Simulationist Question on PoL

[loseth]

Re: Monsters vs. Caravans

In a world that suffers a sudden cataclysm, trade will only pick up again once this trade is lucrative enough that caravans can hire adequate protection. So, you can pretty much assume that whatever trade is going on is going on precisely because the merchants can afford adequate protection.

In an area where the worst monster you might expect to encounter is a level 10 dragon, then you might expect a typical caravan to be 8-10 wagons guarded by 40 or so level 1 NPC fighters, maybe 5 level 3 NPC fighters as officers and 1 PC-classed 5th or 6th level fighter in command.

In an area where the toughest opponent you might expect to encounter is a level 20 purple worm, then you might expect a typical caravan to be 15-40 wagons protected by 100 Level 2 NPC guards, two companies of elite guards (with 20-ish 3rd-8th level NPC guards each), several PC-classed captains and probably a few very-high level PCs in command (most likely including spell casters).

Basically, as monsters increase in level, they make trade A) more dangerous, necessitating more powerful guards, and B) more lucrative, making those more powerful guards worth the extra cost. More powerful monsters will cause bigger, better guarded caravans that cost more but bring in much bigger profits; they won't stop trade.

 

[Derren]

Basically, as monsters increase in level, they make trade A) more dangerous, necessitating more powerful guards, and B) more lucrative, making those more powerful guards worth the extra cost. More powerful monsters will cause bigger, better guarded caravans that cost more but bring in much bigger profits; they won't stop trade.

And how much would those caravans loose each trip? Also moving such a huge force of people around requires some serious supplies. Most of the wagons in such a convoy would carry supplies for the soldiers and no trade goods. Such an approach works when you have a huge economy which easily can replace the losses, but if that is the case and you have so many guards for the caravan then I doubt this setting is a PoL anymore.

Also, when there are so many soldiers and guards available, why don't they go out and slay the dragon and pacify the area instead of protecting the caravan?

 

[loseth]

And how much would those caravans lose each trip?

Definitely not enough to stop greedy mercenaries from taking their chances with the next caravan. Remember, the higher the danger, the higher the pay.

Also moving such a huge force of people around requires some serious supplies.

No, it doesn't. Relatively small forces like these were moved in the real middle ages with ease during the 100YW and the Baltic Crusades (where there was virtually no civilisation--just forest). You get your supplies from the places that you visit and, if necessary, by grazing the horses when they are not travelling (though this won't often be necessary--villages will be more than happy to rpovide oats). If the men have to go a few days without food, then that's fine--starvation was a regular part of real medieval warfare. And again, the pay makes it all worthwhile.

Such an approach works when you have a huge economy which easily can replace the losses, but if that is the case and you have so many guards for the caravan then I doubt this setting is a PoL anymore.

All you need to replace losses are experienced fighters. This does not require a huge economy; in fact, a PoL world will probably produce more experienced fighters than a civilised world.

Also, when there are so many soldiers and guards available, why don't they go out and slay the dragon and pacify the area instead of protecting the caravan?

Number of guards needed to guard a caravan: about 50-200, depending on the area.

Number of guards needed to pacify a region, and then fortify and garrison it so new monsters don't come in to replace the old ones: based on Roman campaigns, I'd guess about 30,000-500,000 depending on the size of the area.

Take the average pay of a soldier and multiply it by the appropriate numbers, and you'll see my point.



You've clearly made up your mind on this and will not be convinced by rhyme or reason, so I'll let you have the last word and won't respond further. I do understand how frustrating it can be when you're sure that you're right and it seems like nobody understands why you think so, but keep in mind that you definitely won't be forced to use a PoL setting. It should be very easy to use 4e for a more FR-like setting (at least like FR as it was in 3e, but I have a feeling that within a few years, most of the PoL aspect of 4e FR will have gone the way of the Dodo anyway as WOTC writers slip into their old ways and a vocal group of hardcore FR fans make their displeasure known).

 

[Ydars]

Derren; I think you misunderstand, I meant that monsterous humanoids are not "smart" in the sense of sophisticated. Early man had exactly the same intelligence us we do but because he lacked education and the ability to pass on knowledge, as written records, he could not smelt metal or build things etc.

Later, we were able to create knowledge and smelt metals as we became increasingly sophisticated. So monsters might be intelligent enough to do this eventually, but because their socieities (at least in all the default D&D settings I have ever player in) are too savage and non coperative at present they stand no chance of doing so. Human socities that followed this model are ALSO unable to produce any degree of sophistication. MOnsters have have NO written records that anyone has ever postulated and so are not civilised (I am talking about orcs, goblins or other humanoids NOT dragons etc.) Or are you suggesting that Orcs go to school now?

As for weapons and things, I do not have Hobgoblins and Orcs smelting metal in my games and you never see this is any published settings either. The implication is that they get them from ruins or tombs or by stealing and this needs no economy. Perhaps we just envisage monsters differently.

I think you are also looking at economics in terms of our world. Survival economics are not the same. If you have NO salt, then you starve because you can't store meat unless you smoke it or find some other way of preserving it. Hence the VALUE of this commodity is very high. The same is true of animal fodder otherwise you have to slaughter all your animals in winter. Survival makes people do what is required. They do so not for profit but because NOT to do so is fatal. If you know your town, your family, perhaps even your race will die unless you have trade, then you will have trade.

Anyway, as I say, if monsters were as organised as You suggest, no PoL would survive and the world would be barren of human and other PC races and instead populated by hobgoblins. If you find such a world satisfying then build it. I don't like it and I am discussing building a world that is close to WoTCs default.

 

[DandD]

Actually, aren't the hobgoblins of D&D sophisticated enough to form large organized armies with their own smelting techniques? Also, the D&D orcs seem to be capable of metal-working too, as shown by the existence of the orcish double-axe (yeah, it's silly, but then again, D&D 3rd edition tried to be totally cool at its beginning). Also, in the implied setting that the new D&D 4th edition game takes place in according to Worlds&Monsters, the gnolls managed to overcome the last human empire.

Monstrous humanoids probably just fail like non-monstrous humanoids. After some time, something else simply destroys their civilisation. Dwarves defeat giants, goblins defeat dwarves, elves defeat goblins, orcs defeat elves, humans defeat orcs, gnolls overpower humans, and perhaps halflings will vanquish the gnolls.
Endless cycles of rises and falls can ensure that every race gets to shine for once.

 

[Ydars]

I forgot the fluff in 4E (and even 3E) about weapons; not that I like much of it because I used to fight with metal broadswords/longswords and very few of the 4E fluff weapons make any sense.

But you are right about the Gnolls; I had completely forgotten that. I also think you are right about the endless cycle of rising and falling; i.e. that this is WoTCs default because it is exactly what they imply in the book, although I had not really taken it to mean monsterous civilisations per se, just that monsters were acting like the D&D version of the Vandals or Ostrogoths that destroyed the various bits of the Roman Empire.

So...........we will have to allow Monsters some level of organisation, but I still feel that if orcs run around in huge tribes then they will present a totally overwhelming threat to any PoL (even with the PCs around)

So the answer is probably that we have to change our expectations about the ecology of monsters; that most big powerful monsters are solitary (or command lesser creatures) and that most monsterous humanoids only live in groups based around the extended family; if there are any larger groupings then a PoL simply couldn't compete.

So monsters live in a PoD (point of darkness) that is smaller than what we all thought of before in 3E and other games. They can join together to produce huge hoards at certain times (strong leaders etc) but such groupings would have to be transient or they would face the same problems as the PoL in feedling the warriors (or are we to suppose that orcs also farm now)? Sorry, that is too far from me.

 

[Derren]

Definitely not enough to stop greedy mercenaries from taking their chances with the next caravan. Remember, the higher the danger, the higher the pay.

Or the risk is too high and no merchant would do it unless it is absolutley neccessary for survival. And ifthat is the case there iis a good chance that sooner or later those villages in the area will die instead of surviving or even prosper.

No, it doesn't. Relatively small forces like these were moved in the real middle ages with ease during the 100YW and the Baltic Crusades (where there was virtually no civilisation--just forest). You get your supplies from the places that you visit and, if necessary, by grazing the horses when they are not travelling (though this won't often be necessary--villages will be more than happy to rpovide oats). If the men have to go a few days without food, then that's fine--starvation was a regular part of real medieval warfare. And again, the pay makes it all worthwhile.

Except that the crusaders didn't have to travel through monster filled woods where letting the horses graze on a field is not a good idea. Also unlike armies, caravans walk the same way several times a year which means that it will become harder to hunt and gather for food after a while. Not to mention that the wilderness is filled with unpleasant things which, unlike real world animals, will kill humans on sight and are strong enough to do so easily.

All you need to replace losses are experienced fighters. This does not require a huge economy; in fact, a PoL world will probably produce more experienced fighters than a civilised world.

Experienced fighters, their equipment, the lost wagons, the lost horses and other animals and the lost goods.
If you wouldn't always leave out the major parts I could take your arguments more seriously, but so they seem very shallow to me.

Number of guards needed to guard a caravan: about 50-200, depending on the area.

Number of guards needed to pacify a region, and then fortify and garrison it so new monsters don't come in to replace the old ones: based on Roman campaigns, I'd guess about 30,000-500,000 depending on the size of the area.

Take the average pay of a soldier and multiply it by the appropriate numbers, and you'll see my point.

Okay, then don't pacify the area and instead just slay the dragon. That reduces the expected monster level and fewer guards are needed. Repeat that with the next monster and after a few years you have de facto pacified the area.

You've clearly made up your mind on this and will not be convinced by rhyme or reason,

As I said above, if you "reason" wouldn't be so shallow (like ignoring most things and assuming that the merchants have unlimited supply of full time warriors, equipment and animals) I could take them more seriously.

Derren; I think you misunderstand, I meant that monsterous humanoids are not "smart" in the sense of sophisticated. Early man had exactly the same intelligence us we do but because he lacked education and the ability to pass on knowledge, as written records, he could not smelt metal or build things etc.

Later, we were able to create knowledge and smelt metals as we became increasingly sophisticated. So monsters might be intelligent enough to do this eventually, but because their socieities (at least in all the default D&D settings I have ever player in) are too savage and non coperative at present they stand no chance of doing so. Human socities that followed this model are ALSO unable to produce any degree of sophistication. MOnsters have have NO written records that anyone has ever postulated and so are not civilised (I am talking about orcs, goblins or other humanoids NOT dragons etc.) Or are you suggesting that Orcs go to school now?

I am suggesting that orcs and other races have the same abilities as humans (modified by their actual ability scores of course) and don't behave dumb just to make the setting work. I know that you sadly have to turn a blind eye too some things to get the traditional mediveal settings most people want but when I have the choice between enemies which behave logically, even on a larger scale than a single encounter, and a PoL setting I take the logical monsters.

I think you are also looking at economics in terms of our world. Survival economics are not the same. If you have NO salt, then you starve because you can't store meat unless you smoke it or find some other way of preserving it. Hence the VALUE of this commodity is very high. The same is true of animal fodder otherwise you have to slaughter all your animals in winter. Survival makes people do what is required. They do so not for profit but because NOT to do so is fatal. If you know your town, your family, perhaps even your race will die unless you have trade, then you will have trade.

Running on survival economy also means that you don't have many resources to waste and as I pointed out above, huge convoys don't work in such cases when the enemies are intelligent (or mindless). See the sub warfare in WW2. Thats basically the same situation here. Big, heavily defended convoys and powerful, lone hunters. And the loss rate of convoy ships reached about 40% at the high of the sub warfare. That loss rate is simply not sustainable by anything other than a huge economy.

Anyway, as I say, if monsters were as organised as You suggest, no PoL would survive and the world would be barren of human and other PC races and instead populated by hobgoblins. If you find such a world satisfying then build it. I don't like it and I am discussing building a world that is close to WoTCs default.

Then use a different setting than PoL.

 

[Transit]

I think it might help this thread if I reposted the original Points of Light article by Rich Baker for reference.

Link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070829a&authentic=true

The Dungeons & Dragons game assumes many things about its setting: The world is populated by a variety of intelligent races, strange monsters lurk on other planes, ancient empires have left ruins across the face of the world, and so on. But one of the new key conceits about the D&D world is simply this: Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world.

Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between, and the world isn’t carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands. Anything could be waiting down that old overgrown dwarf-built road: a den of ogre marauders, a forgotten tower where a lamia awaits careless travelers, a troll’s cave, a lonely human village under the sway of a demonic cult, or a black wood where shadows and ghosts thirst for the blood of the living.

Given the perilous nature of the world around the small islands of civilization, many adventures revolve around venturing into the wild lands. For example:

Roads are often closed by bandits, marauders such as goblins or gnolls, or hungry monsters such as griffons or dragons. The simple mission of driving off whomever or whatever is preying on unfortunate travelers is how many young heroes begin their careers.

Since towns and villages do not stay in close contact, it’s easy for all sorts of evils to befall a settlement without anyone noticing for a long time. A village might be terrorized by a pack of werewolves or enslaved by an evil wizard, and no one else would know until adventurers stumbled into the situation.

Many small settlements and strongholds are founded, flourish for a time, and then fall into darkness. The wild lands are filled with forgotten towers, abandoned towns, haunted castles, and ruined temples. Even people living only a few miles away from such places might know them only by rumor and legend.

The common folk of the world look upon the wild lands with dread. Few people are widely traveled—even the most ambitious merchant is careful to stick to better-known roads. The lands between towns or homesteads are wide and empty. It might be safe enough within a day’s ride of a city or an hour’s walk of a village, but go beyond that and you are taking your life into your hands. People are scared of what might be waiting in the old forest or beyond the barren hills at the far end of the valley, because whatever is out there is most likely hungry and hostile. Striking off into untraveled lands is something only heroes and adventurers do.

Another implication of this basic conceit of the world is that there is very little in the way of authority to deal with raiders and marauders, outbreaks of demon worship, rampaging monsters, deadly hauntings, or similar local problems. Settlements afflicted by troubles can only hope for a band of heroes to arrive and set things right. If there is a kingdom beyond the town’s walls, it’s still largely covered by unexplored forest and desolate hills where evil folk gather. The king’s soldiers might do a passable job of keeping the lands within a few miles of his castle free of monsters and bandits, but most of the realm’s outlying towns and villages are on their own.

In such a world, adventurers are aberrant. Commoners view them as brave at best, and insane at worst. But such a world is rife with the possibility for adventure, and no true hero will ever lack for a villain to vanquish or a quest to pursue.

 

[Ydars]

Derren; I don't think your setting is any more or less PoL than mine. You seem to think the world is heaving with intelligent monsterous humanoids. I am saying that a PoL simply couldn't exist for any time if this were the case. I think we will have to agree to differ.

 

[Derren]

Derren; I don't think your setting is any more or less PoL than mine. You seem to think the world is heaving with intelligent monsterous humanoids. I am saying that a PoL simply couldn't exist for any time if this were the case. I think we will have to agree to differ.

Actually I think you are correct. The PoL setting can't really exist when it is full of monsters which can kill humans easily and can only be stopped by heroes. The problem is that this seems to be the default in 4E. Thats why from a simulationist point of view PoL, especially as described in the post Transit quoted, doesn't make any sense.

The whole PoL setting looks more like a movie series from the 80 to me where every town exists in stasis till the main characters arrive. Then they spend one one episode with solving all the towns problems and ride into the dusk and go to the next town, while the last one freezes again and is never mentioned again (think of a cross between A-Team and Lucky Luke/other Wild West setting).
Its nice for people who want their adventures to resemble a movie or action series, I guess you can see that this setup doesn't have much to do with believability and simulation.