Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reanjr" data-source="post: 1652091" data-attributes="member: 20740">I admit, that I didn't know that the numbers disclude children.  I was basing it off of a 70 year lifespan with 10 good years of fighting (say 17-28 years old).  Without children, I would say the number would increase to about 1/5 then.  I was really using exagerrated numbers just as an example of what can happen if the numbers are out of whack, not to show that the Eberron numbers WERE out of whack, necessarily.I understand where you're coming from and agree with you to a certain extent.  I aspire to explain the other side of the argument and why there is a significant minority of players for which a lack of this consistency can detract from the fun.As a player, I am not bothered at all.  I would have no problem playing in Eberron, or most any world with a good DM.  As a DM, I have some reservations not just about population, but about a world that is somewhat difficult to get a good grasp on the inner workings of.  It's a personal preference.  If I ran it, I'd probably stick with the current numbers but try to effectively present the relatively low pop. to the players (someone mentioned a near-empty Sharn that I found amusing but interesting).I was thinking more along the lines of brigands and empirical expansions than marauding, people-eating monsters.  Not necessarily as presented in Eberron, but as presented in D&D in general (there are ALOT of intelligent evil monsters out there <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) Someone else brought up a good point though.  That changing the numbers is going to bother almost noone who doesn't have a problem with the current numbers anyway.  I don't think they HAVE to update them, I just wonder why they don't do fluff-errata.  It doesn't seem like it would do any harm and might accomplish good. *shrug*.  Whenever they publish a rules-change errata for balance, you always get detractors (i.e., you nerfed my Ranger!!!).  I just don't know why fluff would cause any more of a problem. Oh, of course not!  But there are people who have stated that you can't do a setting with that kind of consistency.  I was just pointing out that it is possible.  I think the main difference is that the KoK people planned for that kind of detail.  I agree, it's a different focus than Eberron and neither is right or wrong.  I think I mentioned that in another post, actually...And the setting is perfect for that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Though, my complaints on rules vs. content still stands <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />  I know it's not your fault.  Just had to throw that in.  I'm an argumentative person by nature.On that note, how much was in the 100-page version of Eberron that didn't yet make it into the setting, but hasn't been necessarily scrapped?</blockquote>

Verification