Thinking Too Hard About Fantasy

[gizmo33]

I see no reason not to have a couple of answers to the question:
1. temples to the god of agriculture where create food and water is used to create sacred bread that is handed out to the masses during a weekly ritual.
2. a super high-calorie food plant that can be grown easily in the surrounding area (perhaps transplated from an outer plane)
3. the city maintains one or more colonies that make regular shipments of foodstuffs - AFAIK a million-person city on the Italian penninsula (Rome) is just as unreasonable as a much smaller city in a wilderness without these accomodations.

Granted, I would draw the line at someone arguing the biological feasibility of option #2, and I would arrange to political reality of the world to accomodate #3.

At least with these solutions you can get back to working on the parts of the city that interest you, and at the same time you might have added an element or two to the city that is interesting. I agree with the spirit of the OP though, I wouldn't try too hard to make everything super-realistic (and I'm not an expert enough in all sciences to do that anyway).

 

[The Shaman]

With a degree in geography and years of working as a conservation ecologist, it's quite hard for me to step back and simply handwave a lot of the mechanics of how the world functions - it's second nature for me to think in terms of ecological relationships when developing, or reading, a fantasy or science fiction setting. As a result my homebrew settings tend to be pretty consistent in this regard.

However, to avoid mundanity and provide for fantastic areas that "don't make sense," I usually imbue the natural world of my fantasy settings with a wide variety of nature spirits and provide for the direct influence of the gods on the landscape and ecology of the game-world, such that exceptions to most any rule or principle can be introduced when and where I want them.

 

[Umbran]

So, thoughts, anyone?

There's a basic difference between fantasy literature and fantasy rpgs - in literature, the author gets to determine what questions get asked before ever presenting the work to the audience. That gives the author a great deal of thematic control, and allows them to ignore questions not relevant to the story they're trying to tell. The GM does not have that freedom. Players are damnable critters, and will ask uncomfortable questions

Let's say you'e got that city. Normally, you'd be tempted to gloss over the question of what people eat. But say there's warring factions in the city - it would only be natural to go after the enemy's food supply. But what is that supply?

In an RPG, the DM doesn't necessarily have to have answers to the questions ready, but he has to be able to come up with them when asked. And if the setting is too implausible, contradictions will arise in answering those questions.

 

[Galethorn]

AFAIK a million-person city on the Italian penninsula (Rome) is just as unreasonable as a much smaller city in a wilderness without these accomodations.

A million people need no more than about 2 million acres to feed them, with early medieval farming; that's only about a 55x55 mile patch of land, which, looking at a map of Italy, I can reasonably say Rome had at its disposal. That said, that 2 million acres is going to mean maybe as many as 500,000 more people working the land, but that just means about a 65x65 mile patch of land.

My point? It doesn't take a lot of farm land (in terms of 'map space') to feed a city. For example, a city of 25,000 only needs about a 9x9 mile square, assuming fairly bad soil.

Back to the point of the thread, I have to say I think that believability is very important for my enjoyment of a serious setting. Complete and total impossibility is par for the course for light-hearted adventures, like the Sky Pirates setting I sporadically run games for when my group gets tired of seriousness. Sky Pirates is a setting with flying ships with cannons that can fire lightning, ice, and fire shells from their cannons, underwater civilizations of squid-men (think Mind Flayers but with tentacles instead of legs, more burly, and less overtly capital-E Evil), and even flying cities that float along the trade winds and bombard each other with their 'shore defenses' whenever they get near each other. The whole reason the setting is fun is because it's absurd.

But can Sky Pirates ever be a 'serious' setting for me? I have to say no; the humorous absurdity is almost a replacement for the gritty 'realism' I enjoy in more serious settings.

Now, I say 'realism', but what I really mean is 'the state of not feeling contrived.' Having cities in the middle of the wilderness with no explanation for their presence feels contrived. Having any great number of spell-casters in the average town, yet, people dying from injuries and diseases that PCs shrug off by the hour feels contrived. A powerful wizard being able to summon several sorts of giant hands that beat people up, yet completely unable to cure poison or disease 'because only priest can do that' feels really contrived. Every group of adventurers above a certain level flying everywhere because it's faster than walking feels painfully contrived.

So, dragons, and spellcasters, and magic swords? Don't bother me a bit, because they fit together; they compliment each other, and fit within the loose 'conceptional framework' of Arthurian legends, viking sagas, etc., where there are indeed sorcerers of various sorts, and magic swords out the wazoo, and dragons too, but you don't see people flying from place to place, or a 'friendly local potion shop' or an unambiguous division between divine magic and 'lay' magic.

 

[gizmo33]

A million people need no more than about 2 million acres to feed them, with early medieval farming; that's only about a 55x55 mile patch of land, which, looking at a map of Italy, I can reasonably say Rome had at its disposal. That said, that 2 million acres is going to mean maybe as many as 500,000 more people working the land, but that just means about a 65x65 mile patch of land.

Yea, assuming robots are doing the farming and that the entire 65x65 plot is arable. But if you settle the area with farmers to work that 65 mile square of land, you'll probably eat 90% of your produce before it gets sent to the city. And there's a certain amount of spoilage as well. A million-person city is an extraordinary undertaking in terms of logistics and IMO finding a 65x65 plot of land on the map doesn't scratch the surface of the issues.

I agree with what you're saying though about some amount of believability of a fantasy world. But it seems fairly easy to accomplish in a fantasy setting with magic and non-earth species of plants and animals.

 

[Montague68]

The amount of fun to be had in a particular game world is inversely proportional to the amount of real world knowledge you bring into it.

Quit being a muggle.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think the major issue with fantasy not being based in some form of reality, is that it makes it more difficult for players. Unless you give the players an excellent rundown of what is and what isn't and the whys and hows, the players will have no frame of reference upon which to base their perceptions. That could be fine to start until the players start wanting to do things the DM doesn't like.

And a note on the Scarred Lands and Shelzar: I could be wrong, but my interpretation of their being a trading hub was that trade with other continents, such as Termana, was what made them such a big center, not just trade around Ghelspad.

 

[gizmo33]

Quit being a muggle.

But I am a muggle!

I think Umbran makes a good point though - a game is different than a novel in some important ways. PCs might wind up blockading the wilderness city - and then they're going to be interested in these types of details. Of course the answers to questions in a fantasy world do not have to be based on real-world knowledge.

I get a little grouchy when people are too picky about reality - "but that's not an appropriate habitat for a dragon!" Smacks of rules lawyering at an even greater level - as if the player's not satisfied with just min-maxing their own character, but has to criticize the DM for breaking some "rules" in his campaign design.

 

[jasin]

Now, I say 'realism', but what I really mean is 'the state of not feeling contrived.' Having cities in the middle of the wilderness with no explanation for their presence feels contrived. Having any great number of spell-casters in the average town, yet, people dying from injuries and diseases that PCs shrug off by the hour feels contrived. A powerful wizard being able to summon several sorts of giant hands that beat people up, yet completely unable to cure poison or disease 'because only priest can do that' feels really contrived. Every group of adventurers above a certain level flying everywhere because it's faster than walking feels painfully contrived.

This is interesting. See, I'd say that some of your examples of contrived bother you because you're "thinking too hard", and some of them bother you because you don't like "thinking too hard".

For example, everyone flying all the time is (could well be; not one single thing necessarily is) a symptom of "thinking too hard". It's a reasonable consequence of cheap and available flying magic, but it's compromising the concept of the world (since Vikings, Arthur and all that other stuff that goes to make up the nebulous "generic D&D" don't just fly around all the time) in favour of making room for "reasonable consequences".

What I'm complaining about, I guess, is the fact that not enough (for my (current) tastes) people are willing to say "people don't fly around; I know they technically could, but this is a Viking campaign, so they just don't" without necessarily making up rationalizations for it.

 

[JohnSnow]

Now, I say 'realism', but what I really mean is 'the state of not feeling contrived.' Having cities in the middle of the wilderness with no explanation for their presence feels contrived. Having any great number of spell-casters in the average town, yet, people dying from injuries and diseases that PCs shrug off by the hour feels contrived. A powerful wizard being able to summon several sorts of giant hands that beat people up, yet completely unable to cure poison or disease 'because only priest can do that' feels really contrived. Every group of adventurers above a certain level flying everywhere because it's faster than walking feels painfully contrived.

So, dragons, and spellcasters, and magic swords? Don't bother me a bit, because they fit together; they compliment each other, and fit within the loose 'conceptional framework' of Arthurian legends, viking sagas, etc., where there are indeed sorcerers of various sorts, and magic swords out the wazoo, and dragons too, but you don't see people flying from place to place, or a 'friendly local potion shop' or an unambiguous division between divine magic and 'lay' magic.

I just had to give you great big kudos for this one but I couldn't find an applause-o-smilie.

I agree completely. The arcane/divine thing is one of my big pet peeves from D&D. And, more to the point, by making healing come from the same spellcasters who are the source of all the things that go "bump in the night," you take care of one big glaring hole in D&D. And that is, by the rules as written, people would trust clerics who can be immensely helpful, clearing wounds and disease, controlling weather and the like, but probably decide wizards were much better if they were crispy-fried.

Why would anyone ever trust wizards with their power? Personally, of all the things I'm ever expected to disbelieve, human nature is the hardest thing for me to accept changes in. So, my gut instinct is that most people would react to wizards and spellcasters about the way they react to: a) Mutants in X-Men comics, or b) accused witches in Earth's past. That is, control them or kill them in various creative ways before they get dangerous. And what can a low-level wizard do against an angry mob bent on burning him at the stake? Damn little.

Of course, there's going to be a little of the Wheel of Time mentality on Aes Sedai if wizards can be helpful. Basically, the public doesn't trust them, uses them as a last resort, but will grudgingly suffer their aid once in a while. Magic is not something to be trifled with. So, going back to one form of magic can make for a world where magic is feared, reviled, and avoided, but might be used in a pinch.

D&D always ducks this attitude by saying "well, anyone can learn it, so nobody would be afraid, right?"

Right. That fits with human nature. Which is why old women and men with nothing more than herbalism and a little learning were hung, drowned, or burned at the stake in the real world. People distrust power and those who know things they don't or can do things they can't. To me, human nature is what prevents an Eberron-style magic renaissance. It's a fantasy golden age that would probably NEVER come to pass. Which is why in most campaigns, that world belongs in some mythical, long-past, age of legends. Because it's a complete fantasy - even in a world with magic.

Unless of course, everyone's mind-controlled by some uber-deity...but that would be a much darker campaign.

Oh, one last comment on the whole "flying" thing. I like to make flying difficult and teleportation nearly impossible because I like characters tromping through the wilderness. Of course, certain creatures can fly, and might have been harnessed as flying mounts...

But flying carpets, cars, platforms, brooms, garbage cans and everything else in creation? Not so much.