Fixing the DMG Demographics

All right.

I hope we all can agree that the default DMG/SRD demographics are just wrong.

Just lot's of piddly errors.

So, here's a discussion about how to fix things; I don't have a solution yet, I hoping to find/build one with the Board's help.

As I see it, any demographics section is going to have to address:
1) The ratio of commoners to
1a) all other classes, in total
1b) to all other NPC classes, in total
1c) to all PC classes, in total.
Alternatively, once 1a is established, we can discuss the ratio between NPC and PC classes.
2) The corresponding ratio of each NPC class to each other.
3) The corresponding ratio of each PC class to each other.

4) The mortality/advancement curves for each class.
5) The settlement size divisions.
6) The ratio of size & number of settlements (i.e for every N thorps, yo have 1 village, or such like)

7) Distilling all that into handy-dandy charts.

Jump in whenever with ideas.

OK, first step

Historically, medieval (european) society supported a roughly 9:1 ratio of farmers/commoners/rural inhabitants to everyone else.

I don't have the numbers for any other pre-industrial societies, like Chin dynasty China, Japan's Shogunate, or the Enlightenment in Western Europe. Those would all be very handy. Anyone know the answers, or where to find them?

Modern day farmers/commoners support a ratio of 1:100 (or even better). Of course, it may not be valid to assume that all commoners are farmers anymore.

However, that's probably immaterial, unless we can assume that magic can directly (and as widely) replace technology, since most of that support comes from using advanced fertilizers, insecticides, and advanced machinery.

I think, for these purposes, it's reasonable to assume that our magical society can generally equal (or even exceed a little) the best pre-industrial farming productivity/population ratios.

My gut feel says that a range of 50-95% of the population as commoners is not unreasonable. Which would mean a spread of ( (2d5*5)+45) percent, with lower values representing richer societies.

Define 'Richest Society'
-Fertile land, mellow & predictable weather.
-Strong Economy for Food Importation
-Druidy Miracle Grow Magics
-Comparatively advanced agricultural practices

Just how Rich this is depends on both Tech-Era and Blatant High Magic Rating.

For a standard D&D campaign, this model for a Richest HUMAN Society should give about a 50% minimum. So our guts agree.


If you start talking about Elves, you have the Fruits of the Forest thing take a new level- food falls into the laps of elves, they need as many scouts as gardeners to keep it that way, and so on.

And based on cliche's , I expect Goblinoid ratios are unusually low, and that they deal with malnutrituion, disease, and starvation in a major way as a result, when its not raiding season...

I have only read about this subject on some of the Archaic civilisations. I know the civilisation between Tigris and Eufrat, ancient Mesopotamia, had a spread that said 14:1, but that was a low-technology country (not compared to the time, but compared to later civilisations). So, only 7-8% of the population did anything other than tending to crops and livestock. These last percentages were mainly priests and nobility (there wasn't a specialised caste of artisans and craftsmen. These functions were filled by the general population).

Nomadic tribes normally have 99% of their members fulfilling food-obtaining work. Yet, Nomadic tribes were historically more well-trained in the arts of war, as it was more a part of their daily existence (which is why larger civilisations were sometimes conquered by nomadic tribes. Even though the invaded civilisation had a population of 100.000, only 1000 would be trained warriors. The invading nomadic tribes, that perhaps only numbered 25.000, would consist entirely of people that could be called warriors). Therefore, I wouldn't say that 99% of a nomadic tribe would be commoners. Actually, I would say that they would be either warriors or warrior/commoners.

Khorod:
By any definition, "rich" is being able to spend resources on things other than the necessities, on other than survival. The factors you list all directly reduce the number of resources that must be spent on survival.

A society with a lower ratio is able to support people who don't directly produce food, and is thus richer. Now that wealth may or may not trickle down, an effect observed in many modern countries, such as Saudi Arabi (where almost all the wealth is held by the royal family), or be spent on other things, such as a larger-than-normal military.

Clay_More:
Your point is well-taken, but I'm not sure how to fully account for it. Obviously, "subsistence style" makes a huge difference, especially in the per-class ratios.

But how many different subsistence styles are there? And how does it affect the rest? Can we account for it with modifiers into a single table, or must we use multiple columns?

We could always take the ancient cultures a bit at a time, to get some good ideas and a solid foundation.


Example Of Ancient Egypt

Food Normally Eaten
* fish, from the richly populated Nile, the Fayum and the marshes
* birds (geese etc.)
* meat from cattle, but also from gazelles...
* bread and pastry
* an abundance of vegetables and spices

The following is considered "Good Food"

* figs
* grapes
* sycamore figs
* notched sycamore figs
* cucumber
* fish
* birds

The following is said by Diodorus during 22 nd. Dynasty

Sesonchosis created an elite of the most robust men... he raised 600,000 footsoldiers, 24,000 knights, 27,000 war chariots. He shared government with the companions of his youth, all experienced at fighting, full of bravery, numbering 1700 and more. Sesonchosis gave them the best land so they could devote themselves entirely to war, being economically secure.

So, the ancient Egyptians didn't have the separation between military & peasantry that existed later. Instead, they would give Rich lands to those that were to serve in the military, so that they could more easily provide for themselves and their family. The separation in Ancient Egypt between food-producing population to non-food producing population was actually 6:1. The Nile was bountiful and provided an ample supply of food. Many of those that were not counted amongst the food-producing population were slaves that were given a minimum of food most of the time, which is why the ratio is as it is (compared to medieval europe where most of the non-producing population was artisans, nobility and clergy that actually consumed more ressources than the food-producing population).

A very important factor in an Demographical survey is the presence of slaves. Slaves supply a work force that can be sustained with a minimum of food and with cheap living quarters.

Anyways, ill get back to this thread later, lets get it right this time

By any definition, "rich" is being able to spend resources on things other than the necessities, on other than survival. The factors you list all directly reduce the number of resources that must be spent on survival.

Click to expand...

The main point of my post was not defining a rich nation, but thinking about some of the things that go into make a country rich & able to reduce the number of people producing food. From a world-building standpoint, those are important things to remember.

I don't know if its important, but Mesopotamia required such massive numbers among its farmers because of erratic weather, and truly erratic flooding. Egypt around the Nile River valley, on the other hand, was a comparative paradise. It developed civilization a bit slower because it did not need to invent the advanced agricultural technology needed by the Mesopotamians.

GuardianLurker said:

Of course, it may not be valid to assume that all commoners are farmers anymore.

Click to expand...

It isn't valid right now. You're a commoner unless you're something better (expert, warrior, adept, aristocrat, adventurer). Crafts and professions are class skill for the commoner, most crafters and professionals are commoner. Those who have high ranks in Appraise may be expert, but otherwise, everyone may be simply a commoner.


Also, take a look to A Magical Medieval Society, by Expeditious Press.

Well, most information available does though distinguish between farmers and commoners unfortunately. So, we could simply start with establishing some basic food-producer / non-food producer ratios and then continue to establish how many of the non-food producers that are commoners. Example Egypt. A pretty large amount of the non-food producers would still be commoners (like 80%) since they were basically slaves. That can be discussed & determined after the initial establishing of the above-mentioned ratio.

Aloïsius said:

Also, take a look to A Magical Medieval Society, by Expeditious Press.

Click to expand...

Have it. Unfortunately, it bases it's actual numbers on the SRD demographics. The *qualitative* analysis is great, and still *very* useful, as is the non-demographic info (like crimes and taxes).