Estimating character levels of a population with math
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
Back in AD&D 1E, I did this sort of analysis and compared to key data points in the DMG and World of Greyhawk texts. I came up with about a 60% to 65% levelling rate (more for wizards & clerics, less for fighters & thieves). Also, the 1E DMG said that only 1 in 100 population were capable of gaining any levels to begin with.
Obviously that's different in current 3E DMG sources. They tend to have higher max levels, but much more spread out (less populous) below them. (Instead of half numbers one level down, it's half numbers at half the level down.)
Obviously that's different in current 3E DMG sources. They tend to have higher max levels, but much more spread out (less populous) below them. (Instead of half numbers one level down, it's half numbers at half the level down.)
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
The leveling rate might be even less than 50%, just because of the number of foes you have to defeat to advance a level.
To simplify the modeling, assume that advancement consists of one-on-one contests between the various beings. You have 8 1st-level NPCs fighting each other in basically a tournament. The winner defeats 3 foes of his CR, throw in a little XP bonus here and there and he's ready to advance to level 2.
That's 7 losers for the 1 that advanced. Depending on how deadly combat tends to be, the losers may be dead, or some of them may survive and get another chance. But repeated combat where death is not a possibility is just sparring and should not, I think, offer any XP.
The "tournament of single NPCs" model simplifies things, but it would be similar if the contestants were bands of adventurers and classed monsters fighting each other (as in, say, Keep on the Borderlands).
Essentially, to have a high advancement rate, you need people earning a LOT of XP for non-combat actions, or you need combat to be mostly non-lethal.
To simplify the modeling, assume that advancement consists of one-on-one contests between the various beings. You have 8 1st-level NPCs fighting each other in basically a tournament. The winner defeats 3 foes of his CR, throw in a little XP bonus here and there and he's ready to advance to level 2.
That's 7 losers for the 1 that advanced. Depending on how deadly combat tends to be, the losers may be dead, or some of them may survive and get another chance. But repeated combat where death is not a possibility is just sparring and should not, I think, offer any XP.
The "tournament of single NPCs" model simplifies things, but it would be similar if the contestants were bands of adventurers and classed monsters fighting each other (as in, say, Keep on the Borderlands).
Essentially, to have a high advancement rate, you need people earning a LOT of XP for non-combat actions, or you need combat to be mostly non-lethal.
Snapdragyn
Explorer
I've tried to come up with a spreadsheet based on the DMG numbers, but it's a) very macro-heavy, b) cross-referenced to some campaign-specific files, & c) never quite came out to a smooth progression that matched the RAW datapoints. I'd love to see something by someone more numbers-savvy than myself.
Couple of 'wish list' items for such an application: in addition to the basic sheet with only the core classes, it'd be nice for there to be a way for the client to add extra classes, & also to adjust the representation of classes in the community (both to make room for non-core classes & to have different class arrays & frequencies in different areas).
Couple of 'wish list' items for such an application: in addition to the basic sheet with only the core classes, it'd be nice for there to be a way for the client to add extra classes, & also to adjust the representation of classes in the community (both to make room for non-core classes & to have different class arrays & frequencies in different areas).
Last edited:
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Forgive me, but forget the data points of the "RAW". They're not useful. Be VERY aware of just what those tables in the DMG are for: "When the PC's come into a town and you need to generate facts about that town quickly[...]. To randomly determine the size of a community, roll on table 5-2 below." Emphasis mine. These tables are for when you either can't or won't provide the information they generate on your own. RANDOMLY determining the size of your game worlds population on a regular basis is a BAD way to go about it. Even using charts and formulae on a regular basis for this stuff rather than your own good judgement is a bad way to go about it. Those charts in the DMG are HIGHLY simplistic and as such are just about guaranteed to produce results so skewed that it would be amazing that they actually work as a model of demographics for anyone.Snapdragyn said:
I've used them of course, but eventually I saw that they were not going to produce results that worked consistently from one of my campaigns to the next much less for any given campaign I might be running. For example, by those charts 50% of all communities are under 1000 population. IMO that's as it should be. But who in their right mind randomly generates a population of 25,000 or more for a campaign and says, "Yeah. That fits?" Or what if you're running a specific setting like the Forgotten Realms which has a LOT of large cities sprinkled across it, some of which have populations in the HUNDREDS of thousands and even 1,000,000 or more? The tables take no account of cities that may be abnormally wealthy or poor, that have seasonal population shifts, that have other cultural or sociological factors at work like the DM intentionally running a low-magic campaign, or a nation recovering from a protracted and bloody war. A basic consideration is that certain population centers will simply blow the formula because it does become a center of power, a center of culture, a center of trade, or the like that a simple % roll cannot account for.
Personally, I think the old 1E demographic suggestion of 1 in 100 even being capable of level advancement is probably closer to what would be useful and desireable for more campaigns. But I could be wrong on that one.
I think the real problem is that for ANY tables or formulae to work you need to have a grasp of what the sizes of your population centers ARE, not determine them randomly. Then you need to have an idea of what kind of representation of leveled characters you want FIRST, before you derive a formula that will provide an array for a given population level. Then you have to be willing to ignore the results anyway and just decide what you want despite what the "formula" tells you should be there.
YMMV
genshou
First Post
Actually, those stastistics can come in very handy. It's the "default" for determining what is a normal community in a standard D&D setting. Some of us actually want to know these things, especially me. I noticed that on EN World people were often complaining about how "high-magic" standard D&D is, and how there are so many high-level NPCs running around with powerful spells, so I endeavored to find out what a true "standard D&D" setting would look like. Imagine how much easier some of my calculations would be with such a spreadsheet or program!
Of course, the random numbers used to determine which type of community any given one is are horribly messed up, and need to be fixed. Otherwise, you generate a large number of cities with few smaller farming communities to support them. Since magic is not widely available enough to negate the need for farmers like in the modern day, nor are magical refrigerators going to be possible for every man and his dog to obtain, this is nonsensical.
Of course, the random numbers used to determine which type of community any given one is are horribly messed up, and need to be fixed. Otherwise, you generate a large number of cities with few smaller farming communities to support them. Since magic is not widely available enough to negate the need for farmers like in the modern day, nor are magical refrigerators going to be possible for every man and his dog to obtain, this is nonsensical.
Zander
Explorer
I'm among those who feel that there are too many spell-casters in most published settings. Both arcane and divine magic require (or should require) lengthy periods of training/apprenticeship. Add to that the relatively high mortality rate for adventuring wizards and you get few spell-casters compared to fighters or rogues.genshou said:
I don't know what the proportions of PhDs and doctors of medicine (MDs / BM-BChs etc) there are in real world modern, western societies, but I imagine that wizards in a fantasy setting would be as (un)common as PhDs in a modern one, and clerics as rare as MDs. That's just a suggestion, not a hard-and-fast rule. YMMV
