Does Dragon #293's realms management system make any sense?

[shadowthorn]

I'm developing a home-grown campaign world, and I was interested in the new realm management system in the new Dragon Magazine. It's supposed to allow you to determine the population, resources, military strength and income of a given area. But the crazy system doesn't make any sense! Has anybody else tried using this system, and did you have problems?

This system has you first divide the land mass into "squares" that are 10 miles x 10 miles, or 100 square miles in area. Each square is then determined to be plains, forest, hill, mountain, etc. To determine the population of a given area, you use a population multiplier depending on the type of terrain. Each population unit represent 1,000 people.

For example, I have a continent in my campaign that's roughly 1000 miles wide by 800 miles long, and is about 600,000 sq. miles in overall size (roughly the size of Alaska). This continent would thus have 6,000 "squares".

Now, let's say that one-fourth of this continent is plains. That makes 1,500 squares of 100 sq. miles each. To calculate the population of an area, you multiply the # of squares by the population multiplier, which is 12 for plains. Each unit of population represents 1,000 people. Thus, a plains area of 150,000 miles would have 1,500 squares x 12 (population multiplier) x 1,000 = 18,000,000. Eighteen million people?!? WTF??? And that's only one-fourth of the total land mass of the continent!

Let's expand the scope of the test area to see how it really adds up. The multipliers for each area are: plains x12, forest x7, hill x6, mountain x3, swamp x1, jungle x3, desert x1. That's an average population multiplier of 4.7. If my campaign world has only 8,400,000 square miles total, that's 84,000 "squares" x 4.7 (multiplier) x 1,000 people = 394,800,000. Three hundred ninety four million people?!?

I must be doing something wrong - or else Wizards of the Coast is. Has anyone else played with this realms system? Does it match up with the campaign worlds of Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk? Does it match up against land area/population figures from the middle ages? Has anyone compared the resources calculation to the amount of wealth the DMG recommends depending on an area's population?

Perhaps I simply miscalculated or don't understand this new system, but it seems that WOTC doesn't make much effort to balance one system against another. Shouldn't the realms managment tools/info of the DMG and Dragon Magazine reinforce each other?

 

[EricNoah]

Well this probably doesn't help you with your problem, but that article was not written by a WotC employee. I don't think WotC rules guys go over every article submitted to Dragon Magazine (though of course it would be nice if they could, and I do think they go over prestige classes and spells). This was from the Dungeoncraft guy, Ray Winninger (sp?).

We'll see if Jesse Decker pops in here, otherwise you might want to drop your note off at the official Dragon Mag boards too.

 

[Talath]

First off, dont blame Wizards of the Coast, blame the person who wrote the article.

With that out of the way, it looks mechanically sound. It accomplishes what it sets out to do: provide simple rules to govern a country.

One of the things I don't agree on is how the author suggests you set the scale for the Knowledge (Nature) and the Wilderness Lore scores. He doesn't seem to take in account that a skill at max rank is Level + 3.

What I would do is establish an average level for the people in the kingdom, from 1-4, prolly no higher. Then, base the score off of there.

If the kingdom has an average of 3, then I'd probably place their Wilderness Lore scores at 6. I could also set it at 3, 1, or whatever. The fact is, I know how I got those numbers, and I don't feel so random in the process.

With the average level, should take terrain in to account. People from harsh terrains are going to be tougher then people from other terrains. Example, people from the desert are slightly tougher then people from the plains, at least generally.

The way of finding population could be toned down a bit. Like you mentioned, it can lead to some wacky numbers.

Otherwise, it seems like a sound system.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Three hundred ninety four million people?!?

Hee. That does seem high, but I'm not good with population density. Maybe it's for a "Stand on Zanzibar" campaign? (Obscure and not entirely analogous reference, but hey...).

Like others have said, though, this isn't WotC's fault. Dragon may be the "official" D&D magazine, but everything in it isn't official.

 

[Rune]

Woah!

You're assuming that all of that land on your continent is populated. Ray's article is assuming an average for populated areas of that type of terrain (within a realm, not a continent!)! For instance, in Ray's current "Lost World" style campaign setting (used as an example in the article), only a very small portion (presumably) of the landmass is populated and given numbers (remember Rule 1 of Dungeoncraft!).

Additionally, keep in mind that fantasy campaigns are not by default "medieval". In many a case, I would venture to say (although in Ray's example, this is certainly not the case) that in most settings technology has reached a peak because of the inclusion of magic into society. Why go through the process of inventing aircraft, when you have fly and teleport spells readily available?

 

[drnuncheon]

One of the things I don't agree on is how the author suggests you set the scale for the Knowledge (Nature) and the Wilderness Lore scores. He doesn't seem to take in account that a skill at max rank is Level + 3.

Plus stat bonuses, plus Skill Focus and other feat bonuses, plus bonuses for equipment, plus taking into account all the people that are above average in level...

J