Fixing the DMG Demographics

For urbanisation rate I tend to use about 20% for the most advanced nations. However many of these may still have some involvement in foof-production, as in the real middle ages and most other eras, at least in bringing in the harvest - even soldiers, if non-noble (knights), may take part in bringing in the lord's harvest, for instance. The non-foof-producing classes probably make up no more than 5% of population in most areas. An exception would be the metropolis of Imarr, which resembles Imperial Rome - a city of over a million, it imports a lot of food by boat & wagon, primarily from the vast grainfields of the extremely fertile Imarran alluvial plain, which is farmed both by feudal manors, peasant villages, and large commercial estates farmed by slaves. The latter produce most of the excess grain supply. Even with that the current population is probably unsustainable in the long term due to loss of unified Imarr-centred government - Imarr's hinterlands have gone from about 20 million to 7 million - while the population isn't starving, food prices are high there and there's a gradual transition of population from the city to the countryside.

Edit: wondering why 'food' became 'foof'... :)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


GuardianLurker said:
I think I should correct a small misconception, due primarily to my poor choice of words.

The "mortality rates" I quote are actually "advancement rates", and list the fraction of people at each level that advance to the next level.
Sounds good. Actually, the 2 years per level thing is also unsatisfactory - I included it because it makes a good compromise between the gritty crowd and the SHARK crowd. I'm working on my own advancement rate still, but don't have anything usable yet (my Theralis campaign isn't standard D&D, and so also isn't usable).
And a few questions:
What's the rational behind the "rarity numbers", the micro-urb ratio, and the major urb breakdown?
Rarity numbers: I divided 10 points among each attribute for each class, by priority. For example, a barbarian prioritized STR with 5 points, DEX 2 points, CON 2 points, and WIS 1 point. Practically EVERYONE put some priority in DEX, so DEX 16+ people tend to split between all of the classes; INT 16+ characters, on the other hand, tend to only be bards, rogues and wizards (and mostly wizards).

The rarity modifier out to the right was just my best guess for "useful to society/encouraged to develop". For example, for berserkers I multiplied their values by 10%, because they aren't very common, but if we were to develop values for a savage society, that would change to 200%.

Clerics, fighters and rogues are all either valued, or strongly encouraged in urban environments, so I gave them 200%. Barbarians and monks are both rare in civilized areas (one is savage, the other is "isolated monasteries"), so I gave them 10%. Druids and rangers were not quite as rare, but are also isolated/wilderness types, so I gave them 50%. Paladins require not only the attributes, but the character for their role, so I gave them 50%. I left bards, sorcerers and wizards alone.

To calculate how many of each, I took the second chart (the "results"), treated each of the numbers under an attribute as a proportion (under INT, there are 2 bards per 3 rogues per 7 wizards, for example) and solved for the population with an INT 16+ and two other attributes at 12+.

Microurb ratio: That's a rough guess, and a rule of thumb that has generally worked for me once I started calculating excess profits and taxes (I assume that excess money tends to go towards supporting larger centers in a hub fashion - it takes at least 5 small urban centers to produce sufficient excess to support a larger one).

Uh, that wasn't real clear, let me try it this way: The smallest urban centers act primarily as filters for the rural food supply; they shave some off, and pass the rest on. This is the distribution network and the artery to the cities. And actually, looking at it, I think I messed up. Towns are more efficient, and so can have (IMHO) smaller ratios... although I could drop it to 3 cities instead of 6, and put the rest into "smaller".

Major urb breakdown: For the first city, I divided that by 5 (30,000); for each city after that, I divided the first population by the city's ranking (x1/2, x1/3, x1/4, etc.). The rationale was simple - that's how cities tend to organize themselves in the real world. Corporations (in dollars) also tend to follow that ranking, with the second richest corporation in a given field having half the resources of the richest and so on.

Population centers tend to drop off below the city level, however, and cease following the pattern.
What's the underlying formula/calculation for your pop chart, and your urbanization chart?
To calculate pop, I made a column of ages, from 1 year to 110 years. Each year, I multiplied (round down) the previous year by some number. For 1-13, that was 0.995. For 13-71, that was 0.951 (49 deaths per 1,000). For 72-110, it was based on the likelihood of rolling for death on 70+2d20. My age 1 population was 32,390 in order to result in a total population of one million people.

Then for each level, I added up the population for the ages that are typically at that level. There will be some variance, but it will tend to balance itself out.

Urbanization: 15% of the population was how I got 150,000 urbanites.
Also, you are aware that at LV 3, the max skill rank is 6, yes? Or does your max skill a total bonus, and not just ranks?
Skill bonus, not just ranks.
Ranks: 6
Skill Focus: +2
Synergy: +2
And your urbanization ratio - what era is that based on? US 1865 farmer/consumer ratio was about 4:1, which would correspond to an urbanization of 20% (if I understand things correctly).
It's based on an "typical" 10%, upped very slightly to account for plant growth (that is, the land is as fertile as it can be, but they still don't have modern farming techniques or machinery). However, it is not based on ANY historical period, so far as I know, other than S. John Ross' France demographics.

I'll be posting the spreadsheet I used sometime tonight - I need to clean it up so it's readable :).
 

Side note: My "not 2 years per" system, so far, is 2 years per level up to level 3, then 3 years to level 4, 4 years to level 5, 5 years to level 6, etc. This results in the following spread (for 1 million people):

level 0 (0-11) - 347,512 (50.82%
level 1 - 61,151 (8.94%)
level 2 - 52,153 (7.63%)
level 3 - 42,244 (6.18%)
level 4 - 48,805 (7.14%)
level 5 - 45,150 (6.60%)
level 6 - 35,274 (5.16%)
level 7 - 23,833 (3.49%)
level 8 - 14,102 (2.06%)
level 9 - 7,363 (1.08%)
level 10 - 3,409 (0.50%)
level 11 - 1,404 (0.21%)
level 12 geezer - 1,432 (0.21%)

Alternately: level 12 - 724 (0.11%)
level 13 - 541 (0.08%)
level 14 - 162 (0.02%)
level 15 - 4 (0.00%)

No one's going to make it to 20th at that rate :D.
 


seasong said:
Major urb breakdown: For the first city, I divided that by 5 (30,000)
Just realized I didn't explain that. I divided by 5 because it gave good results - that is to say, if I started with 1/5th for the largest city, I ended up with a decent number of lesser cities, and leftover population for towns and smaller, and it works at any scale.

If anyone wants more than a rule of thumb, I can put together a chart for 1 million people, 150,000 urban, and any ratio of cities to smaller stuff you want to throw at me.
 

seasong said:
Side note: My "not 2 years per" system, so far, is 2 years per level up to level 3, then 3 years to level 4, 4 years to level 5, 5 years to level 6, etc. This results in the following spread (for 1 million people):


My program (above) uses age categories for levelling instead, so you don't get whacked out elves, say.
 

I've attached my spreadsheet. It should be fairly self-explanatory. It's in Excel, so if you have a problem with Excel format, let me know - I should be able to convert it to Quattro Pro, CSV chart, etc.

There are three tabs. Important things on each tab are:

Tab1:
Population in Cell B19 is the overall Population. If you change this, all other numbers will automatically update (including population by age, by class, by level, etc.).

The table starting at Cell F9 gives the base priorities for each attribute by class. This, combined with the Rarity value in the far right of the table, determines the individual population of each of the core classes.

The table starting at Cell F1 is the determinant for who becomes a PC. I went with what I thought was a good estimate of the minimum requirements to be a "PC". Requiring higher attributes vastly reduces the number of PCs (and there are no high level PCs); lowered requirements tends to result in too few Experts and whatnot among the NPCs.

Tab2:
This is the age and death charts. I've broken it up into NPC and PC charts, so that they can have separate death rates, advancement rates, etc.

For NPC aging (starts at Cell A1), Column B controls how quickly your NPCs die off. I went with what I felt were reasonable rates, but feel free to mess with 'em. I assumed that people stopped advancing (retired) once they hit age 72.

For NPC advancement (starts at Cell H1), Column I controls what CR of events the NPCs tend to encounter, and Column K controls how many they encounter per year. Modifying these two automatically updates the age at which they hit any given level. It does NOT update the population by level, however. I have not figured out a way to automate that yet :(.

PC aging and PC advancement (Cells P1 and W1, respectively) work identically, except that I increased the death rate (Column Q), typical CR rate (Column X) and events/year (Column Z).

Tab3:
This is the city population calculations.

Cell B8 controls your urbanization ratio. 1:7 is roughly 12.5%, 1:9 is roughly 10%, etc. The other cells in the chart affect nothing - they are there simply for reference.

Cell B30 controls the percentage of your population that is military (Warriors). The other cells in this chart are there simply for reference.

Everything else on this page is automatically calculated, based on stuff from the other pages. You can play around with the NPC ratios a bit (perhaps 1 aristocrat per 200 population, etc.), but overall this sheet is just meant to return numbers.

One note: the "First City Mod" in Cell E6 controls how big the largest city is relative to the total population. I assumed 20% (1/5th) based on personal experience with building settings, but it could be different. If you go with a VERY high population, you will want to lower this considerably, and add rows for additional cities. A good rule of thumb is to make sure that your biggest city is not larger than about 50,000 people.
 

Attachments



I don't think advancement-by-age suits standard D&D at all - to my mind, and from reading the DMG's XP section, a CR 1 encounter is what defeats (and quite possibly kills) a single elite level-1 PC-class character 50% of the time, so high-levellers ought to be rare, and high level Commoners nonexistent.

Advancement-by-age is fine for variant settings like Traveller20, of course.
 

Remove ads

Top