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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6391660" data-attributes="member: 59082">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'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.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."</blockquote>

Verification