Generating Towns in rough places...

[Khur]

I was just reading Silver Marches and I got to thinking (dangerous, I know). Is it realistic for an isolated settlement in very dangerous territory to have so many 1st-level commoner inhabitants? Remember, this is adult population we’re talking about. Further, is it realistic for a nomadic (halfling, for example) or barbarian culture to have so many Com1 citizens? Think about encounter charts when considering this, especially for nomadic and hunter/gatherer bands.

What do you think?

 

[Speaks With Stone]

I agree. Keep on thinking about it and you find that now at the beginning of a career, PCs are not very special at all. Mid levels is when the characters really set themselves apart. Mid to high levels means that there may still be some peers lurking about in society.

I've found that this keeps in town encounters reasonable and by ramping up the NPCs at the start, I can keep challenging the PCs in any environment later on.

 

[Vaxalon]

DMG, page 133, table 4-37.

 

[Khur]

Ummm ...

DMG, page 133, table 4-37.

Thanks for trying to help. I didn't make it clear in my first post, but what I'm trying to do is modify the numbers in a reasonable and not so arbitrary fashion. For example, a rough mountain village is not any more likely to have a wizard than a normal town, unless said town is near a magically significant area or what have you. The same village is more likely to have more rangers and higher-level rangers—especially higher than suggested by either Table 4-43 or 4-37 in the DMG. If the town is in the frontier (like many Silver Marches towns) it’s also less likely to have a normal proportion of Com1 characters, and more likely to have a larger militia and etc.

This was beyond the scope of the DMG, which tries to be a utility for most normal situations. Am I wrong?

I’m talking about town tweaking based on the area, not automatic level adjustments due to terrain. Such things are great for simplicity, but not for making a satisfyingly dynamic world.

 

[Xeriar]

I actually wrote a little program that let you modify the numbers, add / subtract classes etc (ie, Commoners are zero-level and not counted, for example).

Only problem was I had a weird bug and can't get it to save settings. If there is interest I will touch it up and post it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think that even in relatively sheltered areas, the normal level (of PC classes, commoners, experts or anything else) should be one.

I think the normal level for people in their mid twenties to thirties should be 3 to 5. For older people who tend to be master craftsmen, etc. I'd figure they go as high as 7 to 9. (The justification for this is very similar to that found in SKR's peasant lifecycle and the current "advancement by years" thread--normal people face challenges in their lives and get experience for it as well. They just don't get experience as quickly and don't focus its application on combat like PCs tend to.)

That's how I work it in my game at least.

If I want to simulate the tough frontier folk of a difficult region, I'll just substitute some fighter, ranger, or warrior levels for the usual commoner and expert levels.

 

[Xeriar]

It is important to realize that 28 was once considered 'old' although there were still a few 90-year olds. Most people didn't live long enough and did not get trained well enough to have such skills.

Those who did made history.

 

[Vaxalon]

In worlds with nasty monsters, life expectancy would be even less.

Khur, the footnote on the table I quoted states that you can add the NPC level modifier to town inhabitants as well.

As for people facing challenges all the time, I disagree. Only the rare minority goes out on a limb any more than he absolutely has to.

 

[KarinsDad]

I wonder.

Is a significant population portion of 1st level commoners unrealistic in a dangerous area?

On the surface, this sounds true, but let's consider two things:

1) We are talking a fantasy world where magic exists (then again, real monsters exist too).

2) In real world medieval cultures, was most of the population relatively unskilled (i.e. low level) peasants?

I think the answer to #2 is yes. Granted, you could have a city of 100,000 people where some significant portion of the population were artisans, merchants, militia, clergy, tanners, etc. and not common laborers.

But, cities had to be fed and it is generally accepted that 9 people out of 10 (more or less) in medieval cultures had to be supplying the food.

This also depends on what you consider "relatively unskilled". I consider this to mean that even if you do not have a lot of skill points in a skill or group of skills, you can take 20 (or take 10) with many skills and adequately perform a job.

It doesn't take that much skill to fill a bucket up with water, to feed chickens, to hoe a field.

Neverwinter Nights handles this fairly well in that unlock attempts (at least by low skilled characters, do not know what happens with high skilled rogues) are always take 20. Hence, you always take the time out to try your best.

In DND, most job-like menials skills should not be done in a hurry, rather they would be done in a reasonable time frame and fashion.

So, I think yes is a relatively valid answer to question #2.


Getting back to statement #1, how does magic and monsters affect the equation?

It depends on what monsters you are talking about and what levels of magic.

If you are talking about marauding type monsters like possible Orcs, then a small amount of magic (or a small team of low level NPCs) might be enough to discourage them from raiding settled areas and have them settle on raiding other monsters or even forest creatures.

If you compare this to inner-city gangs today (also a dangerous environment), you do not tend to see gang wars every day. They each pick out a territory and stick to it (for the most part). I think the same would occur for Orcs and Goblinoids unless it was a hard winter or something.

Also, since food is one of the major requirements to survival, it is also possible that commoners would strike deals with marauding monsters to actually feed them.

If you are talking larger more powerful creatures, then even a small community with a bunch of 3rd to 5th level commoners would probably not be sufficient to protect the community. Instead, communities would tend to wall up or hide to minimize the frequency of powerful encounter occurrences. Given that, it would seem that even low level commoners could hide behind walls or within a forest just as easily as slightly higher level commoners.

So, all in all, yes, the chance to survive with higher level commoners would generally be greater (assuming that they do not get complacent since they are higher level). But, it is unclear that it is a definitive fact that lower level commoners would be unable to survive.

 

[smetzger]

Well there shouldn't be any Commoners in FR