Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 1653387" data-attributes="member: 5724">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.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... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Edit: Made a mistake: assuming that there would be a return trip, the doubling would occur more at 1/4.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /> 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.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.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.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.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.I think Eberron's pretty cool. If it has to have any problems, population is probably one of the best to have. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Woah, cowboy.. what you talking about? Do we now have conflicting density reports?.... *makes ticker sounds* This just in..... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />joe b.</blockquote>

Verification