Population density in your setting?

[jgbrowning]

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.

The issue eventually becomes one of "what is cheaper" as well as "what is socially accepted." Magic would only replace reality were it cheaper and socially accepted to do so. Given the general expense of magic, non-magical ways often tend to work out to be less than magical methods. Now, if you're interested in speed, magic obviously wins in spades. Also, once a particular and fairly portable item gains importance, it's theft possibility increases.

I'm finding it harder to accept that all of the potential benefits of magic leads to a lower than expected population level (given general tech level) as opposed to leading to a greater than expected population level. IMHO, I think only magic that significantly increases travel speed for those involved in food-production would result in a lowering of pop density as opposed to an increase. And even then, with a low density, there'd have to be many "connecting byways" to link the areas of low-density but high-pop-to-food-production-ratios to the areas that are not self-sufficient.

I don't think changing the population levels would necessarily mess the "unexplored reaches" theme. I think it could easily be addressed by a map that only encircles areas that have enough population close enough to each other to be considered settled. I suppose, sort of like the maps showing the early states societies. There were people outside the state areas (and between rival state areas), but they weren't part of the group encircled. To me, if there's really 100 miles of nothing between two population centers, I find it hard to understand why they would be considered as a singular unit, rather than as many realtively unorganized groups.

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

Sorry to say I missed that post, lemme re-read..... I'm sorry I can't find it, could you give me a link?

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

Probably. I'm wondering right now if it's modeled on the many tower cities of Italy? Dunno.

joe b.

 

[mythusmage]

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 ...

Actually, I was being kind of silly in that post. Speaking seriously, keep in mind that we aren't seeing all the 'large' communities. In addition to which not all the cities and towns shown on the maps have populations listed for them.

As for your first paragraph.

Even with medieval levels of population density you would still have pockets of civilization in a sea of wilderness. When you have to walk the necessaries will tend to be within an hour's hike of your home. Only if it's real important will people go further afield.

Now I did get the impression with your first paragraph that you were thinking of magical means of food production such as Create Food and Water supplementing mundane methods. Okay, it takes a 5th level cleric to cast CFaW. By the book that's 150 gold per casting. By the write-up it provides enough food for 15 people for one day at the minimum caster level. So that would be 10 gold a person. The rich could afford it, but since in most medieval settings the rich are rarer than 5th level magewrights in a thorp, it's not that great an option for the lower orders.

Now, if it were 10 copper a person for a Create Food and Water that would be another matter entirely. And an entirely different world all together.

 

[Hand of Evil]

While magic could increase population, population is comparative to the means of death. What this means is that if X number of population is killed in war, and from illiness, that birth rate will basicly cover those loses. If you add magic and monsters same thing happens, population is a constant with booms after conflicts.

A real world example of this was the boom after WW2, the population expanded but there was a new form of death, the nuke. If used population were have been reduced back to levels prior to WW2. We also started to remove forms of death with better health care. We are now faced with over population issues and the increase of illinesses. Population levels were constant until the industral revolution.

While magic could increase population, simple pasteurization did. The question really is how magic would provide the same results?

 

[mythusmage]

Actually, population levels were rising steadily even before the Industrial Revolution. What the IR did was provide new ways of getting food to market, and new ways of presenting food. The subsequent revolutions in medicine and sanitation made it possible to support large, confined populations in reasonable health, which meant cities stopped being the population sinks they had been before.

The best explanation of the Baby Boom I've seen is, it was the American serviceman of World War Two catching up for lost time.

 

[Hand of Evil]

From Nova: showing graphics of the worlds population growth. Rather neat.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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).

From my readings of the threads, I'm not sure I can say that there was an actual idea or premise involved. They picked numbers, pretty much out of thin air, and if they did anything different, they haven't explained it yet.

The positions here seem to be divided into two camps:

1) The numbers don't seem to make sense, and here's the reasons why,

and

2) I don't really care if the numbers make sense, because that's not important to how I run the game.

I fall into Camp 1, but I can fully understand the people in Camp 2.

I've said this before in this thread - this matters very little to most players or DMs, but to some it matters quite a bit. I like Eberron a lot. If I run Eberron, I'll have to review the info that comes out in later books to see if they explain this clear anomaly, which runs counter to what I'd expect, given the 25 years I've spent creating my own homebrew worlds, and the reading I've done in the course of creating them. They may present a wonderful reasoning, and if they do that will be great. Otherwise, I'll have to adjust the numbers to make sense for me.

An idea for a new thread might be to take the numbers given in the Eberron sourcebook as canon, and then let JGBrowning et al go to town and try to come up with a logical solution, possibly coming up with population density suggestions so that we could actually figure out which parts of Khorvaire are unpopulated. It would seem that there must be areas that are 70-100 person per square mile density, and areas that are very much less. I'd like to know which are which.

 

[Driddle]

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? ...

Because those people will never be satisfied no matter what?

 

[Driddle]

((A whispered aside to our studio audience: "In the study of psychology, the 'false consensus effect' refers to a tendency for people to overestimate how much others agree with them. People suppose their own opinions, beliefs, and preferences are more prevalent in the general public than they actually are."))

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

((A whispered aside to our studio audience: "In the study of psychology, the 'false consensus effect' refers to a tendency for people to overestimate how much others agree with them. People suppose their own opinions, beliefs, and preferences are more prevalent in the general public than they actually are."))

I agree. The people in Camp two are definitely letting that effect color their reasoning.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Facetiousness aside (I'm not normally snarky, promise!) I think that most of those in the "The numbers don't make sense" camp are very aware that they are not the majority of gamers. There's been an undercurrent of "that means their opinions don't matter" coming from the "who cares?" side. Unfortunately, the discussion got off to a bad start when the first "numbers don't make sense" posts were (fairly enough) perceived as attacks. That automatically causes people to want to respond with more vigor than they otherwise would.

The fact this thread has gone as long as it has shows that a significant number of folks do care, and because they are not most of the posters does not mean that their opinions should be invalidated.