deterrent but may attract predators or cause confusion.
________________________________________
Horses (10 total)
• Bear Standing: 4 riding horses (1 exceptional)
• Red Lance: 2 riding horses
• Household Pool: 4 pack or mixed animals
Horse Trait: Work animals
Horses are heavily used; fatigue accumulates faster.
________________________________________
Personality Traits
• She Who Keeps the Fire: Commanding, inflexible
• Bear Standing: Direct, confrontational
• Morning Star Woman: Protective, emotionally driven
• Red Lance: Brave but impulsive
• She Who Survived the Winter: Grim realism; expects disaster
• Cloud Shadow: Observant, cautious scout
Group Trait: Resilience
This lodge absorbs losses but becomes stubborn and slow to retreat.
________________________________________
Design Note (Draft Text for Rules or Scenario Book)

Replay and Multiplayer Design Note:

These three lodges may be used individually or together. When played separately, they offer different tactical problems—ranging from confident defense to fragile survival. When placed near one another on a large table, the lodges know each other and will cooperate, sharing warnings and occasionally aiding in defense.

However, each lodge is primarily concerned with protecting its own people, dogs, horses, and meat. This creates a cooperative but tension-filled multiplayer experience: players may assist neighbors, but must decide when doing so risks their own household.

Random predator generation (wolves, birds, lions, bears) ensures that no two games unfold the same way, and encourages replay with different lodge combinations.
________________________________________
If you'd like next steps, I can:
• Add morale triggers tied to dogs or horses lost
• Create predator reaction tables keyed to dog behavior
• Assign night vs. day dispositions for each lodge
• Generate quick-reference lodge cards for playtesting
This is shaping into a very strong micro-campaign system.

My prompt to ChatGPT: I am prepping to do some modeling of drying racks for my buffalo butchering camp scenario/game. I have to decide how high the racks would have been. Caitlin's paintings seem to show them as fairly high, which makes sense if there are dogs running around that might be tempted. But we have established, have we not, that in a butchering camp the children might carry the strips of meat to the rack, allowing the women to stay at the carcass. So in that case the rack has to be low enough for the kids to put the meat down across the parallels. Of course there were threats from the ground -- coyotes etc -- but also from the air, eagles and vultures. And racks at a large semi-permanent camp like Caitlin is painting might be different from the temporary ones set up near a carcass. So how tall should I model the drying racks for the butchering camp scenario?

and the response:

I'll treat this as a modeling/game-design question rather than trying to force one "historical regulation height." I'll check whether any visual/ethnographic clues sharpen the range, then give you a practical scale recommendation.

Thought for 8s

For the temporary butchering-camp rack, I'd model most racks at about 4½ to 5 feet high.

That gives you the best compromise:

High enough to discourage dogs, coyotes, dust, and casual trampling.
Low enough that older children could lay strips over crosspoles without climbing.
Low enough for women to inspect, turn, remove, or smoke-shift meat easily.
Not as monumental as the higher village racks Catlin shows in a larger Comanche camp, such as Comanche Village, Women Dressing Robes and Drying Meat, dated 1834–35.

For 28mm modeling, I'd use:

Real height 28mm model height
4 ft about 22–24 mm
5 ft about 28–30 mm
6 ft about 34–36 mm

My recommendation: make the main butchering racks 28–30 mm tall, with a few lower "field expedient" ones at 24 mm, and maybe one taller camp rack at 35 mm for visual variety.

Game-wise, you could classify them:

Low rack: kids can load easily; dogs/coyotes more dangerous.
Standard rack: normal butchering-camp rack; balanced.
High village rack: safer from dogs; slower to load; more "permanent camp" look.

So: standard scenario rack = shoulder/chest height on a Plains woman, head-high on a child, roughly 5 feet.

How many fires with racks would be used with one carcass? When I was a Boy Scout we learned "Indian make small fire, sit close, keep warm. White man make heap big fire, keep warm all night chopping wood." Aside from the nowadays rejected cultural stereotyping, there IS some practical wisdom there. Not much wood on the prairie, either. So what are they burning, and one big fire and drying rack, or several small ones far enough apart to move between without smoke-gets-in-your-eyes?

I think your Boy Scout instructor was actually conveying a genuine plains-country reality, even if the wording was dated. On the treeless portions of the southern Plains, fuel was precious. A Comanche hunting party miles from a river bottom could not assume an unlimited wood supply.

The first thing to remember is that not all drying involved smoke. Much buffalo meat was simply cut into thin strips and air-dried in the sun and wind. Smoke was useful, but the prairie itself was a giant dehydrator.

For a single buffalo carcass, I would not imagine one enormous smokehouse-like rack. Rather:

During butchering

You have:

The carcass.
One or two women cutting strips.
Children carrying meat.
Dogs lurking nearby.
A few racks gradually filling.

The racks might be spread over a 20–40 yard area.

Fires

If smoke is desired, I suspect the most plausible arrangement is:

Several small smoky fires.
Each serving one rack or part of a rack.
Fires perhaps 6–10 feet from the meat, not directly beneath it.

That allows adjustment for wind direction.

A single big fire creates problems:

Consumes more fuel.
Produces excessive heat.
Cooks meat instead of drying it.
Blows sparks.
Creates an unpleasant work area.
Fuel

On the open prairie:

Dead cottonwood from creek bottoms.
Willow.
Sage and brush.
Dried buffalo chips.

The last is important. Travelers all over the Plains remarked on its use. Buffalo chips burn surprisingly well once dry and were a major fuel source.

For game purposes, a smoky drying fire fueled largely by buffalo chips would be quite authentic.

For your scenario

If the hunters kill one buffalo, I would model:

2–4 drying racks.
1–2 small smoking fires.
A work area around the carcass.
Piles of meat awaiting transport.
Dogs orbiting the operation.

If they kill five or six buffalo, then the scene expands dramatically:

8–12 racks.
Multiple small fires.
Hide-stretching frames.
Children carrying strips.
Women moving constantly between carcasses and racks.

That would fit the "temporary industrial site" character that many observers described after a successful communal hunt.

For tabletop appearance, I would put the smoking fires off to the side of the racks rather than directly under them. It looks good visually, reflects the need to control heat, and gives your women and children room to work around the racks.

One further thought. If this is a hunting camp rather than a permanent village, I would make the racks look hastily constructed: forked poles cut on the spot, uneven crosspieces, some leaning slightly. Catlin's village racks often look much more substantial than what a family processing a buffalo three miles from camp would likely build. The contrast between a temporary hunt-site rack and a village rack could become a nice visual cue in your game.

Question: is there a real doc mcb, or is this all being generated by the AI? And is there any reason to take it more seriously than I would any other corporate message from Google or Microsoft? Is this a "Whisperer in Darkness" situation? Has doc mcb gone the way of Henry Wentworth Akeley?

Speak to us, doc! But as I often have to do on line these days, prove to me you're human.