That's a pretty interesting question. I've never really thought about it, but I think it'd be pretty interesting if your party of adventurers saw another party, possibly on the same quest, mission, etc. This would cause your adventure to possibly become a race, and possibly a battle against the other party. I find it enticing, thinking about adventurers fighting other adventurers, complete with all the stats, weapons, and magic.
D&D 5E What proportion of the population are adventurers?
No, not really
I'm familiar with everything you mention below. The number of people participating in the activities you mention below is a tiny percentage of the total population and the area of their participation is limited to very narrow ranges. This is an advantage. Limited to a literal handful of people. Most priests in the Middle Ages couldn't read. Monks copied documents by wrote without being able to read them. Only a handful of the nobility or merchant classes could read. This improves as the Middle Ages progress, especially among the clergy, but you're talking the Renaissance before significant numbers of people can read Latin (or Greek). Written hand copied documents don't travel that well over a painfully slow system of trade and communication. Scholarship exists, but it's essentially stuck in slow motion.
Medieval long range trade was primarily in luxury items. Most trade was local. And again, the numbers of people doing it were limited and the only thing that made long distance trade viable was the value of the items being traded. Trade improves as travel becomes safer and easier. I'm not sure how easy travel is in a D&D setting...
The huge majority of people never saw anything produced at significant distances in the Middle Ages. This does, again, begin to improve over the course of the Middle Ages leading into the Renaissance but the impact is felt by limited numbers of people among the elites. Centers of trade and commerce do begin to emerge in the High Middle Ages (i.e. the Hanseatic Leagues trading empire c. 1300s iirc) but it is, imho, easy to overestimate their impact on the majority of the population.
Again, the numbers are small. Given that cathedrals could take a century plus to build and castles decades, the labor force could build up over time and is not as mobile as we, in the modern age, would think construction workers are. Then too a lot of the grunt labor was local with the architects / engineers being the highly skilled / in demand workers.
The Crusades do mark a major movement of people and bring about more change than about anything else in the period. They are a once in a life time event with pretty high rate of "non return" due to death or resettlement.
As for mercenaries, the White Company (which operated in the High Middle Ages / early Renaissance, 1300s iirc) with about 2,000 men (Anglo Welch longbowmen) was one of the largest and most efficient. The Italian city states made wide use of Condottiere (mercenaries) in their wars and mercenaries were engaged in the other major wars. This relates as much to how rare specialists (even in violence) were, to the relative scarcity (of specialists of any kind) in the Middle Ages, and the economic burden of supporting soldiers in this period.
I'm not saying that medieval craftsmanship was poor. I'm saying educational / training opportunities were limited (as you said above) and that the huge bulk of the population throughout the periods in question focused their efforts on food production allowing for a limited number of other specialists to exist (compared to modern society). Adventurers, to get back to the original point of this, would have to be pulled from that relatively small number. Most specialists would be smiths, priests, carpenters, and the hundreds of other specialties required by medieval society. The adventurers would be a handful of a handful in short.
Having said all of that I can see specific areas drawing the attention of this relatively tiny number of adventurers. And my own campaign makes that assumption
Furthermore, there a lot of medieval economic assumptions which might not apply (as strictly) to a fantasy world. Agriculture might be more efficient (it couldn't be worse) and literacy more wide spread. You might be basing your setting on economic patterns that are more Renaissance / Reformation in nature. And the numbers while larger, will still be relatively limited
*edit* Odd thoughts and typos...
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
[MENTION=55149]R_Chance[/MENTION]: OK, we seem to be on the same page then. We just differ in what we imagine to be low percentages.
You give very few numbers, but you say things like, "As for mercenaries, the White Company (which operated in the High Middle Ages / early Renaissance, 1300s iirc) with about 2,000 men (Anglo Welch longbowmen) was one of the largest and most efficient." The thing is, in that period the entire population of Wales might not have been more than about 200,000 persons, so out of that population to export 2,000 men to a foreign destination is actually a pretty significant achievement. If they were all Welsh (not a fair assumption I admit) that would be like 1 in 50 men of Wales serving as mercenaries in just that company at any given time. While this would still give us low estimates on what percentage of Welsh men travelled far in their lives, it's not insignificant.
In general, it's impossible to give definitive estimates on the percentage of people in the middle ages that travelled or which were literate in the modern sense, but most single digit percentage answers are pretty reasonable.
And that's for Northern Europe which had always been 'dark' and was emerging as a cultural, economic, and political force. Once we get down to the Mediterranean, then we get to something that more closely resembles a continuation of ancient culture.
You suggest that the vast majority of people never saw anything produced at a significant distance, but there is one sense where that is definitely and provably not true - metals. Metal ores are not found locally, and it's a rare region that can produce even two or three different metals using local production. The medieval craftsman knew of and utilized a good number - copper, iron, tin, antimony, silver, lead, gold, mercury, zinc (for brass), and arsenic. Tin and silver in particular are relatively rare metals and were only produced in a few locations in the whole continent, but the whole continent depended on trade in those elements. Despite the scarcity of tin, bronze still competed for iron goods in price in many areas, and it would not have been unusual for a local peasant to have a simple bronze knife containing metal mined hundreds of miles away, or for a merchant in a town to pay silver coins mined in places he'd never visit.
Actually, mining is another of those areas of craft that I should have mentioned, because in addition to outperforming the ancient world in masonry, even before leaving the middle ages they were outperforming the ancient world in machining and mining technology. And this was also a source movement around the continent, as older mines would play out or the communities become crowded, and the experienced miners from those regions would migrate to newly discovered deposits. When the mines at Rammelsberg opened up, miners from across the continent moved there to assist in the work.
My point is that all these 'tiny percentages' add up. Craftsmanship existed at a high level. There were plenty of specialists with a high degree of training. There were plenty of people who had an opportunity to travel. Literacy, mobility, prosperity, and social mobility were low compared to modern standards, but they weren't unusual given the time period, and quietly the Medievals were putting together a technology and social structure that was and would be revolutionary. The local miller in a medieval village knew more about automation and machinery than any craftsman that had existed before him, and as he was also essentially a tax collector he could not have been fully illiterate and innumerate.
You give very few numbers, but you say things like, "As for mercenaries, the White Company (which operated in the High Middle Ages / early Renaissance, 1300s iirc) with about 2,000 men (Anglo Welch longbowmen) was one of the largest and most efficient." The thing is, in that period the entire population of Wales might not have been more than about 200,000 persons, so out of that population to export 2,000 men to a foreign destination is actually a pretty significant achievement. If they were all Welsh (not a fair assumption I admit) that would be like 1 in 50 men of Wales serving as mercenaries in just that company at any given time. While this would still give us low estimates on what percentage of Welsh men travelled far in their lives, it's not insignificant.
In general, it's impossible to give definitive estimates on the percentage of people in the middle ages that travelled or which were literate in the modern sense, but most single digit percentage answers are pretty reasonable.
And that's for Northern Europe which had always been 'dark' and was emerging as a cultural, economic, and political force. Once we get down to the Mediterranean, then we get to something that more closely resembles a continuation of ancient culture.
You suggest that the vast majority of people never saw anything produced at a significant distance, but there is one sense where that is definitely and provably not true - metals. Metal ores are not found locally, and it's a rare region that can produce even two or three different metals using local production. The medieval craftsman knew of and utilized a good number - copper, iron, tin, antimony, silver, lead, gold, mercury, zinc (for brass), and arsenic. Tin and silver in particular are relatively rare metals and were only produced in a few locations in the whole continent, but the whole continent depended on trade in those elements. Despite the scarcity of tin, bronze still competed for iron goods in price in many areas, and it would not have been unusual for a local peasant to have a simple bronze knife containing metal mined hundreds of miles away, or for a merchant in a town to pay silver coins mined in places he'd never visit.
Actually, mining is another of those areas of craft that I should have mentioned, because in addition to outperforming the ancient world in masonry, even before leaving the middle ages they were outperforming the ancient world in machining and mining technology. And this was also a source movement around the continent, as older mines would play out or the communities become crowded, and the experienced miners from those regions would migrate to newly discovered deposits. When the mines at Rammelsberg opened up, miners from across the continent moved there to assist in the work.
My point is that all these 'tiny percentages' add up. Craftsmanship existed at a high level. There were plenty of specialists with a high degree of training. There were plenty of people who had an opportunity to travel. Literacy, mobility, prosperity, and social mobility were low compared to modern standards, but they weren't unusual given the time period, and quietly the Medievals were putting together a technology and social structure that was and would be revolutionary. The local miller in a medieval village knew more about automation and machinery than any craftsman that had existed before him, and as he was also essentially a tax collector he could not have been fully illiterate and innumerate.
I agree, that we largely agree The numbers could be argued for ever. And, as you say, some things were not locally available and those things had to be traded for. The numbers just aren't that available, the Domesday Book is the single most complete record of taxable assets in any medieval kingdom. It doesn't address issues like literacy but it does give an economic overview of England at the time of the Norman Conquest (its available in print). Economic information for gaming purposes is a tad more difficult to come by. I have always used two sources, to determing / generate a region economy / population. "Chivalry and Sorcery" (1st edition from FGU) and "A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe" (from Expeditious Retreat Press). No data on things like trade per se, but good numbers on specialization. Expeditious Retreat Press also make a rather handy book on long distance trade called "A Magical Society: Silk Road". They were quite well done. FGU is gone and the first edition rules can be hard to find. They had supplements on the Vikings, Celts, and Steppes Nomads as well.
Medieval craftsmanship could be excellent, but the number of specialists was low (outside of food production), opportunities for individual change / education / training / travel were low and what we see in Medieval life and craftsmanship is the tip of a large unmoving (or slowly moving) iceberg. All imho, of course. Eventually things will begin to change more rapidly, but then its not the Middle Ages.
The numbers could be argued for ever. And, as you say, some things were not locally available and those things had to be traded for. The numbers just aren't that available, the Domesday Book is the single most complete record of taxable assets in any medieval kingdom. It doesn't address issues like literacy but it does give an economic overview of England at the time of the Norman Conquest (its available in print). Economic information for gaming purposes is a tad more difficult to come by. I have always used two sources, to determing / generate a region economy / population. "Chivalry and Sorcery" (1st edition from FGU) and "A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe" (from Expeditious Retreat Press). No data on things like trade per se, but good numbers on specialization. Expeditious Retreat Press also make a rather handy book on long distance trade called "A Magical Society: Silk Road". They were quite well done. FGU is gone and the first edition rules can be hard to find. They had supplements on the Vikings, Celts, and Steppes Nomads as well.Medieval craftsmanship could be excellent, but the number of specialists was low (outside of food production), opportunities for individual change / education / training / travel were low and what we see in Medieval life and craftsmanship is the tip of a large unmoving (or slowly moving) iceberg. All imho, of course. Eventually things will begin to change more rapidly, but then its not the Middle Ages.
Khisanth the Ancient
Explorer
In my world...
Worldwide, as an average among all the PC-type-beings (humans, elves, dwarves, dragonborn, etc etc.) a very small percentage - probably on the order of 1 in 5,000. (There are, however, more people with PC-class-equivalent abilities, though they're still rare; there are wizards who are pure magical researchers, there are elite orders of rangers who are trained and supported by various nations as military scouts, etc.)
However, in certain frontier areas, it can be far higher locally. My world has enormous areas of ruins (the current population is about 40 million, down from about 500 million in the "Golden Age"); there are places where looting ruins is a huge part of the economy, and "boomtowns" spring up to provide services to adventurers.
Worldwide, as an average among all the PC-type-beings (humans, elves, dwarves, dragonborn, etc etc.) a very small percentage - probably on the order of 1 in 5,000. (There are, however, more people with PC-class-equivalent abilities, though they're still rare; there are wizards who are pure magical researchers, there are elite orders of rangers who are trained and supported by various nations as military scouts, etc.)
However, in certain frontier areas, it can be far higher locally. My world has enormous areas of ruins (the current population is about 40 million, down from about 500 million in the "Golden Age"); there are places where looting ruins is a huge part of the economy, and "boomtowns" spring up to provide services to adventurers.
Mercurius
Legend
Not sure if this was quoted in the thread, but I found this article after someone liked an old post of mine and reminded me of this thread.
From Jericho to Tokyo: World's Largest Cities Through History.
I was researching this question recently in doing world-building for a novel. It is worth noting that we've had several pre-modern cities over a million: At its height, Rome was estimated at 1.2 million. Hangzhou in 1300 AD in China was 1.5 million.
Medieval and Renaissance Europe cities cap out at around 2-300,000, but the largest cities in the Islamic world could be over half a million, and in China over a million. The point being, it isn't completely outrageous to think that a pre-modern city could be well over a million, especially if supported by magic (e.g. incinerating waste).
From Jericho to Tokyo: World's Largest Cities Through History.
I was researching this question recently in doing world-building for a novel. It is worth noting that we've had several pre-modern cities over a million: At its height, Rome was estimated at 1.2 million. Hangzhou in 1300 AD in China was 1.5 million.
Medieval and Renaissance Europe cities cap out at around 2-300,000, but the largest cities in the Islamic world could be over half a million, and in China over a million. The point being, it isn't completely outrageous to think that a pre-modern city could be well over a million, especially if supported by magic (e.g. incinerating waste).
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Late to the party, but just to touch a couple of points raised earlier:
There's two questions in one being asked in the title of this thread, and the answer depends which of the two you read it as. (oh, and for these purposes I'm only looking at the able-enough-bodied non-child population)
One is "what proportion of the population spend (or have spent) time in the field adventuring like the PCs do?".
The other is "what proportion of the population are capable of gaining levels in a class, whether they ever actually do so or not?".
My answer to the second is "most, close to all". Non-adventuring people can still gain levels in a class, only much more slowly than field adventurers do. Anyone in an army who survives a battle is going to get some xp for it; do this long enough and you'll start rising in level. Any street thief is slowly going to gain xp and levels as a Rogue or Thief as time goes by. And so on; and not everyone will ever gain any xp at all even though they in theory can.
My answer to the first is probably somewhat higher than many here, in that I see field adventuring as something quite a few people would do - or try - when young, in hopes of getting rich quick. I've never given much thought to actual numbers, but 1 in 500 overall being currently active adventurers (or trying to be) and at least the same again being retired isn't a big stretch. The majority of these adventurers would be attached to armies as scouts, mercenaries, elite soldiers, field medics, and so forth.
PCs and NPCs are the same in any game I run; if an NPC Priest can cast 3rd level spells it's because he's at least a 5th-level Cleric, end of story.
There's two questions in one being asked in the title of this thread, and the answer depends which of the two you read it as. (oh, and for these purposes I'm only looking at the able-enough-bodied non-child population)
One is "what proportion of the population spend (or have spent) time in the field adventuring like the PCs do?".
The other is "what proportion of the population are capable of gaining levels in a class, whether they ever actually do so or not?".
My answer to the second is "most, close to all". Non-adventuring people can still gain levels in a class, only much more slowly than field adventurers do. Anyone in an army who survives a battle is going to get some xp for it; do this long enough and you'll start rising in level. Any street thief is slowly going to gain xp and levels as a Rogue or Thief as time goes by. And so on; and not everyone will ever gain any xp at all even though they in theory can.
My answer to the first is probably somewhat higher than many here, in that I see field adventuring as something quite a few people would do - or try - when young, in hopes of getting rich quick. I've never given much thought to actual numbers, but 1 in 500 overall being currently active adventurers (or trying to be) and at least the same again being retired isn't a big stretch. The majority of these adventurers would be attached to armies as scouts, mercenaries, elite soldiers, field medics, and so forth.
PCs and NPCs are the same in any game I run; if an NPC Priest can cast 3rd level spells it's because he's at least a 5th-level Cleric, end of story.
Mercurius
Legend
OK, this ran away from me and I spent the last hour or two working out some ideas. What can I say? Its a fascinating subject
As I see it, in order to ascertain the exact population of leveled characters (LCs) and their levels, there are several variables: World population, prevalance of leveled characters, and distribution of characters at different levels or tiers.
World Population of D&D Campaign Worlds
The world population in 1500 AD is estimated to have been about 450 million. That's the high Renaissance - which seems to be about the level of most D&D kitchen sink campaign worlds, or at least like the Renaissance, portions of D&D worlds have that level of technological and society development. But different campaign worlds would have different population levels. Looking at Earth again, we could consider different eras and their respective populations:
So the first thing one would have to do is decide which best suits their world's basic societal era. I would think that the Forgotten Realms would be closer to Early Industrial population level, considering the existence of multiple races, the Underdark, and greater population density than Earth (i.e. there are few vast areas with little population, unless vast regions of Earth during the Renaissance).
A points-of-light or low fantasy, Sword & Sorcery style world might have 20 million or less. It really depends upon the world.
Prevalence of Leveled Characters
This is the central question question of the original post, but my contention is that it needs to be addressed alongside the other two factors. One question that should be asked is: are only PCs leveled, or are NPCs also leveled? If the former, question over: the only leveled characters are the PCs. If the latter, the question becomes more complex (and interesting, imo). But even if taking the latter approach, we must remember that a level implies a degree of training. A farmer who serves in the militia during the occasional orc attack is not a fighter, but a warrior. Class = training. This doesn't mean that training has to be rare, but it is significant.
I see it as a scale, with no "right" number, but just benchmarks to consider:
I would imagine that the typical D&D world would be somewhere in the "occasional" to "uncommon" range, but it really depends upon what you're going for.
Distribution by Level/Tiers of Play
Level 1-4 characters have been described as apprentice adventurers or "Local Heroes," Tier 2 (levels 5-10) as true heroes or "Heroes of the Realm," Tier 3 (levels 11-16) as paragons or "Masters of the Realm" and levels 17-20 as superheroic, legendary, or "Masters of the World." Or we could say, low, heroic, paragon, and epic tiers.
Now the distribution of leveled characters can vary, depending upon how you want to approach the matter. I see two big factors to consider: death and stasis. How many characters survive a level? Not just PCs, which is inordinately high, but all leveled characters and adventurers? How many gain a level through some experience, but don't advance do to their primary career being something else? And how many adventurers hang up their swords and staves and retire or choose a safer profession?
These are all highly variable and subjective. But a simple way to address this question would be to ask: For every one "legendary" character (level 17-20), how many paragons, heroes, and apprentice adventurers are there? Is it 1 to 10 to 100 to 1000? Or is it more like 1 to 100 to 10,000 to one million?
I would posit three ranges:
One, albeit formulaic, approach is to imagine that the amount of leveled characters that ever make it to the next level is half. Meaning, of a 100 1st level characters, 50 make it to 2nd, 25 to 3rd, maybe a dozen to 4th, six to 5th, three to 6th, or two to 7th, and one or none to 8th or higher. If we extrapolate from one 20th level character for every level, and then add up the tier totals, we get the following:
For every 1 20th level character, there are 15 total level 17-20 characters, 1008 level 11-16 characters, 64512 level 5-10 characters, and 983040 level 1-4 characters. Or to put it another way, only about one in every 65,000 1st level characters make it to 20th level. That doesn't seem that far-fetched, if you think about it.
But you could also imagine a "softer" progression. Maybe a greater percentage make it to higher levels.
Example A: High Medieval/Renaissance with Occasional Prevalence and Moderate Distribution
Let's imagine a fairly typical kitchen sink fantasy world, with a Renaissance level population, say, 500 million people, of which 1-in-500 people are leveled, or about one million people., and moderate distribution. In this world there are seven or eight Tier 4 characters, a few hundred Tier 3 characters, maybe about 20,000 Tier 2 characters, and the rest of the million--almost 980,000--are Tier 1.
Example B: Dark Fantasy/Sword & Sorcery with Common Prevalence and Hard Distribution
Now let's imagine something more archaic: a world akin to early antiquity, with the rare nation, a bunch of city-states, and most of the world being monster-infested wilderness with the occasional neolithic settlement, about 10,000,000 people, of which 1-in-100 are leveled characters, or 10,000 total. Of those there probably isn't a Tier 4 character, maybe one Tier 3, a hundred Tier 2, and the rest are Tier 1.
Etc.
Summary
There is no right answer, but I think if one addresses all three variables--world population, prevalence of leveled characters, and distribution of characters by levels or tiers--you can slide in some numbers and play with it to find an outcome.
Addendum
There are other factors to consider, but I tried to keep this relatively simple. For instance, the above three factors could be modified in different regions with different levels of societal development, cultures, etc. I see this as an overall picture, and you can vary it per region. I'm sure there are other factors to consider...
As I see it, in order to ascertain the exact population of leveled characters (LCs) and their levels, there are several variables: World population, prevalance of leveled characters, and distribution of characters at different levels or tiers.
World Population of D&D Campaign Worlds
The world population in 1500 AD is estimated to have been about 450 million. That's the high Renaissance - which seems to be about the level of most D&D kitchen sink campaign worlds, or at least like the Renaissance, portions of D&D worlds have that level of technological and society development. But different campaign worlds would have different population levels. Looking at Earth again, we could consider different eras and their respective populations:
Early Industrial (1800 AD): 1 billion
Renaissance (1500 AD): 450 million
Early Middle Ages (1000 AD): 250 million
Late Antiquity (500 BC): 100 million
Early Antiquity (2500 BC): 20 million
Late Neolithic (5000 BC): 5 million
So the first thing one would have to do is decide which best suits their world's basic societal era. I would think that the Forgotten Realms would be closer to Early Industrial population level, considering the existence of multiple races, the Underdark, and greater population density than Earth (i.e. there are few vast areas with little population, unless vast regions of Earth during the Renaissance).
A points-of-light or low fantasy, Sword & Sorcery style world might have 20 million or less. It really depends upon the world.
Prevalence of Leveled Characters
This is the central question question of the original post, but my contention is that it needs to be addressed alongside the other two factors. One question that should be asked is: are only PCs leveled, or are NPCs also leveled? If the former, question over: the only leveled characters are the PCs. If the latter, the question becomes more complex (and interesting, imo). But even if taking the latter approach, we must remember that a level implies a degree of training. A farmer who serves in the militia during the occasional orc attack is not a fighter, but a warrior. Class = training. This doesn't mean that training has to be rare, but it is significant.
I see it as a scale, with no "right" number, but just benchmarks to consider:
Very Common (1-in-10 or more): A lot of folks pick up levels, whether because the world is dangerous and training is common, or because it is just that kind of world. Or imagine it this way: if you interact with a dozen people in a day, one or two of them are leveled.
Common (1-in-100): Leveled characters are plentiful, with most villages have one or even a few, a handful in every town, dozens in small cities, hundreds in larger cities.
Occasional (1-in-500): They do exist, but not in every village. There are a few in every town and maybe a dozen or two in small cities, a few dozen to over a hundred in large cities, and quite a few adventuring parties scouring the land.
Uncommon (1-in-2000): This seems to be the tipping point for when they become more rare. There may or may not be one in a town, a handful in a small city, maybe a couple dozen in larger cities. Adventuring parties are rare and noteworthy.
Rare (1-in-5000): They exist, but are few and far between. You generally won't meet one except in small cities, except for the stray adventuring party or luminary.
Very Rare (1-in-20000 or fewer): The PCs and other adventuring parties and a few luminaries, but that's it.
I would imagine that the typical D&D world would be somewhere in the "occasional" to "uncommon" range, but it really depends upon what you're going for.
Distribution by Level/Tiers of Play
Level 1-4 characters have been described as apprentice adventurers or "Local Heroes," Tier 2 (levels 5-10) as true heroes or "Heroes of the Realm," Tier 3 (levels 11-16) as paragons or "Masters of the Realm" and levels 17-20 as superheroic, legendary, or "Masters of the World." Or we could say, low, heroic, paragon, and epic tiers.
Now the distribution of leveled characters can vary, depending upon how you want to approach the matter. I see two big factors to consider: death and stasis. How many characters survive a level? Not just PCs, which is inordinately high, but all leveled characters and adventurers? How many gain a level through some experience, but don't advance do to their primary career being something else? And how many adventurers hang up their swords and staves and retire or choose a safer profession?
These are all highly variable and subjective. But a simple way to address this question would be to ask: For every one "legendary" character (level 17-20), how many paragons, heroes, and apprentice adventurers are there? Is it 1 to 10 to 100 to 1000? Or is it more like 1 to 100 to 10,000 to one million?
I would posit three ranges:
Soft (x10): 1 to 10 to 100 to 1000
Moderate (x50): 1 to 50 to 2500 to 125,000
Hard (x100): 1 to 100 to 10,000 to 1,000,000
One, albeit formulaic, approach is to imagine that the amount of leveled characters that ever make it to the next level is half. Meaning, of a 100 1st level characters, 50 make it to 2nd, 25 to 3rd, maybe a dozen to 4th, six to 5th, three to 6th, or two to 7th, and one or none to 8th or higher. If we extrapolate from one 20th level character for every level, and then add up the tier totals, we get the following:
For every 1 20th level character, there are 15 total level 17-20 characters, 1008 level 11-16 characters, 64512 level 5-10 characters, and 983040 level 1-4 characters. Or to put it another way, only about one in every 65,000 1st level characters make it to 20th level. That doesn't seem that far-fetched, if you think about it.
But you could also imagine a "softer" progression. Maybe a greater percentage make it to higher levels.
Example A: High Medieval/Renaissance with Occasional Prevalence and Moderate Distribution
Let's imagine a fairly typical kitchen sink fantasy world, with a Renaissance level population, say, 500 million people, of which 1-in-500 people are leveled, or about one million people., and moderate distribution. In this world there are seven or eight Tier 4 characters, a few hundred Tier 3 characters, maybe about 20,000 Tier 2 characters, and the rest of the million--almost 980,000--are Tier 1.
Example B: Dark Fantasy/Sword & Sorcery with Common Prevalence and Hard Distribution
Now let's imagine something more archaic: a world akin to early antiquity, with the rare nation, a bunch of city-states, and most of the world being monster-infested wilderness with the occasional neolithic settlement, about 10,000,000 people, of which 1-in-100 are leveled characters, or 10,000 total. Of those there probably isn't a Tier 4 character, maybe one Tier 3, a hundred Tier 2, and the rest are Tier 1.
Etc.
Summary
There is no right answer, but I think if one addresses all three variables--world population, prevalence of leveled characters, and distribution of characters by levels or tiers--you can slide in some numbers and play with it to find an outcome.
Addendum
There are other factors to consider, but I tried to keep this relatively simple. For instance, the above three factors could be modified in different regions with different levels of societal development, cultures, etc. I see this as an overall picture, and you can vary it per region. I'm sure there are other factors to consider...
(un)reason
Legend
Indeed. Looking at official D&D worlds, there's a hierarchy that goes something like:
Athas: PC's start at 3rd level, high level characters are more frequent and of higher average level than other settings, and even commoners are pretty likely to be 1st or 2nd level PC classes because it's a brutal world where everyday survival is an adventure and you either toughen up fast or die.
Mystara: It's very easy to get into a class here, and there are tons of high level NPC's knocking around, as unlike most godly pantheons, the immortals actively seem to want more people to join them, so they set the world up to make it more likely people will be able to get through the chains of adventures needed to get to high level.
Forgotten Realms: Somewhat lower proportion of high level NPC's than the previous two, but they're all named and significant. The same trend probably applies to the overall demographics. People with PC classes are rare enough to stand out, but still common enough that every town has some.
Eberron: class levels are relatively common, but average levels are lower, there's not a huge number of epic level PC's wandering around like the ones above.
Greyhawk: Slightly more high level characters than Eberron, but also a much higher proportion of people without any class levels. If marauding humanoids invade a town, they're a genuine threat, as people who can deal with them are much fewer than all the previous ones.
Dragonlance: Gods actively discourage people from getting to high levels, and there's only a few big heroes and bad guys per generation. Class levels are rare and exceptional.
Ravenloft: Power levels are pretty low overall, the population is downtrodden and ignorant. People with PC classes are few and mostly low level. If you go up against the Darklords, there's no-one who'll be able to rescue you.
Birthright: PC class levels are pretty much only found in Nobles, so there'll be maybe a family's worth of them per kingdom, and even a low level cleric or wizard is terrifying to the average peasant.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
In Eberron PC classes tend to be really rare. There are a lot of NPCs with specific rules like magewrights and wandslingers though. There may be a handful of people with high-tier PC classes on the entire continent, there may be none at all.
Similar Threads
