PoL & population density

[Zurai]

Like I said it all depends on your taste. First you set the threshold for the normal threat level from which big threats spike. Then you adjust the composition of the settlements so that they can just BARELY sustain themselves against that normal threat level. It's the spikes that adventurers are there to deal with. In one style its maruading goblins, in another those are the normal threat level and the spike is a herd of gorgons or a pack of Tyrannosaurs. Everywhere along the range is tenable so long as you adjust the composition of the settlements appropriately, but there is no correct or incorrect way to do it.

Everywhere along the scale really is not tenable. If the "baseline" darkness is so dark that the points of light must be blobs of light, then you do not have a Points of Light setting.

However, you're right about me using the term "correct". I apologize. There are ways that are internally consistent and others that aren't, but the "correct" way is whichever one each individual player/DM has the most fun with.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Everywhere along the scale really is not tenable. If the "baseline" darkness is so dark that the points of light must be blobs of light, then you do not have a Points of Light setting.

Curious here no more, but how do you define Point of Light. What I mean is what boundaries do you hold settlements to within when working in that style?



About the Blobs of Light, it doesn't go from POL to BOL without the ability of a settlement to project power beyond their individual boundaries or to cover a large area compared to the darkness surrounding them. I think this is tied back to level demographics in our settings.

Yours seems to put the baseline at Com1 for the vast majority of individuals. And you're right that under this style once the threat passes a certain threshold in order for settlements to be tenable it requires a Blob of Light. Because the resources necessary to defend against the average threat level require a large dense population with some spread.

Whereas aside from chopping off the smallest group of settlements I don't cluster POL into BOL or increase population density, instead I raise the overall leveling demographic. All humanoids start at 0-level with 3 racial levels that are on-par with a PC level, average level of an adult is 5th level overall with 3 racial and 2 pc.

To use an example take Kerenendon: a village of 883 inhabitants, aside from children the lowest level inhabitants are equivalent to 3rd level PCs and the average adult is 5th level equivalent. It's ruled by a Rahax who's 9th level and has an agreement with a small clutch of wyverns(3 adults plus eggs) who serve him and his family as mounts in return for a certain tithe of livestock and nest in the spit of rock the village is built around.

These level demographics are basically unchanged all the way up to to large town. Then the settlements jump directly over small cities to large cities in the form of city-states. Here the level demographics jump again. The vast majority of the population remains the same level but the ruling classes begin to reach above 9th. But they still don't have the ability to form a BOL or to project power because their greater size and wealth attracts more dangers to themselves so that even with the aid of their patron god they just squeek by in the manner of the small communities only against much more impressive threats. Generally the ones small communities buy off with a tithe because they're not enough for the Big Threat to really care about. That and everything above large town is placed at double the usual radius from any other community. The unusually heavy threat environment around large settlements empties the surrounding region.

 

[Hairfoot]

Maybe said before but there is no CORRECT interpretation. Only personal preferences

Amen.


I think also that the perceived danger of a PoL world is dependent on the psychology of the inhabitants. The consensus of the commoners may be that vile dangers lurk constantly outside the palisade wall, and the campaign can reflect that fear, but the world's reality may be far milder. Perhaps only a couple of trade caravans and a handful of village hunters go missing each year, but that's more than enough to terrorise a community.

Or, while small bands of bedraggled goblins in the countryside may be seen simply as an issue of managing dangerous vermin, if a single troll starts roaming the area the people are going to lock the gates and call for heroes. It doesn't mean that anyone who leaves is doomed to be eaten by a hideous monster, but the possibility makes that town a point of light in a world of darkness.

 

[Zurai]

Curious here no more, but how do you define Point of Light. What I mean is what boundaries do you hold settlements to within when working in that style?

The average settlement shouldn't be much larger than maybe 1500 people, and there should be no major contact with other settlements. Knowing that there's another town a week's travel in XYZ direction is fine, but there shouldn't be any well-traveled roads between the two. Again, that's an average settlement; there can be "kingdoms" that consist of a decent-sized city connected to several outlying farming villages, but that "kingdom" shouldn't patrol more than maybe 2 days from the "capital".

About the Blobs of Light, it doesn't go from POL to BOL without the ability of a settlement to project power beyond their individual boundaries or to cover a large area compared to the darkness surrounding them. I think this is tied back to level demographics in our settings. <snip several paragraphs of very nice explanation>

Yes, I can see how that can work. My only issue there is that it makes the PCs less "special" if the baseline character is effectively a level 3-4 character. It's almost like the Forgotten Realms, where every other bartender is a retired 9th level fighter with a +3 keen greatsword behind the bar. Not as extreme as FR can get, but it gives me that same "what's a PC then?" kind of feel. I personally would have more trouble enjoying a campaign framed like that, and I'm fairly certain WotC is aiming for Commoner 1 (or Non Heroic 1, in SW Saga Edition terms) as their baseline. However, if a high-powered campaign like that works for you, so be it.

I'm not sure how it changes the matter under discussion, however. All you've done is introduced a scaling factor to both sides of the equation; the result is still the same. Even with Joe Schmoe Commoner being a 3rd level fighter, you still have the same ratio of darkness to light. You've increased the brightness of the light, but you've increased the "darkness" of the dark as well. The end result is identical, you just use bigger numbers to get there. Even with your example, there's still a point where you have to have blobs of light to have tenable civilizations.

Anyway, that's really beside the point. It doesn't matter that there's some upper end where PoL are forced to become BoL or be extinguished, logically speaking. What matters is that you have fun with the framework, and there's no logic required for that.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Anyway, that's really beside the point. It doesn't matter that there's some upper end where PoL are forced to become BoL or be extinguished, logically speaking. What matters is that you have fun with the framework, and there's no logic required for that.

Yeah in the end that's all that matters.

We seem to actually do the overall size and composition of settlements about the same. I've just polarized the light and dark much farther than your game. Also to the what makes PCs special in my games that's generally what the upper end of the power curve is for. At the lower end of the power curve they're fairly ordinary in comparison to the majority of civilized humanoids it's the region past level 9 where only PCs and the rulers of the city-states go. And by lvl 14-15 those same characters are ready to conquer their own city state, or to throw down the Lord of Scourges and form his hordes into a new Point of Light (hey even black light is still light).

 

[Hairfoot]

My only issue there is that it makes the PCs less "special" if the baseline character is effectively a level 3-4 character. ...it gives me that same "what's a PC then?" kind of feel. ...However, if a high-powered campaign like that works for you, so be it.

I would say it's the opposite of a high-powered campaign, because the heroes aren't head and shoulders above their peers until later levels.

As you say, it gets out of hand if the town guard is composed entirely of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level classes, but I think it's fine to have a guard captain who's a 4th level fighter, a level 2 village cleric, and a 3rd level ranger jagermeister. From levels 1-5, it's the PC's deeds that make them heroes, not their exceptional power (IMO).

Remember that in a point of light, the guard captain is the hero until the PCs show up. He's the one who held the (0-level) defenders together when those gnolls raided last winter; he's the bloke who lost an eye holding off an ogre single-handed while the villagers scrambled to shut the gate. He's good because he has to be for the town to survive. He can also lay down the law with PCs if they get out of hand, which an NPC-classed warrior can't.

I don't think every NPC has to be weak and/or helpless to make a PoL campaign compelling.

 

[helium3]

Yeah in the end that's all that matters.

We seem to actually do the overall size and composition of settlements about the same. I've just polarized the light and dark much farther than your game. Also to the what makes PCs special in my games that's generally what the upper end of the power curve is for. At the lower end of the power curve they're fairly ordinary in comparison to the majority of civilized humanoids it's the region past level 9 where only PCs and the rulers of the city-states go. And by lvl 14-15 those same characters are ready to conquer their own city state, or to throw down the Lord of Scourges and form his hordes into a new Point of Light (hey even black light is still light).

It all being about having fun is absolutely correct. That being said, developing a mechanical explanation for how PoL's manage not to collapse or coalesce into BoL's is all good and well, but it doesn't really answer the larger question of what sorts of concepts currently found in a 3.X campaign are by definition no longer available in a PoL style campaign.

Frankly, I don't have much of a problem with WotC going in the PoL direction with the implied setting as long as they don't somehow manage to make other campaign styles nearly impossible with the 4E rule-set.

A lot of the 3.X campaign settings seem to be of the "multiple continent spanning empire" campaign style, so at its most basic I see PoL as WotC's attempt to say "Hey gamers, let's try to play a slightly different kind of game than we've been playing lately" and that really doesn't bother me. Actually, I think it's kind of smart when you're aiming the rule-books towards an audience that you cannot assume is intimately familiar with the previous iterations of D&D.

 

[Baron Opal]

My only issue there is that it makes the PCs less "special" if the baseline character is effectively a level 3-4 character.

I agree if the 3-4th level character is a PC class. If they are a 3-4th level commoner or warrior in 3e or a non heroic 3rd level character in SWSE they're not too impressive.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I agree if the 3-4th level character is a PC class. If they are a 3-4th level commoner or warrior in 3e or a non heroic 3rd level character in SWSE they're not too impressive.

Since this is about my game. 3rd level characters don't have any class levels, they're effectively zero level for campaign purposes. Instead all the standard races have 3 racial levels that are equivalent in power to PC levels. Most tack a further 1 or 2 class levels (mostly NPC levels) on top of that. But except for some of the ruling class of major city-states NPCs don't go over 9th except for the threats the PCs are fighting. However those in positions of authority and power always have PC levels and are always at the top of the settlements level demographic.

Going by some of the definitions of GURPS fantasy, the feel I'm going for is a Starkly Heroic Dawn Age mixed with City State. In the vein of the Greek ages of Men the average person is stronger, hardier, and more competent than game average. Even the ordinary have some measure of greatness. But they're beset on all sides and times by things that are even more powerful. The PCs are the few whose potential greatness know no bounds. Who can become more than simply great, they can rise to confront threats that level entire continents and duel with the gods themselves. If they but survive long enough to gain this power by absorbing the greatness of their foes and adding it to their own (leveling up).

 

[Clavis]

Now, BoL (blobs of light) with a "secure" heartland for intrigue and a well guarded outer perimeter using divination magic to intercept upper heroic/paragon threats, but leaking low heroic threats for nicely non-metagaming level divided dungeoncrawls, that I could get behind. Put a network of them down with well-guarded trade routes to allow for paragon tier (inter-BoL) intriguing and you are set for *any* adventure type all to way to the Epic tier. Not knowing what MM elements will be at that tier, I'll stop for now.

"Blobs of Light" pretty much sums up what real medieval settlement patterns were like. It's hard for modern Americans, used to private lives, sprawling suburbs and isolated homes, to really understand how medieval people actually lived. Medieval settlement patterns were dictated by 3 facts:

1) Pre-modern agriculture is extremely inefficient.
2) Pre-modern forms of transportation are very slow
3) Pre-modern forms of food preservation were often unreliable.

#1 means that pre-modern societies needed to have 8-9 farmers for every farmer. That means a small town of 1000 needs about 8000 farmers to support it. A city of 20,000 needs about 160,000 framers to support it.

#2 & #3 mean that most of the farmers needed to support a town or stronghold need to live within half a day or 1 day's journey by oxcart. That's about 5-10 miles, at most 15. A small town of 1000 would be surrounded by about 12-18 villages of approximately 500 people each, all very close to each other and the town. And the town itself would be very small in area, and very densely populated. Ancient people never lived far away from each other if they could help it; a preference for living far apart is makes Americans aberrant historically. Entire medieval families would live in a single room, where they carried on all biological functions with little or no regard for the modern concept of privacy.

What all of the above created was a settlement pattern where a central town or stronghold would be surrounded by nothing but farming villages for miles around it. The other side of this was that because people clustered so closely together, the areas off the roads and between population clusters was essentially wilderness. A traveler was either in very settled land, or dangerously unsettled land. There were no suburbs.

A small overall population supporting lots of fighter-types is impossible. If a stronghold is guarded by 100 men, it means there are at least 800 nearby farmers to support them.