Population density in your setting?

[jgbrowning]

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.

True, population growth would probably be fairly constant in either a mundane or magical world. However, being constant doesn't mean that they would be equal.

I'm not certain it would be equal because of the additional deaths caused by magic and the deaths by monsters. Mostly because those additional deaths would have to very common to offset the 1/3 flat-out food production increase from plant growth spells. Even if the net result is only 1/10 more food than in the historical period, the real and potential corresponding carrying capacity of the land at the given tech level dramatically increases which I think results in greater population growth. I don't think that death due monsters and magic would compensate for just plant growth alone.

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?

Much of the mortality of infants/children in the historical period was from injury (burns alone account for a large % but that's what you get with an open hearth) that wasn't immediately life-threatening. This allows for a period of days in which a cure minor wounds would prevent a death. Many of the adult deaths were also due to accidents which didn't immediately kill, but which resulted in death eventually. Such things as well would be greatly reduced by having a person who could cast cure minor wounds around.

I think cure disease has another population effect. Also, I don't think it that unlikely that holy orders would "stock up" on scrolls/wands for emergency purposes. Considering how our historical orders often filled such roles, I think in a world where healing power was immedietly visable, such an assumption isn't unreasonable.

I don't think harmful magic and the presense of monsters would normally be enough to outweigh the beneficial effects of increased food production, medical care, and disease treatment, although I completely agree that they would have an effect. Another factor in my thoughts is that monsters would tend to exist only in outlying areas (not in the denser kindom centers) which would reduce their effectiveness further.

joe b.

 

[Silveras]

My Homebrew world, at one point (early draft), covered an area the size of Europe + Asia, and had the population of the State of Rhode Island. My suspension of disbelief could not sustain this.

I re-drew the map and re-allocated the population, coming up with something I liked better.

I adapted that to Birthright's rules when Birthright came out, and it stayed fairly consistent with the feel I had before. I was satisfied with that.

I adapted again to using actual Population Density after Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe came out. The figures match quite nicely between what I had before and the expected ranges. Again, I am satisfied.

Why do I bother ? Because I need to know in order to present an internally consistent view. Because I need to know so that I can adjust them appropriately to convey the flavor of other cultures when my players arrive in those lands.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I don't think harmful magic and the presense of monsters would normally be enough to outweigh the beneficial effects of increased food production, medical care, and disease treatment, although I completely agree that they would have an effect. Another factor in my thoughts is that monsters would tend to exist only in outlying areas (not in the denser kindom centers) which would reduce their effectiveness further.

joe b.

Love this thread!

Something that is also not covered is populations of other planes on the world, do they share resources and total population?

 

[William Ronald]

Thoughts on fantasy economics: different pricing structures

One consideration for population is that commoners may not be paying the same costs for magical services as adventurers. Adventurers tend to be far wealthier than most commoners and often are passing through different communities. They may be charged higher prices for services and end up subsidizing services for others, much like business class passengers on airplanes help defer the costs of other types of passengers.

To this end, different price scales may exist. The cost of a cure minor wounds or a cure disease may be priced according to a peasant's income, not a set gold piece amount that an adventurer would pay. So, the cost of a chicken might cover a minor healing spell. Or a local farmer or craftsman may volunteer some service to a local temple.

In some cases, clergy may be interested in casting spells that benefit the community and not charge at all or charge at a reduced cost. Plant growth spells might be cast regularly at a reduced rate. The impact of a different fee structure is two-fold. It gives the local populace some incentive to support their local spell casters, especially clergy. Thus the peasants in a country have a reason to support their local temple -- both are looking after each other's mutual interests. It also tends to promote social stability, as there are less deaths from injury and disease while crops are more stable. Considering the relative rarity of some spell casters, very powerful spells such as raise dead and resurrection may be outside the means of most people who are neither nobles, adventurers, or wealthy merchants.

Another consideration is how many deaths are caused by monsters. Not all monsters will necessary want to kill an entire village. Some may enslave villagers to work as farmers or herdsmen. (The Spartans had the helots serving as farmers.) Others may wish to trade or offer services to a community. (A gold dragon, unlike his red dragon counterpart, may set up a few trade deals with a few communities. With polymorph abilities, some dragons may even be able to pose as merchants buying crops and herd animals for market. )

What are your thoughts on my ideas?

 

[William Ronald]

Love this thread!

Something that is also not covered is populations of other planes on the world, do they share resources and total population?

Maybe it depends on how one views other planes and their inhabitants? Are the creatures their essentially spirits -- non-physical beings that may take a form on other worlds? If so, they may not need food or drink, or in the case of some subsist off of mortal souls. I think it is very hard to quantify populations for other planes that differ greatly from worlds on the prime material plane.

 

[Orius]

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.

Personally, as a DM, I got enough to do with developing the campaign, and setting up adventure hooks that I don't feel like looking into making population density more accurate in my campaign. It's more extra work for me that my players really won't notice or care about.

I don't think I've ever seen a player show any interest whatsoever in how many people there were per square mile. Nor did any of them ever seem to care about the overall population of a city and whether all of those people would fit in the city. They've always been more concerned about matters like where to buy or sell stuff, where the moneychangers are, and where the nearest tavern was. I imagine most gamers think about the same way.

 

[Orius]

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.

Ok, I think that might make a difference. If you've got a published setting, there's going to be nit-picking, because, well sci-fi/fantasy fans are exceptionally prone to nit-picking.

I don't think that it makes a difference in a homebrew setting used by 1 group of players. If they all care, than they'll take the time to hammer out the numbers. If none of them care, then it doesn't matter. If only the DM cares, it still probably won't make much of a difference. And if you got only 1 player who cares and constantly complains about the lack of realism, while the others want to loot the dungeons to get money for ale and whores, then he'll probably be seen as a problem player and asked to leave.

 

[Orius]

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.

Well, you got to take into account how wars and plagues and such affected medieval European society. There's also infant mortality and life expectancy. A fantasy setting may not have all the same problems. If you've got a hundred years or so of peace in your setting, you're going to have a higher population. The last time Europe had a hundred years of relative peace was during the Roman Empire. So right there is a major difference. Then diseases, infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. affect the population differently in a setting with clerics that have access to healing magic.

Like I've said before, D&D isn't really medieval, no matter how many medieval trapping we stick on it, so I don't bother with trying to make it realistically medieval.

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.

Yeah, if you're going to compare population densities for cities, don't use modern American cities for comparison. They won't work, because we're spread out. Compare it to figures for cities out in the developing world. For example, one of my players thought the map I had for the home base city in my campaign was a little small. I gave the city and area according to guidelines in the World Builder's Guidebook. Anyway, I calculated the approximate population density of the city and compared it to densities of cities in the developing world, where there are more people packed into a smaller area. The numbers were somewhat close, so I figured it was realistic enough for me.

 

[fredramsey]

You know, I thought at first that it was amusing that so many people were essentially wasting their time with this whole discussion (no one is going to be moved from their position), and then I realized that I was spending time reading the population threads.

That's time in my life I'll never get back...

Have fun!

 

[Orius]

Much of the mortality of infants/children in the historical period was from injury (burns alone account for a large % but that's what you get with an open hearth) that wasn't immediately life-threatening. This allows for a period of days in which a cure minor wounds would prevent a death. Many of the adult deaths were also due to accidents which didn't immediately kill, but which resulted in death eventually. Such things as well would be greatly reduced by having a person who could cast cure minor wounds around.

I think cure disease has another population effect. Also, I don't think it that unlikely that holy orders would "stock up" on scrolls/wands for emergency purposes. Considering how our historical orders often filled such roles, I think in a world where healing power was immedietly visable, such an assumption isn't unreasonable.

I generally agree. One must also take into account that typically such spells much be paid for, though I would say paying for clerical magic really is more a matter of emptying out the PC's pockets than anything else.

I would say that relatively larger villages are probably served by a low-level cleric, maybe no higher than 3rd or 4th level. So if a peasant gets hurt, that cleric might use a cure minor/light/moderate wounds to heal the peasant, and probably for free, provided the peasant shows up for services on a regular basis. It's all a matter of caring for the flock. However, he doesn't have access to cure disease, so the peasants will be subject to illness as normally expected.

Now in a larger city, you might have a few clerics that minister to the poor, like soup kitchens, priests how have inner city ministries, Mother Teresa, etc. But most of the people will find they have to pay hard coin for healing magic. I think stockpiles of cure disease or cure * wounds wands might be around, but they're for emergencies. I only see the churches breaking out the wands during a major epidemic, or war or invasion, where a lot of people are going to need help at once.