PoL & population density

[Irda Ranger]

You've got my position on the matter completely wrong if you think I'm arguing that setting material should contain that level of detail.

Either that or I haven't made myself very clear.

It was supposed to be a somewhat humorous post by taking a counter-example of "not medieval, but internally consistent" world design to an absurd limit. I just meant that I often have "methods to my madness" but that my players have learned that unless it directly bears on the plot that it's not worth their game time to ask.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Here's the thing:

If we go from the basic premise that PoL means two things:

*Travel beyond and between established communities is dangerous
and
*The nature of the polity is such that your community and a community of potential enemies have close proximity to each other

Then any number of demographic models offer themselves up from history. You'd be looking at anything from the densities of China during its modern warlord periods to the extreme nebulousness of human communities in North America after the post-Columbian plagues.

I think there are ways you can narrow it down by adding additional permises, such as:
*Imperial structures are absent
*No military force can be counted on to keep order
-Though effective military forces are present such as Dragonborn Companies or Halfling Pirate Clans they can only exert a very localized influence.
*There are occassional extra-dimensional invasions or intrustions

To name a few that are hinted at in the PoL assumptions, but even there I think you are looking at a variety of possible models.



If, on the other hand, you are attempting to create a DnD demographic system from the ground up - here's a question:

What do you guys think are the real threats these patterns of settlements would have evolved against?

Cause there are a number of different possible candidates within the DnD ecology and history for a PoL situation each of which might develop very different strategies on both the 'Light' side and the darkness.


To name a case in point - many people in this thread have discounted a nomad strategy as non-competitive against the threats of a DnD world, but I don't know what your assumptions are about which aspects of the DnD ecology represent active threats.

Now: I would assume that monster races with, if you will, 'fungal' cultures that allow them to establish relatively powerful communities with very few starting resources where ever imperial authority is too weak to root them out early, such as Kobolds or Orcs, are a threat to the establishment of imperial authority, but aren't that frequent a threat to the establishment of smaller communities.

The probably do prey on travellers, make trade difficult, and represent a tax on agriculture by raiding herds and farms, but I doubt they get together enough gumption to wipe out established human communities, whether settled or nomadic, with any great regularity.

For that threat, kingdoms don't represent good adaptations, but any number of smaller communities do. Nomads and Villagers can both still do well. Though the Villagers will have to be fortified and the Nomads will need good scouts.

But: What about singular monster threats? Could any community be safe from, say, a vampire or dragon.

Walls are going to be no help at all against a singular apex predator in the DnD-verse, and numbers just make you a better prey source.

True, a nomadic community runs the risk of running into one of these predators, but they also have the potential to avoid it where the village is just a target.

I think the basic DnD contradiction is that on the micro-level and against basic threats defense is far superior to offense. Against the more advanced threats no real defense is possible save through divine aid, heroic intervention, and the relative rarity or disinterest of the threat.

As a result, you can build a village or caravan or nomadic band pretty easilly, but a kingdom with great difficulty.

Fortunately, there is great incentive to build kingdoms since they can leverage the factors that make you more competitive against the high level threats more easilly.

Sadly, even with that leveraging the Kingdom gambit is far from certain.

Thus, I think the idea of a cultural evolutionary track marked by the cyclical rise and fall of empires and the profound importance of heroic agents makes a lot of sense.

At some point you might develop a culture or matrix of cultures that is able to deal with the both the basic and advanced threats well enough to allow for real constant cultural accumulation, but I think that point is both uncertain and a long way down the line for a DnD ecology.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

It was built on an island in a lake.

Even this would be a misrepresentation.

Some of it was, but much of the land was reclaimed and we also have lots of references to floating farms. Plus even the island and reclaimed sections were still very much part of the lake. Canals were an important part of the infrastructure of the city.

And it's not the only place in either the New or Old world to take advantage of stilt architecture for defense and convenience.

 

[helium3]

It was supposed to be a somewhat humorous post by taking a counter-example of "not medieval, but internally consistent" world design to an absurd limit. I just meant that I often have "methods to my madness" but that my players have learned that unless it directly bears on the plot that it's not worth their game time to ask.

Heh. I figured that was the case. It's hard to tell sometimes with the posts on here.

One of the things I like about an internally consistent setting is that I can use the general consistency as a way to more subtlety present plot hooks in the form of sudden inconsistencies.

 

[ashockney]

I'm still trying to reconcile the POL setting guidelines and the FR, where I have held the majority of my campaigns in the past 20 years of gaming.

By my estimates the known FR world holds about 65,000,000 population (from 3E setting sourcebooks). In some respects, it sounds like POL:

There are areas of civilization, with large swaths of dangerous and monster-populated regions that separate them.

However, the comment that it will not consist of warring empires who are jealously guarding their borders, is very, very inconsistent with the FR which very much fits that mold.

I'm also curious as to how the core system setting will affect/change the FR of 4E.

 

[Clavis]

I'm really not able to fully understand that "real world medieval towns" as a parameter for anything in a fantasy setting. It should serve as an inspiration, but not as a strict rule or guideline, unless you really want a level of detail and fidelity with our medieval past, which clearly isn't and never was the point of D&D.

History has already asked the question of what happens when people feel like the outside world is hazardous, they have limited agricultural technology, and transportation is slow. The answer is they cluster together, and live as close to each other as they can. The pattern held true in places as far apart as Rome, China, India and Timbuktu (a real African city BTW).

For me, the problem with the way WOTC maps out cities is that they look like modern American suburbs. And that's anything but fantastic! If characters are to experience the energy and excitement of a city, it needs to have a dense population constantly interacting with each other. I propose that the historically accurate model creates more opportunities for adventure than the so-called fantasy one.

People stick with the medieval concepts, but what about ancient civilizations as an inspiration? Greeks? Spartans are cool nowadays. They also had warriors and swords, and armors, and magicians and fanstatic monsters and amazing deeds of heroism and towns with farms and taverns.

I don't stick to medieval European ideas. But the Greeks had the same settlement pattern as later Europe. A central, very dense stronghold-city surrounded by farms. In fact, the Greek City-State model would be an excellent one for a POL setting.

Robert Howard's works has always being with no doubt a source of inspiration for D&D, but Hyborian age is not medieval at all, it's inspired on it, but not bound to it.

The Hyborian age setting was a deliberate mish-mash of later real-world cultures, because Howard was creating a secret history for the Earth. Aquilonia was meant to evoke medieval France, for instance. In such a case, applying real-world urban models is not just appropriate, it's exactly what was intended.

There was also no real medieval cities built with white stone on the side of a mountain with multiple layers, nor a village with small subterranean houses with big round doors. Between Tolkien and real world medieval europe, I choose Tolkien as my primary source of inspiration.

Italy, for one, contains numerous examples of villages and towns built on the sides and tops of mountains. I went to High School ( and gamed) with someone whose family came from a town in Calabria that was literally built on the side of a mountain. He showed me pictures, and I remember asking him how nobody ever fell off.

As for Tolkien, he would have preferred that you look to real-world Europe, It's exactly what he did when apprpriating names and cultures to populate Middle Earth!

I can't remember any town built entirely on a lake, maybe there was, I dunno, anyway, if there was no Tolkien, and a designer proposed something like that, would we also complain arguing that's no such thing in our medieval past?

I would think of Venice, which is basically built on wooden pilings sunk into a lagoon. Other people have mentioned Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City). Of course, both those cities are currently sinking into the mud...

"houses are spaced apart from each other, not built next to each other like in real medieval towns." OMG that makes no sense!!!
Sure it doesn't, it's D&D, not Medieval Adventures.

Yes, but IMHO the real-world model is more exciting and evocative of far-away times and places. Medieval London, with its winding narrow streets and hidden recesses, is just a more interesting place than a fantasy town laid out like modern Levittown! Also, I prefer to not have magic integrated into the ordinary human life of my Campaign, so that when the players encounter it they can still have a sense of wonder. The contrast between the mundane and magical is what keeps the arcane wondrous. If everything is fantastic, the fantastic just become the mundane. It's simple to pull that off; I use the explanation that human wizards are deliberately and selfishly trying to keep magic to themselves, to maintain their own power. No mighty Wizard, wielding the powers of creation itself, is going to stoop to making a perpetual flame just so the common rabble can have better streetlights!

 

[ashockney]

I'm still trying to reconcile the POL setting guidelines and the FR, where I have held the majority of my campaigns in the past 20 years of gaming.

By my estimates the known FR world holds about 65,000,000 population (from 3E setting sourcebooks). In some respects, it sounds like POL:

There are areas of civilization, with large swaths of dangerous and monster-populated regions that separate them.

However, the comment that it will not consist of warring empires who are jealously guarding their borders, is very, very inconsistent with the FR which very much fits that mold.

I'm also curious as to how the core system setting will affect/change the FR of 4E.

 

[Aloïsius]

It's not supposed to be any of the real world medieval towns, it's a fantasy town.

No they are american (or european) XXth century suburbs, with continual lights instead of electric lighting... Sure, the maps are easier to draw that way, but they don't make sense at all.

If we think about LotR, the Shire is a patch of light surrounded by darkness, but it was designed to inspire a feeling of security, akin perhaps to 18th century England. But Bree is only a point of light : it has wall and locked doors at night. Osgiliath, an open citie, lies in ruins, while Minas Tirith is a crowded, walled citie.

When marauding orcs are a common threat, you can't have a suburb-like town spread upon miles of garden, unless it is heavily protected with magic. And I doubt that the standard point of light can be that much magic strong...

This is why I hope the starting town to look like a realistic point of light town.

Originally Posted by ainatan
There was also no real medieval cities built with white stone on the side of a mountain with multiple layers, nor a village with small subterranean houses with big round doors. Between Tolkien and real world medieval europe, I choose Tolkien as my primary source of inspiration.

Medieval real towns were a varied lot. Sure, there is no "Minas Tirith" per see, but it's principle (walled, crowded citie) is indeed medieval. Same thing with troglodytic housing : I larped in one of those recently...

 

[jgbrowning]

Here's what I think a good example could could be. One of my favs: Mont Saint Michel Visit the Wiki site to get an idea of why I like it.

joe b.

 

[JohnSnow]

No they are american (or european) XXth century suburbs, with continual lights instead of electric lighting... Sure, the maps are easier to draw that way, but they don't make sense at all.

If we think about LotR, the Shire is a patch of light surrounded by darkness, but it was designed to inspire a feeling of security, akin perhaps to 18th century England. But Bree is only a point of light : it has wall and locked doors at night. Osgiliath, an open citie, lies in ruins, while Minas Tirith is a crowded, walled citie.

Surrounded by farms. The Pelennor fields, where the main battle took place, was the farmland around the city. Many of the people had to flee into the city, which became crowded when they all went into it. This is also common of medieval settlements - the people from outlying farms would retreat to the keep (or walled city) when danger threatened.

When marauding orcs are a common threat, you can't have a suburb-like town spread upon miles of garden, unless it is heavily protected with magic. And I doubt that the standard point of light can be that much magic strong...

This is why I hope the starting town to look like a realistic point of light town.


Medieval real towns were a varied lot. Sure, there is no "Minas Tirith" per see, but it's principle (walled, crowded citie) is indeed medieval. Same thing with troglodytic housing : I larped in one of those recently...

The thing I find funny is that people are complaining about how "unmedieval" the starting town is without having seen it. Many medieval cities had narrow roads, but there are many places in England, France, and Germany where you can still see parts of cities that aren't much changed from the middle ages. Carcasonne (a walled city) comes to mind, but York (also walled) is another good example. And yes, by American standards, the streets are narrow. But the main roads are not exactly cramped alleyways. They can handle cars - sometimes even two abreast.

Big cities, like London and France, had some very wide streets. And small villages were usually more spread out. The longer a town had to endure within a wall, the more densely populated it became. But to many of their "residents," walled towns were fortresses to retreat to, not locations for permanent residence. They often lived on their farms, and retreated to the city if danger threatened.

People don't generally want to get into the issues of medieval sanitation (or lack thereof). Therefore, D&D settlements tend to be less cramped, as real medieval towns would have been if they'd had to endure without technological improvements for hundreds of years. Roman towns tended to be less cramped for sanitation reasons. And of course, because the romans knew how to build sewers, they were also cleaner than medieval cities where people emptied chamber pots out of second story windows onto the street (and the people) below.