Abraxas said:
...I'm not sure the population density is a problem crowd represents a significant number of consumers - but thats just a guess.
I just have a few questions
- Why does there need to be a minimum population density in a campaign world based on real world population patterns?
- How does having vast tracts of wilderness between population centers throw off your suspension of disbelief?
- How is a low population density internally illogical?
- If your answer to any of those questions is "because it doesn't work that way in the real world" why can't it work that way in a fantasy world?
- How do you overlook all the other elements in a campaign world that don't work like the real world?
- For those of you that see this as an "error", why does WoTC have to "fix" it for you when all you have to do is add the zero yourself?
- For those of you that would be satisfied with a web enhancement that increased the population by a factor of 10, what are you going to say to the vocal minority who thinks the population should have been increased by a factor of 5, 7 or 15 instead? Where do the web enhancements end?
wow.
Well, you'll probably not find players that care that much, I think it's mostly a DM issue, as the DM would hide these wacky things from the players anyway. In addition, in all the settings I've seen, only Ravenloft has been as wacked-out as Eberron in demographics. And Ravenloft is a demiplane. In which countries disappear and reappear. And people are created with memories from whole cloth. And which has countries whose dimensions actually change.
One reason you may have never heard about a problem before is that there never really has been a problem this big before in a major setting (that I know of; I never played Greyhwak, Forgotten Realms, and a couple of others).
In answer to some of your questions, a minimum population density is required for suspension of disbelief. If you've got a sprawling, towered city that covers 30 square miles with only 15,000 people in it (I don't know the actual numbers for Sharn, but...), it just doesn't make sense. Using real-world demographics (all estimated, I'm just trying to show what some problems might be), of 15,000 people only half of them are male (7,500). Of these, only about 1/7 are of fighting age (1,000 when rounded down). Unless military servitude is a requirement by law, only about 5% of them are probably going to enter the military (50). 50 people cannot defend a town that size. It doesn't work. There's not enough people to provide food, either. There's problems when the DM decides to create a campaign backdrop of a hobgoblin invasion or whatever and needs to muster enough troops to defend the place. What happens to the local economy? It would collapse. Not to mention that with the troops spread out over such a large territory, they'd be forced to group to the center of the city. The outer city would be easily taken by the invaders and be used for staging points and siege. Supply lines would be cut off. Trade would stop. 1,000 hobgoblins could raze the entire city. No sweat.
There's nothing wrong with vast tracts of wilderness if there is a reason for them, but civilization doesn't naturally spread like that. The next town is rarely farther than a day or two's walk or else the people would never have been able to migrate en masse to the town. There, of course, are exceptions, especially in primitive cultures. City-states were common and were often surrounded by pretty much nothing. But they were huge in and of themselves with hoardes of people, making trade routes profitable.
I think I've specified several reasons why it is illogical.
You are correct in specifying that there are other non real-world elements, many of which are impossible to quantify (cultural norms and outlooks for example). Those unquantifiable factors would have to be drastically different from all cultures on Earth, though, as Earth cultures, no matter how disparate, still follow certain patterns.
One of them is magic. If magic were truly technology, alot of this would be possible. Communication, distribution, food production, etc. could all be resolved with the judicious use of magic. But whenever anyone mentions magic being technology in Eberron, they are blasted and it is shot down. Apparently this isn't the case.
Another issue is intelligent monsters taking up the areas in between (as I do not believe they are counted in the population numbers). While I think this can explain away some discrepencies, I also think that with the number of evil, intelligent humanoids, if monsters were REALLY taking up this much room, the humans, etc. would be hiding in their cities and would never travel. I really don't think this argument holds up to logical discrepency.
And then there's the old adage in fanatasy that the fantastical should be fantastical and the mundane should be mundane. A good example of this can be found in a current campaign of mine. It's set in a feudal futuristic setting. As they detract from the flavor of the setting, I have made video cameras highly expensive and rare. In campaign, it is explained that privacy is a much stronger cultural issue in this alternate reality and the use of cameras, due to distaste, simply is low. And therefore expensive. The players balk at the entire idea, though. The can't grasp how you can have a laser gun, but a video camera can't be attached to your helmet without exorbinant cost. It is certainly possible for a culture like this to exist but it is too different from everyday reality that it causes a problem in grasping what the world is like. The non-fantastical elements of a campaign should be as close to reality as possible to obtain suspension of disbelief and to give the players context in which to work.
Why does wizards give errata for rules? They could just let the DM fix it...
You can do research and come up with a "correct" number for population that no one in their right mind would complain about. It's not about just increase it until people are happy. It's about looking at the actual implications and coming up with a reasonable number. Each population number given should be looked at separately.
And for those who think that this is beyond the scope or possibility of a campaign setting, you're wrong. I've seen a campaign setting with maps of grain, rye, cattlet, etc. production, migration pathsof various cultures, high and low pressure systems, ore deposits, etc. All of this information is looked at to determine the correct population and economy of a given area. The DM can simply use the setting and never worry about logical discrepency because the designers made a point to make it that way.
On a final note, I must add that I don' think Eberron can be retrofitted with correct population numbers. You need all that additional information, which the setting does not have. If they started doing logical resource distribution, etc. they would run into many other problems, such as the large size and low number of nations. I don't think any of this is necessary to enjoy Eberron, but alot of people do.
] has alot to offer to alot of gamers. I think the campaign has oodles of potential as far as the ideas and stories behind it. But I also think that Wizards is presenting it entirely wrong.
