Population density in your setting?

[Haradim]

what reasons are there for needing those numbers to not be pleasing to gamers who do care about population?

Well, I've neither interest nor motivation to learn about the subject. Nor time to learn and apply it if I did. So long as there are enough people in a given area to satisfy the needs of adventure at the time, I don't really bother with it. And the only time population is likley to be noted upon by the people I play with is if I had some huge city in a realm with no means of support, or something really basic like that. And even then, it wouldn't be a big deal.

I also don't think it would matter much, positively or negatively, if the numbers in a game I was participating in had real or outright nonsensical (I've in both kinds of settings) populations.

 

[jgbrowning]

Well, I've neither interest nor motivation to learn about the subject. Nor time to learn and apply it if I did. So long as there are enough people in a given area to satisfy the needs of adventure at the time, I don't really bother with it. And the only time population is likley to be noted upon by the people I play with is if I had some huge city in a realm with no means of support, or something really basic like that. And even then, it wouldn't be a big deal.

I also don't think it would matter much, positively or negatively, if the numbers in a game I was participating in had real or outright nonsensical (I've in both kinds of settings) populations.

Which I why I think most people don't really care about population: it doesn't impact their gaming and they're not interested in the subject. What I don't understand Is why people who don't find that aspect interesting care if the information was actually more accurate. I mean, if it's not important to your gaming, why shouldn't it be accurate if accuracy is possible without thereby creating a detriment to your gaming? Especially when said accuracy would make a different part of the gaming population happy?

I'm a bit confused by how people can say something isn't important, but at the same time say that trying to make the unimportant thing more enjoyable/accurate for others is foolish or pointless.

joe b.

 

[Driddle]

For the majority of you who've said population isn't important to your game, what reasons are there for needing those numbers to not be pleasing to gamers who do care about population?

You're misunderstanding our goal, JG. Because what we're actually doing is trying to help you understand that you don't need such precision in a game to enjoy yourself. It's unnecessary. And the anger being expressed by so many people arguing for "realistic," big populations in Eberron shows how unhappy their unrealistic expectations are making them.

Let go of the big numbers issue. Be happy in the moment for what it is -- a crowd scene here, a lone hermit there, an unemployed census taker stumbling up the alley moaning, "What is my Purpose?!", each but a small part in the greater whole which does not need to be precisely defined to be glorious. Such is life.

 

[William Ronald]

You're misunderstanding our goal, JG. Because what we're actually doing is trying to help you understand that you don't need such precision in a game to enjoy yourself. It's unnecessary. And the anger being expressed by so many people arguing for "realistic," big populations in Eberron shows how unhappy their unrealistic expectations are making them.

Let go of the big numbers issue. Be happy in the moment for what it is -- a crowd scene here, a lone hermit there, an unemployed census taker stumbling up the alley moaning, "What is my Purpose?!", each but a small part in the greater whole which does not need to be precisely defined to be glorious. Such is life.

While I am still working on my homebrew, I suspect the population density will be somewhere between that of colonial America (15/square mile) and parts of medieval Europe. I thing jgbrowning is saying that for him , what he considers realistic population numbers makes a setting more credible. Ultimately, players and DMs have to believe the setting in some way is plausible to them . I do not think that Keith Baker and J G Browning are very far apart on this point.

 

[Chimera]

By way of example of what population figures do: For me, the huge population figures in FR just about kill my "suspension of disbelief".

I always use the Silver Marches as an example. Approximately 1 million civilized people in an area about 2/3 the size of Minnesota. With no modern infrastructure, modern crop yields or major metropolises.... Yeah, right. So where do the monsters live and why would anyone be threatened by them?

The game I'm playing in now is set in Sespech. Almost a million people in a "Barony". Another "yeah, right". Ok, so why is that band of 300 goblins anything more than the buzzing of a mosquito? Sespech should be able to raise as many as 50,000 troops if necessary. Where's the threat?

 

[Haradim]

I'm a bit confused by how people can say something isn't important, but at the same time say that trying to make the unimportant thing more enjoyable/accurate for others is foolish or pointless.

I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure myself why there is so much conflict over this. But then, the population of a setting isn't important to me either way. What things people derive enjoyment from shouldn't be inspiring others to try and convince them they are not 'playing properly' (or whatever).

 

[jgbrowning]

You're misunderstanding our goal, JG. Because what we're actually doing is trying to help you understand that you don't need such precision in a game to enjoy yourself.It's unnecessary. And the anger being expressed by so many people arguing for "realistic," big populations in Eberron shows how unhappy their unrealistic expectations are making them.

My guess is that the people expressing unhappiness with the numbers aren't really emotionally involved. I know I'm not. All I wish is that the numbers would have been more accurate. It's like reading in a book that says the same bullets can be used for a shotgun as can be used for a rifle. It's something that's wrong, and unless the "wrongness" is directly serving a game need that wouldn't be served if the amunition was accurate, it's something that should be corrected.

EDIT: and to clarify.. by wrongness I don't mean to imply that there's one right. I think that there's a range in which the numbers could be presented that would satisfy most simulationists as being believable. Of course people will argue about what "believable" is better that the other "believable."

It makes me wonder, if numbers are to be given at all, why the numbers aren't accurate enough to satisfy the people who want the numbers? That's the target audience and the sole reason for population statistics for gaming worlds to begin with. If you're including them, you're putting them in for the people who do care, just like you'd put in a particular setting feature (say a prestige class) for the people who care about that particular feature and how it relates to game play.

And for future reference, if you're really trying to show people how another type of gaming style is enjoyable, it's best to not start off the converstation by telling them that their current style is unecessary. It's much better to show how other styles of play are additive: how by including different aspects of gaming into a gaming session usually improves the experience for everyone involved.

Let go of the big numbers issue. Be happy in the moment for what it is -- a crowd scene here, a lone hermit there, an unemployed census taker stumbling up the alley moaning, "What is my Purpose?!", each but a small part in the greater whole which does not need to be precisely defined to be glorious. Such is life.

That's one way of play. Others play differently. Preferably the rules would facilitate both types of play as much as possible. I know that whenever one group of play types says to another "stop complaining about improvement" (be that improvement in relation to any play style) I don't get the point of the statement. Unless "fixing" that complaint is detrimental to the other gaming styles or would simply require space that could be better spent on something else, the problem should be fixed. If there's to be population numbers at all, it would be best for them to be as useful and enjoyable to as many types of gamers as possible, but especially to the types of gamers who actually use the information.

joe b.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

...

I cannot understand why you (and others making similar posts) are telling other gamers what details are and are not important for their enjoyment.

The originiator of this thread was soliciting opinions on this subject, no? I think we here as ( most of us ! ) adults realize that almost every post on a message board is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

J&J:

I certainly do NOT think that these type of details in a campaign book lessen the enjoyment of anyone who doesn't care about them.

Let's put aside the issue of details being "necessary" or not. Correct - this is fully normative, with no absolute right or wrong.

I see no reason the Eberron numbers in question cannot be accurate as written. Perhaps as a DM, before dismissing them altogether, how might I change MY preconceptions to make those numbers fit, despite my misgivings?

EXP's Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe was a wonderful book, but the focus was a LOT more on Medieval Western Europe than on Magical Societies, so I need to look beyond the considerations in that book...

So what assumptions must I make to get these numbers to work? Details in the book could not cover everything. With all of these "houses" controlling aspects of trade and necessity through the wielding of highly specialized magic, I'm sure there are dozens or even hundreds of tremendous impacts on traditional population assumptions.

Yes the Eberron number seem low. Perhaps REALLY low. But it might be a fun project to try and make these numbers fit by challenging accepted paradigms and applying some new assumptions based on magic being much more prevalant than simply dismissing them because they immediatly stand out as different.

 

[jmucchiello]

You're misunderstanding our goal, JG. Because what we're actually doing is trying to help you understand that you don't need such precision in a game to enjoy yourself.

ROTFLMAO. If that is your goal it can never succeed. People whose minds are grounded in numbers cannot accept inaccuracies involving numbers. Ask a leopard to change his spots. Tell a bear he can't do his business in the woods.

I understood your goal. My goal is to explain that some people think differently than you do. You can no more ask them to "just gloss over that glaring inaccuracy" than I can convince you that breathing in unnecesary.

And even if there was a chance to get a simulationist to change his mind, you cannot succeed through the use of sarcasm. (God of the census?) That shows a condescending attitude and such an attitude is not going to make your point of view seem worth pursuing.

Oh, and if I may add. I'm a gamist, not a simulationist. I care not one whit for the numbers presented in the ECS. I just find the attitude of my fellow gamists appalling in their treatment of the simulationists. (The role-players tend to just shrug "whatever" and move on.)

 

[D+1]

I dunno. If I want more people, then there are more. If I want less, then there are less. I have only a handful of actual cities much less metropolis's in my current campaign world. Most population centers are towns and villages. That is intentional, but not by following any specific design formula or population density theory. It feels more right for it to be as it is, and perhaps is more "realistic" but I could give a rip about realism. Realism is for people who have no imagination.