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

[doctorbadwolf]

ah, a "fond" memory of my teenage years playing ravenloft. We rotated GMs, and 2 of my friends/fellow players were obsessed with Ravenloft. They were not happy when I pointed out that forever winter (a feature of a domain, we were playing an adventure) would result in everyone starving from hunter. "they are hunting rabbits" they answered "oh yes, and what are those eating??

"but that's not the point". Sure... so make sure your story holds together so that we don't fail to notice the point because the nonsense either breaks suspension of disbelief, or worse, is seen as deeply significant by the players because surely no one is silly enough to forget that people need food...

Yeah, there’s also an expectation issue there. I can’t imagine ever wanting Ravenloft to make any particular sense in terms of economics and food production. It’s a magical prison for histories biggest donks. The people have food because the rabbits and deer are fed magically, and the only reason it’s that way instead of the food just appearing in pantries is that needing to hunt leads to more encounters in the snow covered woods.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not an 8 year old, but a 16 year old. When he laid out the foundations (for himself). Besides, by that time his vision was established, at least in his head.

Ed has shown anything but a willingness to deviate from the vision he has of the Realms. Hence the return of the original Durnan, Halaster, etc. Besides, it is hard to argue with success. Apparently very few D&D gamers actually care if the setting has a viable economic model to support it. So what would motivate a change from success? Sounds to me like a risk with virtually no reward.

My point is saying "he was 16 when he made it" is completely beside the point, because these maps and designs HAVE changed. He wasn't 16 when the Spellplague changed the map and Realms entirely. He wasn't 16 when 5e reversed that. He could have made the decision to change during any of these periods of alteration.

Now, if you want to argue that he has no reason to care, because no other settings care, then that is a different argument. One that is slightly valid, because there is no real reason to get bogged down in minutia like window dressings. But Greenwood HAS gotten bogged down in that minutia, and had plenty of chances to change things (it isn't like Phandalin's map is 55 years old, it was designed for 5e's adventure). So the age at which he created the Realms is not a defense against criticism.

 

[Bedrockgames]

ah, a "fond" memory of my teenage years playing ravenloft. We rotated GMs, and 2 of my friends/fellow players were obsessed with Ravenloft. They were not happy when I pointed out that forever winter (a feature of a domain, we were playing an adventure) would result in everyone starving from hunter. "they are hunting rabbits" they answered "oh yes, and what are those eating??

"but that's not the point". Sure... so make sure your story holds together so that we don't fail to notice the point because the nonsense either breaks suspension of disbelief, or worse, is seen as deeply significant by the players because surely no one is silly enough to forget that people need food...

Again, some people have always wanted more grounded realism in Ravenloft. But I think the thing is this isn't a 'this way or that way is better'. What you are saying sounds to me like a valid preference, but as a critique, I think it falls short when you are dealing with a setting inspired by a genre that includes dream-like qualities and even dream-like logic. In the original boxed set there is even a domain where reality changes shape behind you. This is a place created by the dark powers. What the dark powers are exactly isn't known, but they can create new worlds, fill them with inhabitants, and change the land around you. In a setting like this there is plenty of room for cause and effect to not always work how we expect, there is even valid reason why you'd want to disrupt peoples' logical expectations (to build the sense of something not quite being right; a glitch in the matrix). For some players, something like the rabbit not having an obvious food source is going to be a source of disrupting their disbelief, but for others, it adds to the surreal nature of the setting. The problem is you can't please both preferences. The setting can go in either direction. I think it would be a very different story if the aim and purpose of the setting was to be a more plausible place. But I see both preferences as entirely valid.

 

[NotAYakk]

ah, a "fond" memory of my teenage years playing ravenloft. We rotated GMs, and 2 of my friends/fellow players were obsessed with Ravenloft. They were not happy when I pointed out that forever winter (a feature of a domain, we were playing an adventure) would result in everyone starving from hunter. "they are hunting rabbits" they answered "oh yes, and what are those eating??

"but that's not the point". Sure... so make sure your story holds together so that we don't fail to notice the point because the nonsense either breaks suspension of disbelief, or worse, is seen as deeply significant by the players because surely no one is silly enough to forget that people need food...

Also, rabbit starvation is a thing.

Rabbits are so low in fat and carbs that if you just eat them, your body starves to death; it needs fats to metabolize the protein, and there isn't enough in the rabbits.

Protein poisoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[S'mon]

I include farmland in my fantasy worlds. Some settings like Mystara and Greyhawk have vast settled agricultural kingdoms. In others like the Wilderlands it's a mile or so beyond the fortified village wall.

In my Wilderlands the villagers come out in the daytime, do farming in daylight (often watched over by large wardogs), retreat behind the walls at night. Few monsters have much interest in eating wheat. Even goblins & such aren't much into milling.

 

[Ancalagon]

Yeah, there’s also an expectation issue there. I can’t imagine ever wanting Ravenloft to make any particular sense in terms of economics and food production. It’s a magical prison for histories biggest donks. The people have food because the rabbits and deer are fed magically, and the only reason it’s that way instead of the food just appearing in pantries is that needing to hunt leads to more encounters in the snow covered woods.

in my experience - and maybe that's because my GMs were teens at the time and not very experienced ha - was that each domain/adventure was sort of a giant "puzzle" that we had to solve. It's hard to solve a puzzle when so many things don't make sense.

 

[Ancalagon]

According to medieval census data one square mile could feed 180 to 200 people (that includes the farmers). So even with a lot of blessings 20 square miles are awfully small to supply even the core city of Waterdeep (200k) let alone the region with its ludicrous 2 million.

So let's say that with magic, each square mile can feed 500 people - a nice round number.

So to feed Waterdeep, you could need 400 square miles... or a 20 by 20 miles area. Which is smaller than the area NYC takes. This is not crazy. Rome had 1 million.

do the math people.

 

[Ixal]

So let's say that with magic, each square mile can feed 500 people - a nice round number.

So to feed Waterdeep, you could need 400 square miles... or a 20 by 20 miles area. Which is smaller than the area NYC takes. This is not crazy. Rome had 1 million.

do the math people.

Rome had 1 million people who were kept fed by Egypt and the entire north African coast, thanks to the Roman Empire having complete control over them.

And Waterdeep has 2 million inhabitants.

 

[nevin]

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.

But oceans in DnD have:

Giant Crabs
Merfolk
Tritons
Sea Elves
Giant Seahorses
Sharks
Giant Sharks
Sahuagin
Giant Octopus
Sea Spawn
Merrow
Plesiosaurus
Sea Hags
Deep Scions
Killer Whales
Kraken Priests
Water Elementals
Dragons
Sea Serpents
Dragon Turtles
Marid
Storm Giants
Krakens
Leviathans


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.

Again they cant be everywhere unless your world is a Mad Max survival game where all the monster manual creatures and pc races are struggling for survival. reasearch the amount of deadly creatures in the amazon. Or african jungles and remember they've never really prevented human survival. also if regular attacks are common then average levels will be higher. you might have level 15 farmers out in those fields being guarded by level 15 warriors and clerics. everything is relative.

 

[Faolyn]

Also, rabbit starvation is a thing.

Rabbits are so low in fat and carbs that if you just eat them, your body starves to death; it needs fats to metabolize the protein, and there isn't enough in the rabbits.

Protein poisoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's Ravenloft. I'm pretty sure there's some cannibalism mixed in with the rabbits.