D&D 5E "Monster density" and wilderness settlements in D&D campaign worlds

Mercurius

Legend
This topic is applicable to all forms of D&D, although I'm playing 5E so might as well put it here.

I'm in the early stages of campaign creation, partially re-tooling an old setting I was using for 4E, partially creating something new. I'm trying to disavow my usual approach of "top down" design--starting big and then working smaller--and instead taking a "bottom up" approach, focusing on a village and its environs, with only broad strokes of the larger continent and world. Anyhow, as I was envisioning the starting area, a question arose in my mind about the ratio or density of monsters within a wilderness to small pockets of civilization, and how realistic (or not) it would be to have a village just out there in the middle of the monster-infested wilderness. I mean, wouldn't it be over-run? And if not, why not? What could be protecting it? And so on. I mean, it makes sense to have any size settlement in Cormyr, but what about in the North? What about the Dalelands - how do those survive?

So the inquiry is this: in terms of verisimilitude and some semblance of "fantasy realism," what is the proper ratio of "monster density" and population centers in a wilderness area? What sort of protection would a settlement need? It just seems to me that D&D campaign worlds, especially of the "points of light" variety, tend to eschew any sense of fantasy realism, and instead just offer a setting that is playable for D&D. Nothing wrong with that, but I so much enjoy the artistic aspects of campaign design and like it to "feel right" aesthetically, which for me must include some degree of internal consistency, fantasy realism, etc.

Anyone thought along these lines? Any ideas?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I wonder if it would be easier to come up with a backstory reason why your low level starting area is (a) threatened by a lot of monsters right now, but (b) hasn't been so until recently.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I wonder if it would be easier to come up with a backstory reason why your low level starting area is (a) threatened by a lot of monsters right now, but (b) hasn't been so until recently.

Well I think that's just one of the questions that exists within the larger inquiry, and an important one. Why and how do small settlements exist within monster-infested wilderness? If a settlement is attacked, why only then?
 

GreenTengu

Adventurer
Well, obviously your cities would need to have defenses to handle an assault from whatever is native to the region. Only if and when something arrives from outside of the region should they get caught unexpected.
 

aramis erak

Legend
It takes about 5 acres per person with late medieval farming to sustain 1 person at Mid European level latitudes (France, southern Germany, northern italy, England, the low countries).

Which means that you should have no more than 128 people per square mile on typical farmland. Peak yield could be double or even quadruple that, but it's not likely sustained. Also - an acre is about 208x208 feet (actually, 43560 square feet)

By People, that includes most of the intelligent races of Medium Size. Smalls count half. Large count at least double.

A typical 8 mile hex is just over 55.4 square miles, for a maximum of about 7100 people... but is should be no more than 75% farmland in a city's hex, and 50% for lesser farmlands

Also note that most people won't walk more than 4 miles from residence to farms... so the outlying areas of that hex includes a bunch of hamlets for the farmers. (keep in mind: a farmer could work about 15 to 20 acres at once; with a wife and child helping help, possibly up to 30 acres or even 40 acres per family of 5...

And of course, woodlands support only about 1/10 that many people, if even that. But a man can hunt a hundred acres easily.

Pasturelands are about 1/10 the support, but a man can work about 10x as much land as a herdsman...

Hexagon area is roughly 0.866025*({(center to center distance)/2}^2)
 

Andor

First Post
There is also the question of why you think the monsters are automatically going to try to kill every human within miles without provocation. Lake Jessup in Florida is surrounded by housing. It alsi is home to 15,000 Alligators. That probably qualifies as monster infested, but there is no problem because neither the alligators nor the inhabitants are stupid. They did keep one bloke from opening a waterskiing school on the lake iirc.
 


Mercurius

Legend
Well, obviously your cities would need to have defenses to handle an assault from whatever is native to the region. Only if and when something arrives from outside of the region should they get caught unexpected.

But what about villages and smaller towns? That is what I'm specifically focused on. I suppose the only way that makes sense is the actual real-world model of having a large city with "satellite" towns, and then "satellite" villages around those towns, so there are widening circles of protection. But this still doesn't really allow for the village or small town way out in the wilderness, or those lone travellers hostels.


Well that's a different kind of realism - and very interesting, but doesn't necessarily address the monster threat issue. But it does illustrate the pattern of pre-industrial European habitation, which gives a sense of how defenses might work (see above response to TheHobgoblin.

There is also the question of why you think the monsters are automatically going to try to kill every human within miles without provocation. Lake Jessup in Florida is surrounded by housing. It alsi is home to 15,000 Alligators. That probably qualifies as monster infested, but there is no problem because neither the alligators nor the inhabitants are stupid. They did keep one bloke from opening a waterskiing school on the lake iirc.

There's a big difference between alligators and, say, orcs or dragons. Orcs, in general, are marauding raiders. Of course they could be played as more like savage tribal peoples that hunt prey, but generally keep to themselves and don't bother the humans and other intelligent peoples. But what fun is that? And of course many monsters would stick to their lairs and not other bother anyone unless they are bothered, but a large number of monsters--at least according to D&D canon--would actively seek to attack and kill civilized peoples, and there would be numerous problems for the hypothetical lone village in the wilderness.

Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)

Not really! I paired the two deliberated so as not to confuse our world realism with fantasy realism, which has to do with verisimilitude, internal consisency, or just simply making sense within the assumptions of the world. Now this is all more important in fantasy literature, but I think adds depth and texture to a RPG setting, at least if the DM wants the world not to feel paper thin and like a "moving set-piece."
 

One of my favorite pet peeves slash interesting topics! I have strong opinions on the subject, which may or may not be of use to you and what you're looking for, but since I can cut and paste from my blog with relatively little effort, I'll offer it up anyway and see if it's of any interest to you or not.

A problem that I often see in roleplaying games, and frankly, in D&D in particular, is that monsters completely fail to be scary. Rather, they are viewed as tactical game pieces and challenges. Arguably, this is what Gygax and Arneson wanted all along, but it is not something that I want, and I think the idea of reducing monsters to a statline that has tactical implications is to make them not monstrous at all.

Granted, it doesn't have to be like this. I've managed to engender some of the same kind of dramatic tension in D&D games (occasionally) as you get while reading a scary book or watching a scary movie... but frankly, not very often. Part of it is the paradigm and attitude that the players bring to the table; if they're playing D&D, then there's an assumption that they'll be facing challenges that they should be able to overcome if they're smart and tactically sound. It's just the tone and nature of the game, or at least it's often expected to be so.

I like monsters to be scary. I like players to really question whether or not they want to fight these monsters. But I admit that my success, what of it there has been anyway, in accomplishing this is something that I've done more intuitively rather than rationally, and I'm not 100% certain that I fully understand how to pull this off. So for this post, I'm going to noodle around some ideas and see where they go.

1) Monsters should be set pieces. The idea of going through a "dungeon" and fighting monster after monster has really diluted the concept. In any good story of supernatural horror, the monsters are never routine. Be careful about showing off too many monsters. Granted, D&D has truckloads of monsters. But don't assume that all of them are hanging around waiting to be discovered. Think of how the ancient Greeks did it. There were not "medusas"; there was one Medusa. There were not hydras, there was one Lyrnean hydra, etc. While you don't need to go to this extreme, keep in mind that monsters are much more monstrous if they are extraordinary. No matter how monstrous the description or the statline makes them appear, they never will be if they're routine. If you're not fighting monsters all the time, what are you having the PCs spend their time doing otherwise? Bad guys! Thugs, cultists, criminals, spies, and the like. Don't underestimate the value of contrasting monsters to larger hordes of plain old bad guys. Besides, bad guys are fun to fight for the most part on their own too. And also don't underestimate the challenge of dangerous animals. In this era of high powered hunting rifles, enclosed off-road vehicles, and completely tamed terrain, we forget exactly how dangerous it would be to come across a herd of wild elephants who feel that their calves are threatened out in the middle of nowhere with nothing to defend yourself with except a few sharp pieces of metal that you need to hold close to yourself to use. Or how dangerous a pack of wolves could be to a lonely traveler, or a pride of hungry lions.

2) Closely related to that, monsters should be unknown. There's few things more prosaic than the GM of a game casually announcing what his monsters are, when their properties, strengths and weaknesses are well known to all the players. Does this mean that you should only use unfamiliar and unusual monsters that you make up yourself or find in obscure third party sources? Of course not, but you should take steps to, again, keep your monsters from feeling routine. Think about possibly making them difficult to identify for a time. The PCs don't actually see them well until they're well into the thick of it, but they see the effects of their attacks on NPCs or something like that. Mix up your descriptions so that the PCs can't easily match them to a monster that they know. Statistics and descriptions can be decoupled and rearranged. One of my most memorable encounters was with a handful of hellhounds that I simply described very differently--I used some artwork from Paizo of Lovecraftian hounds of Tindalos to represent them, gave them a chittering Predator-like growl, and had their fiery breath transform into a vomit of tiny, toothy little demons that crawled all over their victims. Consider giving some of your monsters surprise abilities. A zombie that has a poisonous bite, or something. It doesn't have to be a big deal, just enough to keep the PCs guessing and unsure of what exactly it is that they're up against.

3) And closely related to that, make your monsters horrific. Granted, another of my most memorable scary monster encounters was with a little blighter that due to some relatively weak stats and some extraordinary good rolls by the PCs, ended up going down like a chump in the first or second round of combat, but that was the exception not the rule. He was creepy because of all the other stuff I had him do, but by and large a monster that the PCs aren't sure they can beat is one that's more likely to scare them than one that's only going to "reduce their resources by XY%" or something inane like that. In fact, ignoring the advice of the Challenge Ratings system completely (which is a good idea for a lot of reasons, only one of which I'll get into here and now), you can pit the PCs against foes which they literally can't defeat in straight-up combat. Monsters shouldn't often be creatures that cause heroic PCs to shout, "Huzzah!" and charge at to engage in melee; they should be monstrous. There should be a lot of doubt about how to deal with them, if they're up to the challenge, and what exactly can be done to get around the many strengths that monsters might have. Rather, you can have the PCs need to research specific dirty tricks or weaknesses that allow them to have a chance against the monster; without which they'd be committing certain suicide. A demon that can be banished back to its home dimension only via a desperately hurried ritual is scarier than one that can be banished back to its home dimension after the PCs just jump in and attack it.

4) And that gets a bit into my last tip; foreshadow your monsters. There's nothing worse than having a monster just pop out of nowhere, get defeated and then promptly forgotten. The chump monster that I mentioned above? He was mostly memorable because of the excellent (and extraordinary; I haven't quite had this level of success any other time, sadly) foreshadowing. While the PCs were attempting to sleep at a crowded and sleazy dockside inn, they were woken up when a young woman in the room next to them screamed. Barging into her room, they found that her eyes had been scooped out of her head. There was no sign of any attacker, just the sobbing victim's almost nonsensical cry that the last thing she saw was a hideous face over her shoulder in the mirror. A few more clues, a bit more foreshadowing... and then a half-glimpsed movement in their own mirror, and the players were keyed up, tense, and on edge. When it turned out that their invisible assailant was actually killed rather easily, it didn't diminish the feeling of dread and creepiness that the encounter had managed to elicit. And this foreshadowing hearkens back to my point #1; if monsters are set pieces, then you can craft an entire "adventure" around finding and defeating one, which means that you should have plenty of opportunities to foreshadow, to drop in unsettling or horrific clues or feelings, and generally ratchet up the tension on your way towards the final confrontation.

Anyway, like I said, much of that I do more instinctively rather than purposefully, and I have no illusions about the completeness of my methods.
 

GreenTengu

Adventurer
But what about villages and smaller towns? That is what I'm specifically focused on. I suppose the only way that makes sense is the actual real-world model of having a large city with "satellite" towns, and then "satellite" villages around those towns, so there are widening circles of protection. But this still doesn't really allow for the village or small town way out in the wilderness, or those lone travellers hostels.


You are looking at your world quite backwards. Cities are not self-sufficient and spawn towns as a result of being successful and self-sufficient. Cities are quite an advanced form of habitation and arise from small towns being ridiculously successful so that they grow and grow and grow and then become a city.

Yes, in the modern world I suppose that a city that has become too built up might well spawn new suburbs from which people will drive in their cars to the city every day to do their jobs. But from that sentence alone it ought to occur to you that there are numerous reasons this isn't true in a low technology world, even with one that has some amount of magic.

Even your smallest little hamlet is the result of several farming families getting together and creating a center of trade and craft to make their lives easier and more successful. Any town, even the smallest hamlet, that was incapable of defending itself from that which would appear within a few years would be destroyed and gone well before any adventurers showed up.

In fact, let's be quite clear about this... any region where just residing there or traveling there is almost certain to run into something too powerful for them to handle within even a 10 year span has no human residents. No towns, no cities, no hamlets. Not even farms. Agriculture would be literally impossible in the region. That means if when traveling through the region you pull out a random monster encounter table and say "okay, well within a day/week/month of traveling you are guaranteed to run into something on this list, so let's roll and see what tries to kill you" and literally everything on that list would be flat out impossible for a group of commoners to defeat... then that region has no human residents, it has no farms and thus no towns to speak of at all.


If you are even remotely interested in portraying your world in a way that is remotely realistic, you are going to have to just accept this. I suppose you can say 'well, we all know this is fantastical and utterly remotely unrealistic but we kind of need to accept this farcical situation in order to make this game function and we'll need to add this as part of the craziness of the world that we won't think about too much in order to create a story'.

Are there ways around this? Hmm...
Okay, let's say that you accept that humans and the like are limited to only a small region of the world. And in this area you have very powerful human guard/watchmen/soldier patrols that take out most of the dangerous stuff. The monsters that still exist in this region are either weaker than the average person so a human peasants with clubs and farm tools can kill them without vastly endangering their lives or at least drive them off (so you'll need to adjust the human commoner stats in the MM to be able to take a Kobold), they have little interest in killing humans and generally benefit from living under human's feet and stealing from them, but generally avoid lethal force (maybe alter the personalities of goblins in that region), are relatively docile 99% of the time and for some reason once every 50 or 100 years they just go completely insane and berserk destroying everything around them until they can be beaten down and calmed (probably works as a nice little fiction for Gnolls or Orcs), or are diplomatic and actually have sort of a general peace accord with humans and somehow that recently broke down into warfare (works for Hobgoblins, Dragonborn and possibly Drow). Everything else in the region needs to be so rare that most people go their whole lives without seeing one or laid dormant for ages and only recently erupted nearly overnight (dragons, undead and such works well for this) or they didn't exist in this plane at all and only now are they popping into existence (elementals, demons/devils/celestials, gith, etc.)

And let's be clear. The label "monster" being applied to kobolds, goblins, orcs, gnolls and especially hobgoblins is pretty questionable when the label isn't applied to elves or dwarfs. In truth, they aren't monsters at all and they wouldn't be in the above situations. They are just generally unfriendly neighboring tribes whose society's morale standards don't match your own and whose leader's goals and ambitions aren't favorable towards you.

But if one were to walk back and forth across this land where you want to have towns and one is likely to run into Ogres or other things that would easily murder and eat you, then you would never have towns there. And if you have towns there then you need to accept that the very notion that they are there is plenty ludicrous enough that bothering to put any more thought into their details beyond that is self-defeating. They are mystical things that ought not to exist at all, so don't fret about the details regarding how they work.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top