Generating Towns in rough places...

[Khur]

Sorry...

Khur's been busy, but I'll post more her in the morning.

I need sleep.

 

[Piratecat]

But, cities had to be fed and it is generally accepted that 9 people out of 10 (more or less) in medieval cultures had to be supplying the food.

While I generally agree, don't forget that D&D is not a medieval culture. In a world where druids have plant growth, the number of peasants who have to tend the fields goes down by roughly a third with no drop in output.

I really like the ideas of monsters hitting up villages for food!

 

[KarinsDad]

While I generally agree, don't forget that D&D is not a medieval culture. In a world where druids have plant growth, the number of peasants who have to tend the fields goes down by roughly a third with no drop in output.

I really like the ideas of monsters hitting up villages for food!

I think you have to ignore the magical portion of the world food production and just assume that it takes just as many people in a fantasy world (unless it is specifically created by the GM to be unusual) as it did in the real world.

Since we do not actually live in a magical world, we do not know the consequences of using magic for food production.

For example, if a Druid increases the size of plants, large flying monsters might find that more appealing. Hence, they might find normal sized plants too small to bother eating, but giant sized versions easier. Suddenly, you have a hit on your food production in the fields with larger plants, plus, you may attract other carnivorous creatures (who are attracted to the creatures eating the larger plants).

Also, just because the plants are bigger does not mean that you do not have the same mass of food feeding the same population. This would not decrease the number of people required to gather the food by a third, that number would stay the same. It might decrease the number of people it takes to maintain the fields, but then again, with larger plants, it might take more people (depending on the type of plant, people might have more difficulty tending the fields for extremely large plants).

In another thread, it was illustrated that each Cleric (assuming a relative distribution of Clerics levels 5+) on average could probably only create enough food and water to feed 50 people or so. Hence, Clerics could not even feed everyone in a city (assuming a normal distribution of Clerics to other people) during a siege if all of their 3rd and higher level spells were used for Create Food and Water.

The point is that it would seem that using magic to supplement food production would be done in limited amounts and doing that would be offset by having a world of magical monsters competing for food. In other words, for every advantage magic could give would probably be offset by having food predators that did not exist in the real world.

 

[jasper]

Danger Will Robinson

How about this?
Roll up the Town
Then consider the danger factor. Which stack.
Danger Factor
Lions, Tigers and Bear oh my! +1
Orcs All round +2
Gee Mr. Custard
There an Orc over +3
Beauty or the beast +3
Dragon dropping by +4




Factor Description
1 Frontier unsettled. Subtract 20% of population all 1 st level.
Subtract 2 levels from the highest level.
2 Injuns but mostly friendly. Occasion raids. Subtract 30 % of population of all 1 st level. Subtract 2 from highest level
3 War path orcs. Or beast with huge teeth and appetite. Subtract 40% of all population.
4 War path orcs with critters. Subtract 40% of all population. Add 1 level to highest level and recaluted break down. Ex. Was 10 wizard now 11.
5 War what is good for? Subtract 50 % of population. Add 1 level to highest and redo break down.
6 War how long is going on? Subtract 60% of population. Add 1 level to everyone about 2.
7 Subtract 60% of all population. Add 1 level to everyone above 1.
8 Subtract 70% of all population. Add 1 level to everyone above 1.
9 Subtract 80% of all population. Add 1 level to everyone above 1. Promote 10% of 1 st level to 2.
10 Subtract 90% of all population. Add 1 level to everyone above 1. Promote 20% of 1 st level to 2.

 

[Khur]

More stuff from Khur

It is important to realize that 28 was once considered 'old' although there were still a few 90-year olds. Most people didn't live long enough and did not get trained well enough to have such skills.

I'd like to see your sources for these aging figures. I can honestly say that I've not read any such thing in an authoritative source.

Further, an average 5th-level (nonhuman) commoner has a grand total of 16 skill ranks and 13 hp (about as many as a deer, less than a horse). Such a person has +2 to hit with one simple weapon, is at –2 with every other weapon, and only has +1 to all saving throws.

An average 1st-level human commoner has 10 sill ranks, 3 hp, +0 to everything, excepting –4 with to all weapons with which the individual is not skilled. Such a person is easy prey for everything, even kobolds.

I think this design was on purpose, to make easy victims for the powerful to protect. Such an individual isn't likely to be capable of hacking a farmstead out of dangerous wilderness. If anyone managed to, the experience of doing so would make them more capable.

(The ease of gaining low levels is applicable as well—though strictly granting XP as a result of killing monsters may be prohibitive.)

I think the normal level for people in their mid twenties to thirties should be 3 to 5. For older people who tend to be master craftsmen, etc. I'd figure they go as high as 7 to 9. (The justification for this is very similar to that found in SKR's peasant lifecycle and the current "advancement by years" thread--normal people face challenges in their lives and get experience for it as well. They just don't get experience as quickly and don't focus its application on combat like PCs tend to.)

If I want to simulate the tough frontier folk of a difficult region, I'll just substitute some fighter, ranger, or warrior levels for the usual commoner and expert levels.

Good ideas and this shows you understand my point. I like the idea of Com/War multiclassing for rough areas. I'd like to go beyond ad hoc adjustments and reach a way to help others generate towns that make sense.

In worlds with nasty monsters, life expectancy would be even less.

Khur, the footnote on the table I quoted states that you can add the NPC level modifier to town inhabitants as well.

As for people facing challenges all the time, I disagree. Only the rare minority goes out on a limb any more than he absolutely has to.

The footnote the table reads as you say, and I know this. Higher level NPCs overall isn't the point. Realistic class distribution is the point. I'm asserting that frontier towns (especially considering monstrous involvement) would have less commoners and a disproportionate number of more capable persons.

In other words, generate the town using DMG 137 and Table 4-37, but then tweak the numbers so you have fewer commoners overall. Add the numbers to other classes in a way that makes sense. Multiclass the NPCs in a way that makes sense.

For example, a town on a war-torn border might have a great number of War1/Com1 persons—maybe some Exp1/Com1 (weaponsmiths, fletchers, etc.) too. A few talented souls might even be Ftr1/Com1.

In a dangerous area people don't have to go out on a limb to face challenges, but the challenges come to them. They adapt, or they die.

I appreciate your point of view though, and the DMG makes it simple to make towns in a real enough way. I'm just wondering if there's any validity to my idea, which is why I put it out here in the first place.

Well there shouldn't be any Commoners in FR

I agree that there should be fewer Commoners in FR, which is what started this whole thread. Safer areas of Faerûn would certainly have oodles of commoners.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Gaio Macareg]

Khur, the footnote on the table I quoted states that you can add the NPC level modifier to town inhabitants as well.

In general, that's completely irrelevent. Let's look at the math. We'll take a village of dead median size (651 people). Normally the highest possible level commoner is 4d4+1 (+1 for village). This yields a theoretical level 17 commoner, two level 8s, four level 4s, eight level 2s and something over 600 level 1s. Add even the highest possible modifier from the table you cited (pretending there's a swamp in the North for a +5) yields a theoretical Epic-level commoner of level 22. This changes the spread of lower-level commoners to twin 11th level, four 6th level, eight 3rd level, and if you're generous 16 2nd level, and still well over 600 1st level commoners. That's a change from 14 people over level 1 to at most 30. Oooooohh. Those orc hordes better go somewhere else boy, they're toast now! (yes I realise this means a similar change in each character class not just the commoners, I'm being hyperbolic to make the point)

Let's take Mr. Jim Bob Homesteader and pretend that we are using the official rules where you only get exp for killing things. A deer has a CR of 1/6. A Hawk (very popular food among european peasants) is 1/3. Rats are 1/8 and cats (killed enmasse because they were blamed for spreading the black plague) is 1/4. We'll pretend that he doesn't protect his own livestock from wolves and instead asks someone else for help. We'll leave out any other more exciting events that are likely to happen (such as the regular humanoid invasions the North is famous for, and against which every able-bodied adult is expected to chip in). We'll also overlook the fact that the average Rat will kill the average human commoner about 9 times out of 10* and pretend that the commoner is as capable of killing things as he would be in real life.

Jim Bob gets
50 xp for killing a deer
100 for a hawk
38 for each rat
75 for each cat

So that means that if he serves his family hawk for dinner 10 times he should be level 2. Catching 20 deer will do it also. Clearing 27 rats out of his grain stores would be enough. Let's mix and match: he kills one cat, eats 5 hawks, successfully goes deer hunting 3 times, and still finds the time to kill 8 rats, all before his 20th birthday (that's one exp-gaining action per 14 months if you're counting). And this is leaving off slaughtering cows (at half xp for being a low-risk venture even though the occasional kick which in real life breaks a peasant's leg will in D&D kill him even if the cow rolls minimum damage), hunting turkey or pheasant, fishing, the aforementioned defending his livestock from wolves, and standing with his buddies behind the village wall throwing rocks and spears at a goblin horde. Then there are the drunken bar brawls, maybe he gets drafted into a hue-and-cry, or the area has a bandit problem...

I dunno; I think that plenty of commoners would hit level 2 really fast. By extension, they'd be hitting level 3 with remarkable regularity. Toss in the optional rules for ad hoc exp, story awards, non-combat encounters, and mission goals, and they'll be rising through the ranks even faster.

Seems to me like it'd be difficult to justify mostly level 1 adults in any settlement. Much less a dangerous one.

You figure a pack of lumberjacks (say a good camp of 15 men), needs to be able to survive for a week up against whatever shows up on the random encounter charts for their area. They don't need to kill whatever comes by, they need to be capable of hiding, bribing, or talking down whatever it is. Roll up a weeks worth of encounters, and see if the group would survive. Somehow, I really don't see level 1 commoners and experts existing for long in any fantasy setting.


*Comparing the two, a Rat has +2 initiative, +4 to hit, +4 to AC, vastly better saves, and only 1 less HP than the commoner. This means the rat needs to hit the commoner twice, the commoner needs to hit him once, but the rat goes first and hits on a 6, while the commoner needs a 14. Dead commoner methinks. Could even justify giving him the double exp award for particularly dangerous fights when he goes ratting, but we'll overlook this fact. And I don't even want to consider the cat, they can take down two or three peasants at once!

 

[Xeriar]

Re: More stuff from Khur

I'd like to see your sources for these aging figures. I can honestly say that I've not read any such thing in an authoritative source.

Heh, you probably overlooked it, short life expectancy is a pretty damn pervasive item throughout history.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html
http://sun.science.wayne.edu/~wpoff/cor/gro/longevty.html

Basically, life expectancy went from 20-25 years in 6000+ BC, to 45-50 years in the year 1900, with much of that advancement coming in the 18th century.

 

[Gaio Macareg]

Interesting quotes, but sadly those researchers have mislead you by leaving in the infant mortality results on the life expectency tables. I ran into the problem over and over in college so forgive me if I seem upset at it during my post, it's not directed at you, but the jerks (please mentally replace that word with something profane. Thank you.) who like to use misleading formulas to make their research more exciting. Looking at the people who survive to be 10 and then survive to be 50, you'll find there is a drastically smaller difference between ancient societies and modern ones. It's all in how you manipulate the numbers in order to make the point you want to convince people of. They like the shock and horror that comes from convincing the public that people only lived to be 20 (not to mention it makes their papers oh so much more publishable), when that's not exactly true. If you made it past childhood, you could expect to live a decently long and healthy life. The 20-25 years comes when you average the people who live to be 70 with the ones who die at the age of 1. Hell your Roman chart even includes stillbirths as a lifetime of 0 years. Those are some really immoral researchers.

Here's a page and a secondwith some interesting modern charts to compare to your ancient ones. Most 3rd world nations today are perfectly identical to what your sources claim to be "ancient" models (with a vast percentage of the population below 20--the difference being that today they're not dying as children and so we have a massive population explosion among the young), and the modern US's graph is not significantly different from that of Rome (except for the two bubbles caused by the "baby boomers" and their children).

The infant mortality seems to be the biggest difference between the Roman graph and developed nations. It's enough that the one percent difference in each age category past the age of 5 years is what means we live to be 70 and the pages you cited claimes they didn't. Meaning if you don't average the age of dead adults in with the age of the dead kids, Romans had comprable lifespans to citizens of the United States in 1997. Personally, I don't care about average age with infant mortality factored in. Take it out and then tell me how old a given person can expect to live.

For example, let's play with the numbers shall we? Looking at your first source, over half the Romans who lived to be 10 also lived to be 50. Specifically 9.4% of the population are aged 10 and 5.0% are aged 50. Let's use a fictional town of 10,000 people exactly. That's 940 10-year-olds and 500 50-year-olds. Of those 940 kids, only 440, or just under half, will die before the survivors become the 50-year-old group. In 1997 in the USA you shift from 9.8% to 7.2%. So the same town has 980 10-year-olds and of them some 260 expect to die before hitting the age of 50. Boy, that's a lot of progress: 180 more dead Romans!

You'll find the same is true of all ancient populations. Don't get me wrong, there is a big difference (69% more Americans living to be 50 than Romans to be specific), but it's very misleading to say that they had an expected lifespan of 20-25 years.

 

[Vaxalon]

Somehow, I really don't see level 1 commoners and experts existing for long in any fantasy setting.

I can. The higher-level folks protect them from the odd monster attack.

Yes, I agree, if the level-1's live in a dangerous area, they get eaten. That's why people leave dangerous areas.

How many people do you find building their houses in minefields?

 

[Gaio Macareg]

#1 Quoting out of context is not only exceptionally rude, it's deceptive. Did you or did you not read my post where I showed that it takes a ludicrously low amount of activity to hit 2nd level? Did you or did you not clip one tiny chunk out of that long post and then deliberately make it look like I was using that line to make a completely unrelated point? Yes you did.

The closest I came to mentioning the threat of death was in the lumberjack example. Which, I appologize, was poorly written, and meant only to show that in rough areas these guys will run into lots of stuff. Considering it takes nothing more than killing a few rats to reach second level, I proposed there's no way commoners and experts can prevent themselves from reaching second level in rough areas. Blind and mentaly retarded gimps can reliably hit level 2 by the age of 20. The amount of exp required to do so is a joke (ok that's a bit extreme but you should, I hope, get the point this time). From this you extrapolated that I was claiming "low level people die too easy" and countered with, "high level people will protect them". Good for you.

And as for the minefields, well, last I heard the UN was complaining about there being some 35 landmines per acre of land in most african nations. Ethiopia, the nation I recall reading about specifically, loses a few thousand people to them every year becasue they're all over the fields that people farm in. The middle east is not too much better off, but at least there the mines are concentrated in Iran and Iraq. Still have problems with farmers getting blown up. Seems the trouble is that it costs ten times as much to remove a mine than to plant one. So the government doesn't bother pulling them up and civies don't have the means.

It's pretty much a perfect analogy for living in The North: You can't leave. If you try, you're certain to be killed before you arrive anywhere safer. So you have to get strong or die. And since the rules are such that it's mind numbingly simple to get strong, it's implausible to suggest that people don't.