D&D General Need wheat. Too dangerous. (worldbuilding)

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not sure if this helps at all, but...

Living in rural Pennsylvania, I'm aware that many farmers here struggle against an overabundance of white tail deer. So much so that extra hunting tags are issued to help cull the deer population (and cut down on damage to crops).

It's not sexy, but, in a D&D world, there may be adventures in which the conflict isn't saving the world but protecting Farmer Joe's fields from a creature so that the nearby city (which relies on food from Farmer Joe) doesn't starve this coming winter.

Balderdash, we all know agriculture is impossible in Pennsylvania, what with all those white tail dear roaming about

 

[Chaosmancer]

To me the idea of all these monsters roaming around the wilderness is more Pokemon than D&D.

Your average villager doesn't encounter monsters. When they do, it's an adventure hook for the characters.

The fishing village knows of the sea serpent near the big cave. They either avoid the cave, or bring a sacrifice to appease the serpent.

One day the serpent is charmed by some kuo toa priests, and this is when the adventure begins...

I don't know. If we accept the premise that there are THAT many monsters like the Monster Manual suggests... I just can't see them being that rare. It beggars belief that all of these creatures have existed in sufficient numbers to have viable populations, and yet encountering ANY of them are rare. A specific one, sure, but ALL of them?

It only works if A) they are dying out or B) You don't use everything the Monster Manual and other resources provide.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

It only works if A) they are dying out or B) You don't use everything the Monster Manual and other resources provide.

Or C) you don't invoke naturalism to explain how they live and/or reproduce.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The D&D Monster Manual isn't a catalog of all the creatures that DO exist in any given fantasy world, it is a toolbox of creatures that MIGHT exist in your fantasy world. And, that doesn't make any of those creatures common occurrences.

If you want your world to be so dangerous that it's crawling with monsters, farming and trade isn't safe . . . . go for it, that can be cool, but . . . . it's not the baseline.

I guess you didn't read my post terribly carefully. To repeat myself:

"And there used to be more, so you can pull from older editions as well for even more ocean or coastal threats. Now, obviously, it isn't going to be all of these things all of the time... but a lot of these things have large populations, and any of them could pose a major problem for a fishing village.

Now turn your gaze towards "forest monsters" or "surface cave-dwelling monsters" and these numbers swell. And, again obviously, a DM doesn't have to use all of these, but all of them do exist somewhere in most DnD worlds, and while in the real world something like a tiger can't really threaten a village or city too greatly... that's doesn't hold true for giants or a troll which could actually kill an entire village."


So, yes, I know that it isn't a toolbox of everything that does exist, and the DM could choose to use fewer monsters. And yes, I do know that not all of these monsters are going to be common. However, the Monster Manual doesn't say anything "Only three of these monsters should be considered common, and only 50 should be used" it presents all of them. So, it is valid to use... all of them.

And that makes them more common than people tend to suppose.

I did not say "If you want your world to be so dangerous that it's crawling with monsters, farming and trade isn't safe" AT ALL. And considering I get accused of this EVERY SINGLE TIME, I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth that is inevitably going to lead to posters making accusations and mocking me. Because, yes, it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME I dare to point out that there are an awful lot of monsters in the book, and that the game seems to assume all of them exist.

Which is why I triple checked to make sure I said that this was not a baseline assumption, and that DMs could choose differently, and that it doesn't mean the game world is a death world that couldn't possibly support civilization. So, if you aren't willing to engage with an actual point and instead want to put words in my mouth, don't bother replying again.

And I'm sorry if this seems harsh and me lashing out, but again, this happens EVERY SINGLE TIME, no matter how many precautions I take to not get accused of the same thing over and over again.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In Full Monster Manual D&D, "regular people" should be incredibly badass, like your average peasant should look like they stepped out of Monster Hunter.

(Obviously this will go against the tastes of many, which I respect. But it's kind of fun to imagine a world where everyone has had their challenge rating boosted.)

I need to check more of the lore for Monster Hunter, it seems to be a very well thought out ecology from what little I've seen

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or C) you don't invoke naturalism to explain how they live and/or reproduce.

True enough, but the older editions very clearly did, since they included reproduction information for... like everything. But you certainly could reverse that.

 

[Tonguez]

I understand this view, but I always take it with a grain of salt, because when you look at the Monster Manual... that's just too many things.

Just to give a rough example, @nevin mentions that the Polynesian people fish in shark infested waters. That is impressive, because we know that sharks are a dangerous threat..

We Polynesians are just natural badass and all start at level 3
(seriously I have uncles that use to swim with the local sharks, unfortunately they’re a lot rarer these days (both sharks and uncles)

that said Sharks need to be respected but generally Human isnt on their menu - thats different in DnD where some monster entries clearly state that their preferred food is humanoid

 

[David Howery]

I always vaguely pictured a typical game world as ‘core areas of farms and towns, frontier borders in some kingdoms are patrolled regularly by the army.’ I always thought that kingdoms would have larger permanent military forces than our world did because of the ‘monster problem’

 

[doctorbadwolf]

that doesnt solve your monster problem though, since now you open your supply lines to be threatened by sahuagin and sea serpents

Sahuagin are smart and rational, and sea serpents are very rare. Otherwise, we couldn’t have pirate ships chasing us.

Nice comparison!c

That's essentially what rangers are for . . . . ranging the boundaries between civilization and the wilderness to protect the good folk of the kingdom . . . .

That, yeah, along with protecting civilization from the consequences of being reckless with nature, and help keep civilized folk from destroying the local wilderness.

Or C) you don't invoke naturalism to explain how they live and/or reproduce.

not all of them, at least. I don’t even use the dream theory for beholders. New beholders come into being because they’re abominations from beyond reality and sometimes they just happen.

Other monsters only live in one region, while others live in terrain that tends to be remote, and others aren’t uncommon to see at some point in your life, but attacks by them are quite rare.

The world is full of wild predatory animals. Most folks wouldnt bat an eye at someone who said they’ve never encountered any of them.

We Polynesians are just natural badass and all start at level 3
(seriously I have uncles that use to swim with the local sharks, unfortunately they’re a lot rarer these days (both sharks and uncles)

Condolences on the uncles. I’m glad that you had such cool people in your life.

that said Sharks need to be respected but generally Human isnt on their menu - thats different in DnD where some monster entries clearly state that their preferred food is humanoid

I basically treat most monstrosities the same way. The owlbear fills the same niche as the Kodiak bear, polar bear, grizzly, etc. and exhibit similar behaviors. Very dangerous, but if you avoid them they aren’t gonna hunt you down (unlike polar bears, who are jerks)
The dire Wolf is a kind of wolf, and it may be a bit meaner than other wolves, but it would still rather hunt a prey animal that doesn’t have tools than a human, and just doesn’t want you in its territory.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

not all of them, at least. I don’t even use the dream theory for beholders. New beholders come into being because they’re abominations from beyond reality and sometimes they just happen.

Other monsters only live in one region, while others live in terrain that tends to be remote, and others aren’t uncommon to see at some point in your life, but attacks by them are quite rare.

The world is full of wild predatory animals. Most folks wouldnt bat an eye at someone who said they’ve never encountered any of them.

I suggested it because naturalism can get us into the "Is it okay to kill babies?" line of questioning.

Not having monsters be natural is only one solution. Just one that doesn't seem to be proposed much.