Population density in your setting?

[jgbrowning]

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...

One thing to keep in mind is that the book is an exploration about how to have a medievalesque society with D&D magic as opposed to what D&D magic would do to a medievalesque society. With that in mind however, I think we should start with the base assumptions as presented in the book. In other words, assume Eberron is a quasi-medievalesque society with magic and then determine what is needed for such a thing to exist.

We know how many people are required to run a roughly european feudal/medievalesque society. We know what densities were common, and how those densities support the necessary division of labor that is required to support the continuation of the medievalesque society. I think they're good starting points when discussing how magic could change things.

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.

Agree. However, i think magic tends to increase population as opposed to decreasing it. Know what I mean? Magic is an additive bonus to population through things such as plant growth, communication, and potential labor power. Magic doesn't reduce population except when used as most D&D magic is used: in combat (with a few exceptions of course like disease and plant reduction type spells).

Magic can obviously reduce population, but is that reduction usually a net gain or a net loss? I think it's more of a net gain over time because over a large enough location, the greater amount of magic is probably going to be used to benefit population growth (healing, crops, labor) than the amount that's going to be harming population growth.

Also, given that the majority of Eberron's NPC aren't high level, the real nasty world-changing magics are that much more rare than in standard D&D, so I don't think the "magic allows a lower population" argument supports the drastically lower than historical levels of population while still maintaining a general medievalesque feel. If anything, I'd think that magic would support a higher than historical population rather than lower, even after a long war.

Looking over this article iat the WoTC site http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040712a , I have to say Eberron actually appears to be less magical than the standard D&D campaign, regardless of certain magical aspects. The number are lower than average, not only in quantity, but also in quality (high-levels).

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.

Yeah, I'd love people to challenge the assumptions and provide good arguements for how such a low population can maintain food supply/distribution and also have the necessary division of labor to make the society something generally recognizable as medievalesque.

The large trade houses for instance seem to imply to me that the density would be higher because large trading enterprises are usally associeted with a denser society because it's another layer in the division of labor. It's a product of something that seems more renaissancesque to me.

It's possible that Eberron's in a period of population loss. There's been a long war (several generations) with many people killed. If there were more people before than there are now there should be areas that have lower-than-built-to structure/population expectations. Say cities that are a bit too large than what the population needs. Typically the male/female ratio would also be way off normal if a war has been a large enough effect to significantly reduce population. Taxes would probably be at a crushing levels to where the peasants are becoming "restless".

I dunno, just shooting stuff out. I like to think about these things. It's something I find interesting. It just seems that many of the cool tropes are incompatable with low population numbers. I think the best explanation is that the population is concentrated in small area so that the map doesn't actually show the areas that are settled as we would considered settled ala Europe, but more so like how the US claimed vast tracts of land that had nobody but natives on it. In other words, the actual size of the kingdoms/states are vastly over-represented on the map and were they accurately expressed, there would be large kingdom-sized "no-man's-lands" between the borders. However, marching medievalesque armies 500 miles to get somewhere though dangerous lands is somewhat problematic to the "kingdoms are smaller than drawn on the map" explanation. Also, this type of frontier/colonial-like environment doesn't seem to fit with the pulp-adventure, commercial trading house gaming ideas. I'd love to hear peoples thoughts about it more than just "it's magic," "it's war," or "it's unimportant." Perhaps lowering the scale of the map and concentrating location would be the best fit.

And to prevent anyone from getting the wrong idea, this isn't that important to me. It's not a setting-breaker or a "this sucks" post nor is it a bash on Eberron as a fun setting. It's an exercise to see what's there and what's possible.

joe b.

 

[d4]

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.

please don't tell me what i should or should not enjoy. it's incredibly rude and condescending.

i think jb made a good point: most gamers aren't going to care about population figures. but there are some who do. if you are going to put population figures in a professional, published setting, the only people who are going to be looking at them are the people who care about the numbers. so why not do a few minutes / hours of research and get numbers that can satisfy the people who care about them?

if the designers don't want to spend the time doing the research to get numbers that will satisfy the simulationists, they shouldn't put hard numbers in at all. how about "that kingdom is newly settled and sparsely inhabited" or "that barony is densely settled and cultivated." then everyone can figure out individually what that means to them and everyone is happy. some people might think 2 people / square mile is densely settled while others will think that's sparsely inhabited.

when they put in a hard number, they immediately send up a flag for the simulationists that says, "Hey look at me! Analyze this!" and we will... why attract that kind of attention if you haven't done the work yourself to back it up? that's like advertising a new gaming book as having detailed combat mechanics, and then when you read it, it says, "Flip a coin. Heads, attacker wins combat. Tails, defender wins." i'm sure gamists would not appreciate that.

 

[jmucchiello]

Realism is for people who have no imagination.

Am I wasting my breath about not insulting people with opinioins that differ from your own?

 

[Henry]

FIRST of all: Let's take breaths before posting: There are some people getting unnecessarily insulting and condescending to fellow posters on this. I can handle closing threads on alignment, or religion, or personal insults - I couldn't handle closing a thread on population densities in people's personal campaigns due to hostility.

Second, I'm racking my brain to understand the disparity. I can understand JGBrowning's contention: If the numbers will be included, why NOT expect them to be resonably plausible? But by the same token, now that they are in stone, and maybe 1% of gamers (being generous) are unhappy with the results, it's equally reasonable to expect that those unhappy will need to house-rule if they plan to use the setting.

Third, I still have one question whose answer still confounds me: If one WERE to house-rule these figures in order to make their campaigns more plausible, how many of the players in their groups would even pay attention to the errata, much less read them? I myself am somewhat disappointed that more info was not included on all of the cities on the map (For instance, NOTHING is known of Thaliost, except what is in the Rekkenmark entry). However, the only thing that means is that I'm going to have to develop a city map, statistics, and notable NPC's of the city myself if my PC's would get anywhere near Thrane. It's also disappointing that the Siberys marks was not written up more as a feat than a Prestige class. It doesn't disappoint me enough to never want to use the setting; and I don't take offense if someone says, "Just use the Siberys Mark PrC as-is and give it a try". I will have to house rule it, and will not in the least expect WotC to accomodate me.

Now, the issue of NO universal marked main map, I have criticized, because it's a resonable expectation that such a thing which is useful to the majority of players should have been addressed. Thankfully, two awesome fans have stepped up (kildair and sebby, respectively) and solved the problem, but I recognize which battles to pick and choose.

If 1 out of every 3 players said, "these population figures and map size are unacceptable" then I would definitely have a different opinion. As-is, it's not worth coming to verbal blows with fellow fans over it.

 

[Abraxas]

posted by d4
i think jb made a good point: most gamers aren't going to care about population figures. but there are some who do. if you are going to put population figures in a professional, published setting, the only people who are going to be looking at them are the people who care about the numbers. so why not do a few minutes / hours of research and get numbers that can satisfy the people who care about them?

Actually, I think everyone who uses the setting will look at the numbers. The difference is in how people decide what those numbers mean.

jgbrowning wrote "In other words, assume Eberron is a quasi-medievalesque society with magic and then determine what is needed for such a thing to exist."

What if that idea is not the premise on which the population numbers were selected? (From what KB has said in other threads I don't think that is the premise). If that is not the basis for the population numbers saying they messed up, didn't do their research, and got the numbers wrong isn't really valid. (This is not to say those that don't agree with the numbers don't have valid ideas - I just seems to me that some may be creating a problem that only exists if you want the setting to be something it wasn't intended to be - IMO of course)

When I read through the Eberron CS I didn't get the idea that the developers were trying to create a quasi-medievalesque society that approximated what has happened in our real world societies. Instead it looked to me that they've created a world with population centers that act as the bases of operation for adventurers who explore/adventure in the vast tracks of unexplored/abandoned land between them. In this case all the population numbers do is give players an idea of how big a city/village/thorp/hamlet is and an idea of what resources might be available in it. Take Sharn for example - it has a population of 200,000 - that tells me the player and me the DM its got about the same population as Grand Rapids, Michigan (Shop Smart, Shop S-Mart ) which gives me a feel for how "big" the city is.

If the goal of the numbers is as I believe, is it necessary to research numbers that fit the real world when there isn't a real world model that fits the desired result? I guess I still don't understand, Why must the population be increased (for example, bumping the population of Sharn from 200,000 to 2 million) in order for the societies on Eberron to develop? Why does it have to follow the way things went in the real world? Why can't a city of 200,000 be self sufficient?

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

..., i think magic tends to increase population as opposed to decreasing it. ...

Great point. I think that it would definitely be a major boon to a more rapid population growth.

Looking specifically at agriculture and the effective use of magic, I could definitely see that less people would be necessary to produce enough sustaining crops to begin with - Much in the same way that modern machinery and advanced watering techniques have changed the ratio of food producers to consumers in the last century in RL.

Perhaps Ebberon is poised for a huge baby boom?

Also a great point about the male-female ratio in a post war environment. I'm not sure how prevalent females are/were in any of the Khorvaire armies though. That is another paradigm I may need to let go of...

Ironically, I'm not too emotionally invested in the issue myself either, ( I probably wouldn't have posted here if I hadn't just bought a new World Atlas last week! ) but the idea of a fundamentally different magical society is very intriguing to me. Maybe Ebberon isn't the scratch for that itch though.

 

[S'mon]

Population looks around 20/square mile on the 100 miles/cm campaign map, including wilderness; maybe 40/square mile in inhabited areas rising to 200/square mile on fertile farmland; there's a city of 16 square miles w 1 million people so it would have 62,500/sq m.

 

[jgbrowning]

Now, the issue of NO universal marked main map, I have criticized, because it's a resonable expectation that such a thing which is useful to the majority of players should have been addressed. Thankfully, two awesome fans have stepped up (kildair and sebby, respectively) and solved the problem, but I recognize which battles to pick and choose.

I think this is actually a pretty decent analogy. In this case, the lack of a map is detrimental to your game play, but it's so for only the people who use maps in relation to gaming (in whatever method). For the people who aren't interested in a visual representation of the setting outside of what their characters directly interact with, the map's pretty much not needed. For people who do use maps to enjoy their game, the maps are necessary. But imagine if the only maps that you got were ones that were full of mistakes like rivers running uphill or steamy jungle kingdoms actually turning out to be mapped in the polar regions; you'd kinda have to wonder why they even bothered putting a map in to begin with.

If 1 out of every 3 players said, "these population figures and map size are unacceptable" then I would definitely have a different opinion. As-is, it's not worth coming to verbal blows with fellow fans over it.

I think most people fall into the "It's inaccurate, but it doesn't really affect my gaming so it's not a big enough issue to be concerned with." But I also think a lot of the same people would rather have as accurate numbers as possible, if for no other reason than to shut some other people up... Either way, Its hard for me to think any difference of opinion about a game that is worth coming to verbal blows with fellow fans about.

What if that idea is not the premise on which the population numbers were selected? (From what KB has said in other threads I don't think that is the premise). If that is not the basis for the population numbers saying they messed up, didn't do their research, and got the numbers wrong isn't really valid. (This is not to say those that don't agree with the numbers don't have valid ideas - I just seems to me that some may be creating a problem that only exists if you want the setting to be something it wasn't intended to be - IMO of course)

It's my bias, I suppose, but I think the default setting of D&D is medievalesque because of the various assumptions made throughout the core books about setting and campaigns. To me, if something looks european medievalesque on the outside (swords, commoners, kings, heavy armor, main food source wheat... ie almost every single fantasy setting ever), it's got to (minimally) function in a manner that can support that appearance, even though it's definitly not required to be really medieval.

There is, however, a certain required production and division of labor needed to create an environment resembling the medieval. The most significant issue is the movement of food from production area to consumption areas with enough regularity to support a standing population and to support local non-food producers at the same time. Sharn for instance with 200k people requires a massive amount of diversified food being consistantly delievered on a daily basis. If the population surrounding each larger settlement isn't sufficently dense to create that food and transport it to non-producing consumers while supporting their local non-producing individuals, the stated civilization won't occur-something else would develop. It sort of becomes a logistics exercise... If you have X amount of grain and you have Y miles to travel, and your horses eat Z amount of grain per day, how far can you go before all your grain is eaten "en trasit." At the 1/2 way point (where your horse has eaten half the grain) the cost of the grain's effectively doubled just because of the horse. Edit: Made a mistake: assuming that there would be a return trip, the doubling would occur more at 1/4.

The population of Sharn isn't unrealistic at all. Many great cities in history have been so large. But what's needed to support that 200,000 people is something like 1.25-2 million people working on farms given anything resembling ancient/medieval (any pre-industrial really) examples we have from the real world (roughly 10-20% of the pop being urban). Even with magic plows and golem crop workers, the level of production created to support such a population seems inevitably to me to be a level of production that will de facto create a higher population density than what is given. Sharn (with all of it's food producers) accounts for anywhere between 1.5 million and 2.2 million people.

Take Sharn for example - it has a population of 200,000 - that tells me the player and me the DM its got about the same population as Grand Rapids, Michigan (Shop Smart, Shop S-Mart ) which gives me a feel for how "big" the city is.

Population wise it's a great way to relate. But physical space-wise it's not so good of a way. I'd be surprised in Sharn is more than 2 or 3 square miles in area. When people walk, cities don't sprawl. Rome (with around a mil) was only about 9 square miles in area. Paris varied from around 50k-200k while still remaining a little over a sq. mile in size.

Great point. I think that it would definitely be a major boon to a more rapid population growth.

Looking specifically at agriculture and the effective use of magic, I could definitely see that less people would be necessary to produce enough sustaining crops to begin with - Much in the same way that modern machinery and advanced watering techniques have changed the ratio of food producers to consumers in the last century in RL.

I think sustaining the population with fewer laborers is only really possible if the labor is actually being done with magic. It takes a set amount of people to harvest grain, and the number of people needed for a certain return only varies depending upon individual plant yield or (more commonly) simply planting less or more. To try and be more clear, unless their using a super-high yielding plant or using magical harvesting methods, population-to-yield ratios will be fairly consistant with historical trends. I suppose there could be a simply amazing farming location (ala the Nile-talk about amazing farm land!) that could also be factored in.

Perhaps Ebberon is poised for a huge baby boom?

I'd think so. Given the vast abundance of land, settlements should be popping up everywhere as people go to try their luck. I guess, sorta like the american west.

Also a great point about the male-female ratio in a post war environment. I'm not sure how prevalent females are/were in any of the Khorvaire armies though. That is another paradigm I may need to let go of...

Yeah, it may not be such an issue in a D&D world, but women who get pregant are usually medically prevented from fighting eventually. And the need to care of young, by either male or female caregiver, isn't suitable for combat duty. Also, unless Eberron is different, women are the only source of nourishment for young children. This also would lead to a reasonable assumption that a greater % of men than women would be in an military function even in the most egalitarian societies.

Ironically, I'm not too emotionally invested in the issue myself either, ( I probably wouldn't have posted here if I hadn't just bought a new World Atlas last week! ) but the idea of a fundamentally different magical society is very intriguing to me. Maybe Ebberon isn't the scratch for that itch though.

I think Eberron's pretty cool. If it has to have any problems, population is probably one of the best to have.

Population looks around 20/square mile on the 100 miles/cm campaign map, including wilderness; maybe 40/square mile in inhabited areas rising to 200/square mile on fertile farmland; there's a city of 16 square miles w 1 million people so it would have 62,500/sq m.

Woah, cowboy.. what you talking about? Do we now have conflicting density reports?.... *makes ticker sounds* This just in.....

joe b.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

Late in the thread, but I think I should answer less tounge-in-cheek.

Its impossible for me to know the population density in my game. I don't simulate any society... My historical accuracy in anything is on par with the Hercules and Xena TV show.

That, and the fact that time and dimension travel occur semi-regularly, with resulting changes in history making the answer different depending on which when you're asking about.

 

[Abraxas]

Sharn for instance with 200k people requires a massive amount of diversified food being consistantly delievered on a daily basis. If the population surrounding each larger settlement isn't sufficently dense to create that food and transport it to non-producing consumers while supporting their local non-producing individuals, the stated civilization won't occur-something else would develop.

In the real world yes - in a fantasy world no. This is the crux of the differing views I believe - some really want it to work just like it does/did in the real world, others can just allow it to work as written. IMO, increasing the population to fit the real world medieval model would mess up the islands of civilization and vast unexplored reaches theme of the setting - which would cause me fits.

Plus didn't mythusmage mention in another thread that Breland can feed its cities (something along the lines of 300 k in the big cities, 3.4 mill leftover in undescribed outlying areas) - which means if we all would have read a little closer the numbers might not have bothered us so much

Population wise it's a great way to relate. But physical space-wise it's not so good of a way. I'd be surprised in Sharn is more than 2 or 3 square miles in area. When people walk, cities don't sprawl. Rome (with around a mil) was only about 9 square miles in area. Paris varied from around 50k-200k while still remaining a little over a sq. mile in size.

Actually, Sharn probably covers less - going up instead of out (according to the description).