Khorvaire:Two Problems

[Shard O'Glase]

The population numbers work for me. Note I say they work for me not they aren't a concern.

1. There be magic which can reduce the amount of labor needed to produce food, transport food, and store food.

2. A huge war happend.

3. There are giant areas of unused land. Going back to a post about america's populaiton desisty way back in the day it's the same thing. Sure near a city the populaiton density is fairly high, but there is the frickin louisiana purchase sitting out there completely unpoplated.

4. there's a big country that no longer exists.

5. many cities and towns also probably no longer exist. Rememebr people comenting on town locaitons were off because they were not near rivers. Well geez maybe those towns were easy pickings because the invading armies just had to follow the river to find them and remain well fed.

6. the war has been over for 2 whoppin years, the place is probably functioning more like city sates where each city is self sufficient so it doesn't need to have continuous towns from it to the next city. Maybe eventually it will break apart and no longer be large countires, but two years after a 100 year war may be a bit too soon for some city to break away and start a civil war.

 

[apsuman]

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.

Huh? Your above assumptions make several real D&D mistakes, imho.

First, a disclaimer, I have not yet managed to put the money together for Eberron. I have read the book at the store and want it. So, if the book says something that I directly contradict, I apologize up front. But I really wanted to comment on your post.

Now onto my list.

I get the impression that every population density number I have seen is one calculated by the poster. Nobody seems to have gone back to the idea that the population numbers do not include children. If on average every person has two children (meaning a couple would have 4 on average) then the population is actually 3 times the number in the book. Keep in mind that without birth control (is there a dragonmark for that one?) I would expect the average family to have more than 4 children, which would make up for the singles and those too old to have children.

Next, I think that Sharn is much larger population wise (by a factor of 10 or more).

D&D stresses that women are just as equally qualified to be in any class, so your assertion that "half are men" seems (to me) to be a non starter.

Next in the real world, I thought that standing armies would be quite small. They were more of a police force than anything else. When actual combat was required the lord would pay for an army, or if attacked, press the local populace into service. I know that my feudal European history is weak but there were simply not that many knights relative to foot soldiers. So if 1000 anything show up to disrupt supply lines if it is too big for the actual standing army, I would expect that the lord would do his best to raise an army to fight them off.

Also, I think that Keith has pointed out that if there were 1000 hobgoblins, or goblins, or bugbears, or anything, rather than simply roam the countryside (which would be barren if the population numbers are kept as published) they (the 1000 goblins/ogers/whatever) would have there own society and their own tribes, town, outposts, etc.

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.

But you have not stated how it could be logical. Let us assume that Khorvaire was settled as a continent on real world non-magic earth would be. Fine. Now lets throw in a 100 year long war. Is it possible that the current Khorvaire could have resulted from such events? Add in monsters, then magic, then fantasy, and I have ABSOLUTELY no problem saying "yeah, works for me."

In other words, civilization did not spread like that. It spread then it got royally messed up. Furhter, maybe there were lots of small town that were one day's walk away, and they are not there now, and have not been there for 90 years.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I don't really know how I insulted Keith with that. Any problems I have with the setting are in presentation only and not on the creative content in the book. I think you are misinterpreting my post. I simply don't like how 3e is being handled on many levels; and Eberron is our first taste of how Wizards is handling a new campaign setting. Do I think that NONE of the authors that have worked on 3e are creative and talented just because I think the game has become uninspired? Absolutely not. Do I think Wizards is an uninspired company? Absolutely.

Reanjr, if you really have a problem understanding this, e-mail me. Thanks.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Eric, please avoid, "Pot meet kettle," and the like. Calling someone a hypocrit, especially in so flippant a manner, does not improve the level of discourse.

I agree, I'll edit that sentence out.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[Kichwas]

That said, D&D, given its rules & peculiarities, always struck me as a horrible system for a simulationist (barring some very odd simulations).

There's some validity to that statement. But we don't need to live in extremes either.

There's the simulationist who plays Civilization III because it's a cool kick for world design, and there's the simulationist who can't stand Civilization III because the ships are too slow and it doesn't factor in the effects of whether your civilization uses rice, wheat, corn or something else as it's staple.

A pure simulationist plays ARIA or napoleon wargames to the exclusion of all else.
A pure dramatist plays Theatrix, or joins the local theater company.
A pure gamist left RPGs to play Diablo or Magic the Gathering.


The rest of us live somewhere in the ranges, and we all accept some sacrifice of one interest over another from time to time.

Where you cane 'make it look good on the surface' you might as well, simply to avoid triggering the jarring moments that break people out of game.

You don't want combat mechanics where cats kill t-rex's (V&V),
You don't social interaction rules that take over your character,
and you don't want settings that make He-Man look like plausable by comparrison.

Population density may seem like a strange and unusual thing to key on to those who have very little simulationism in them, but to those of us with a strong interest in simulation it's like building a brick house without mortar.

 

[Goobermunch]

While I think Mythusmage is being waaay too confrontational, he's got some good points. I'm definately going to boost the population levels for my game. Hell, the mournlands are twice the size of California, Karrnath is twice the size of Texas - these are BIG places, and they need a BIG feel. I'll be mostly changing things on the fly, but I'll be changing things.

I just want to correct a slight factual error here. Karrnath isn't twice the size of Texas. It's nearly twice the size of Alaska! That means its nearly four times the size of Texas.

Even so, Karrnath has nearly 4 times the population of Alaska (8 if you double the numbers to account for children). In addition, unlike Alaska, where nearly 50% of the population is centered in one city (Anchorage), the largest city in Karnnath has only 85,500 people. Furthermore, the vast majority of Karrnath's settlements are concentrated in the southwest.

While things are probably fairly spread out, I'm not convinced that it lacks verisimilitude.

But the analogy does give me the opportunity to spread one of my favorite Alaskan sayings: "One of these days we're going to cut Alaska in half and make Texas the third largest state in the Union."

--G

 

[Saeviomagy]

There's some validity to that statement. But we don't need to live in extremes either.

Population density may seem like a strange and unusual thing to key on to those who have very little simulationism in them, but to those of us with a strong interest in simulation it's like building a brick house without mortar.

Yeah, but the guy playing civilisation, complaining about grain and the like probably doesn't play master of magic and complain about population growth rates of his troll cities with idols of population in them as being unrealistic.

And really - what's the thing with he-man? AFAIK, he man had basically four locations: Evilville, which was the castle of the bad guys, Goodville, the castle of the good guys and Castle Greyskull, where that winged chick lived, and the wilderness, where they all fought..

And no other population. Because the rest of the population didn't matter. None of them fought skeletor. None of them were targets for evil schemes. The fact that there was no other population really didn't affect the story, nor my enjoyment of it.

But somehow I don't think that's your point.

Oh, and a brick house without mortar?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'd also have to say that from what I've seen so far the simulationist's perspective is pretty skewed from that of the historian or the anthropoligist.

Though I can't speak for the economist, but there does seem to be some common ground there(with a for discretion).

Though it is pretty cool to see things spread around and mutated. Being in a fairly in between discipline myself I can accede to the value of a skewed take on things.

 

[Kichwas]

Just want to quote two things said in the population density thread:

For the majority of you who've said population isn't important to your game, what reasons are there for needing those numbers to not be pleasing to gamers who do care about population?

And:

It makes me wonder, if numbers are to be given at all, why the numbers aren't accurate enough to satisfy the people who want the numbers? That's the target audience and the sole reason for population statistics for gaming worlds to begin with. If you're including them, you're putting them in for the people who do care, just like you'd put in a particular setting feature (say a prestige class) for the people who care about that particular feature and how it relates to game play.

And for future reference, if you're really trying to show people how another type of gaming style is enjoyable, it's best to not start off the converstation by telling them that their current style is unecessary. It's much better to show how other styles of play are additive: how by including different aspects of gaming into a gaming session usually improves the experience for everyone involved.

 

[reanjr]

First, a disclaimer, I have not yet managed to put the money together for Eberron. I have read the book at the store and want it. So, if the book says something that I directly contradict, I apologize up front. But I really wanted to comment on your post.

Now onto my list.

I get the impression that every population density number I have seen is one calculated by the poster. Nobody seems to have gone back to the idea that the population numbers do not include children. If on average every person has two children (meaning a couple would have 4 on average) then the population is actually 3 times the number in the book. Keep in mind that without birth control (is there a dragonmark for that one?) I would expect the average family to have more than 4 children, which would make up for the singles and those too old to have children.

That was pointed out to me, but it only changes scale not the concept.

Next, I think that Sharn is much larger population wise (by a factor of 10 or more).

I wasn't using Sharn (as I said I did not have those numbers) as an example. I was simply pointing out a reason why some people have a problem with unplausible population density. It doesn't bother me in the least. I see it as more a boon if the numbers are right, but not a bane if they aren't.

D&D stresses that women are just as equally qualified to be in any class, so your assertion that "half are men" seems (to me) to be a non starter.

That may be true for some settings, but not all (Dragonalance and Ravenloft for instance are certainly more male-dominant while Dark Sun was entirely egalitarian; I don't know about Eberron, but they probably went the PC route and made it egalitarian). And there may be a difference between equal number of women adventurers and equal number of women leaders/soldiers. In addition, whether or not women are excluded, you still have to exclude about half the population as being taken up by raising kids and doing house duties, whether that be man or woman. I was simply using gender as a demarcation because it is familiar to the medieval (and as far as soldiers go, the modern) world.

Next in the real world, I thought that standing armies would be quite small. They were more of a police force than anything else. When actual combat was required the lord would pay for an army, or if attacked, press the local populace into service. I know that my feudal European history is weak but there were simply not that many knights relative to foot soldiers. So if 1000 anything show up to disrupt supply lines if it is too big for the actual standing army, I would expect that the lord would do his best to raise an army to fight them off.

Generally police force is different from army, but they can be rolled into one (especially in smaller population centers). Not to mention the police force is the first to be levied into the army I would imagine. Foot soldiers did not manage policing the local citezenry in medieval European population centers (major cities). Though there are exceptions. Yes, an army would be raised, but it is quite likely that an army could not be raised and trained in time to accomplish much unless there is a sizable force to hold off an attack.

Also, I think that Keith has pointed out that if there were 1000 hobgoblins, or goblins, or bugbears, or anything, rather than simply roam the countryside (which would be barren if the population numbers are kept as published) they (the 1000 goblins/ogers/whatever) would have there own society and their own tribes, town, outposts, etc.

Well, I certainly wasn't thinking about a roaming band of 1,000 hobgoblins. I was referring to a state that decided to expand.

But you have not stated how it could be logical. Let us assume that Khorvaire was settled as a continent on real world non-magic earth would be. Fine. Now lets throw in a 100 year long war. Is it possible that the current Khorvaire could have resulted from such events? Add in monsters, then magic, then fantasy, and I have ABSOLUTELY no problem saying "yeah, works for me."

In other words, civilization did not spread like that. It spread then it got royally messed up. Furhter, maybe there were lots of small town that were one day's walk away, and they are not there now, and have not been there for 90 years.

I haven't talked about civilation spreading and towns rising. I was talking about maintenance. If 10 million people were given the United States today, they couldn't possibly manage or defend it. It's about upkeep.