Cityscape ToC

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yep, exactly; as opposed to the rabbit/wolf scenario, where the whole "circle of life" thing takes place. Note that the fewer small prey there is, the less food there is for the wolves. It's self-correcting.

No circle of life in the city vermin scenario, where the vermin don't even help eliminate refuse by consuming it, they just add more filth.

You have a very strange idea of what vermin do in the city.

 

[Felon]

Rats, pigeons, and roaches spread excrement and other disease-ridden filth, and it collects into cesspools in a city environ instead of being absorbed into the soil. Not sure what you find so strange about that.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Yep, exactly; as opposed to the rabbit/wolf scenario, where the whole "circle of life" thing takes place. Note that the fewer small prey there is, the less food there is for the wolves. It's self-correcting.

The "circle of life" is very much a grand simplification - one that looks good in school books but isn't even half of the story.

In truth, ecosystems resemble giant networks, with many, many parts interacting and constantly shifting. An ecosystem is never "stable" for very long - even without interference from humans there are constant changes from varying climate, animal migrations, new parasites, or simply new predator or prey species that have reached the area. But a healthy ecosystem with lots of component parts will find a new equilibrium soon - until the next change in the environment.

And yes, it's self-correcting. However, this doesn't mean that species are somehow protected from going extinct - far from it. Species have gone exitinct nearly as long as life has existed on Earth, as can be easily seen from the fossil record.

No circle of life in the city vermin scenario, where the vermin don't even help eliminate refuse by consuming it, they just add more filth.

It may be "filfth" for humans but it is a vital source of food for innumerable species. Just because a part of an ecoystem is not useful and even dangerous to humans doesn't make it any less of a part of it.

 

[Felon]

It may be "filfth" for humans but it is a vital source of food for innumerable species. Just because a part of an ecoystem is not useful and even dangerous to humans doesn't make it any less of a part of it.

Perhaps not, but the fact is that when you guys are talking about a city being full of animals other than humans, for the most part you're talking about things that live in fetid, rotting garbage. That it's detrimental to anything that isn't some kind of disease-ridden scavenger/parasite is what makes passing a cesspool off as a druid's haven a rather spurious prospect--unless we're talking about oozemasters.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Perhaps not, but the fact is that when you guys are talking about a city being full of animals other than humans, for the most part you're talking about things that live in fetid, rotting garbage. That it's detrimental to anything that isn't some kind of disease-ridden scavenger/parasite is what makes passing a cesspool off as a druid's haven a rather spurious prospect--unless we're talking about oozemasters.

You have rodents of all kinds, pigeons, owls, bats, foxes and a whole bunch of other animals. Just because they are all very small and good at hiding from humans it doesn't mean they aren't out there.

And at least in the city where I live, the trees probably outnumber the buildings.

 

[glass]

Not in isolation from a larger ecosystem, it doesn't.

Almost no ecosystems exist in isolation, so that is pretty much a given. According to dictionary.com, and ecosystem is defined as; 'a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.'

No isolation, or self-sufficiency, is required.

Why do I need to be "sold" on it? It's not a good fit with what I see the druid representing, and consider a druid to represent something at odds with civilization, and by extension, city-dwellers. Is it not well enough that I could find something else to enjoy than forcing ideas down my throat that I'm not going to swallow?

You don't need to be, obviously. But if you were, you (and your players) would have an extra option for your game. Options, not restrictions.


glass.

 

[Psion]

You don't need to be, obviously. But if you were, you (and your players) would have an extra option for your game. Options, not restrictions.

Is this some 3e party line I'm supposed to be buying.

Listen, I found 3e a stride on the "options not restrictions" front because things like "racial level limits" didn't make sense to me.

Urban druids are another thing that doesn't make sense to me, and to me, my campaign will be a more self-consistent, beleivable whole without them, just like racial level limits.

 

[Mercule]

Well, I'll be picking up this book.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

You know, this thread has given me ideas for using druids in a whole new way for Urbis...

 

[glass]

Urban druids are another thing that doesn't make sense to me, and to me, my campaign will be a more self-consistent, beleivable whole without them, just like racial level limits.

Which is fine, until someone shows up to your game, really excited about their new urban druid character idea. Then you have two choices:

1. Shoot down their idea in flames.
2. Allow a character you don't believe makes sense.

Obviously, the posters in this thread haven't convinced you, but if we had have done this hypothetical problem would have gone away. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but worth a couple of posts on a message board IMO.

You know, this thread has given me ideas for using druids in a whole new way for Urbis...

Good, then, the tangent was worthwhile, even it had no direct effect on Psion or his opinion.


glass.