I know this is a topic that has been discussed before but, as I'm currently re-vamping my campaign, the subject has reared its ugly head again; namely, the sharp difference between national population numbers given in the CY576 GH setting books and the CY591 LGG. Curiously, while the national figures are much higher the towns and cities haven't changed as much.
So, was this done to indicate genuine population growth (unlikely IMO given the short time difference), or was it done to re-set something that the later writers felt was wrong? My personal preference would be for something closer to the earlier figures.
I've no doubt that there are folks out there in CF world that have an interest and knowledge of real world population figures and growth in the periods of history traditionally associated with RPG fantasy and, if so, I crave your opinions, because it's not an area of expertise for me.
As the primary person responsible for the new population numbers, I can offer you some insight into our thinking in the LGG.
As a preface, however, I will note that a significant number of fans think they are still too small (in the LGG), by making comparisons with medieval Europe (for many reasons, I don't think the comparison is apt). So there is a wide range of thought on this topic. Don't be surprised to take fire from all sides.
Basically, we assumed the populations in the old 83 guide only included adult male (so called "normal") citizens. The guide was focused more on military and economic matters and the Savant-Sage was only counting such men. The 83 guide explicitly says various non-incorporate groups are excluded, so that in any case the numbers had to be higher.
The LGG is providing the total human populations and therefore the two numbers are apples to oranges and not directly comparable, but consistent in their own way.
That said, some of the numbers we chose for the LGG were changed editorially after our submission (most especially the non-human breakdowns) so I can't say I agree with the final published LGG in every case, at least for my own campaign.
Does that help?
Now as to what's preferable for your own campaign, let us know your thinking...
The population numbers in the earlier gazeteers were very small and a bit vague but they do make a points of light campaign a lot easier because with populations that small, pretty much all the 'civilised' humans will congregate close to the large towns, water sources, and trade routes with a few 'frontier towns'. It makes the wilderness that much wilder, even in some of the more settled realms.
What I did was look at pre and post LGG populations and adjusted the earlier ones upwards by a lesser amount. I can't recall exactly how I did it, but I think it involved either looking at 50% or 66% of the LG population figures, which usually amounted to slightly higher figures than the earlier versions except in a few war torn nations.
The way I see it, 'non-civilised' humanoids can make up the remaining population defecit when compared to medieval Europe. It makes the world more fun!
As a preface, however, I will note that a significant number of fans think they are still too small (in the LGG), by making comparisons with medieval Europe (for many reasons, I don't think the comparison is apt). So there is a wide range of thought on this topic. Don't be surprised to take fire from all sides.
I actually like the lower numbers, because it gave the campaign room to breathe and kept at bay some of the excesses that later befell the "official" GH; namely, massive wars and upheavel. My campaign always worked best when changes and development were subtle. I totally agree that comparison with real world populations are, at best, unhelpful; a friend of mine directed me to a couple of websites that had population figures for the period of the Roman Empire and they are.....different, to say the least.
Quote:
Basically, we assumed the populations in the old 83 guide only included adult male (so called "normal") citizens. The guide was focused more on military and economic matters and the Savant-Sage was only counting such men. The 83 guide explicitly says various non-incorporate groups are excluded, so that in any case the numbers had to be higher.
I hadn't realised the line in the 83 guide was there; but I do now. Still, given that Keoland had a "population" of 300,00 (excluding dependencies) in the 83 guide and 1,800,000 in LGG, is that still quite a leap? Not a criticism of the work in the LGG just purely a debating point.
Quote:
The LGG is providing the total human populations and therefore the two numbers are apples to oranges and not directly comparable, but consistent in their own way.
That said, some of the numbers we chose for the LGG were changed editorially after our submission (most especially the non-human breakdowns) so I can't say I agree with the final published LGG in every case, at least for my own campaign.
You have my sympathy here.
Quote:
Does that help?
Very much so.
Quote:
Now as to what's preferable for your own campaign, let us know your thinking...
Well, I'll still need a tone down in numbers because I need to re-set some of the changes that occured during the GH wars period; it's a long standing wish of both my players and me to return the Scarlet Brotherhood to the mystery men of yore as opposed to the overt (and rather obvious cardboard baddies) SB we currently have. Hordes of savages in their employ present me with problems here, so they could do with being a little less.....er, hordelike?
Last edited by Ragr on Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:29 am; edited 1 time in total
The population numbers in the earlier gazeteers were very small and a bit vague but they do make a points of light campaign a lot easier because with populations that small, pretty much all the 'civilised' humans will congregate close to the large towns, water sources, and trade routes with a few 'frontier towns'. It makes the wilderness that much wilder, even in some of the more settled realms.
What I did was look at pre and post LGG populations and adjusted the earlier ones upwards by a lesser amount. I can't recall exactly how I did it, but I think it involved either looking at 50% or 66% of the LG population figures, which usually amounted to slightly higher figures than the earlier versions except in a few war torn nations.
The way I see it, 'non-civilised' humanoids can make up the remaining population defecit when compared to medieval Europe. It makes the world more fun!
I think we're singing from the same hymnsheet here, Paul. Although I've opted not to change to 4e I think the points of light concept actually suits my game and I was also thinking of just coming up with a figure that suits; and splitting the difference is very simple. Has deviating from the LGG figures adversely affected your game in any way?
One thing to consider is that you cannot really go wrong. Even under the revised populations, the place is very sparsely populated. As least with human/demi-human populations.
If you want to see how accurate this is, try and plot one hex, with the apprporiate populations. You will see that people either congregate very closely, or live very far apart. There just arent that many people around versus the land area.
My pcs are only dimly aware of the wider population issues. I've tried to map at out as many 'official' locations from the Living Greyhawk mods and there is quite a lot of information tucked away, including throw-away lines mentioning local villages and such.
More of an issue is the fact that I've made the non-humans less integrated. The thing I liked least about LG was the way traditionally xenophobic races like wood elves were sometimes shown living in harmony with humans and dwarves - for example Hommlet suddenly seemed to have quite a lot of wood elves resident and I wasn't sure that I liked it. Racism was always an issue in 1e and I quite liked that a dwarf player would receive a cold reception when encountering a wood elf settlement. I know it's pure Lord of the Rings but I'm old fashioned.
Now that gnomes are more fey-like, I'm having doubts that they should be squatting in too many cities either - I'll let Verbobonc keep its gnomes though and Highfolk city can keep its integrated elves and gnomes (although I'd expect most of them to be High elves).
I think I will just end up tweaking the racial mix and make more settlements more insular.
Now that gnomes are more fey-like, I'm having doubts that they should be squatting in too many cities either - I'll let Verbobonc keep its gnomes though and Highfolk city can keep its integrated elves and gnomes (although I'd expect most of them to be High elves).
I think I will just end up tweaking the racial mix and make more settlements more insular.
That tactic works well for the Kron Hills settlements, and fits with later development that has them growing insular, however, one thing to remember is that Greyhawk never had the "tinkering technological gnome" problem (in my experience anyway - but that could be all Anced Math's fault for coloring my perceptions But then I never got the arguement that Points of Light wouldn't work in GH ). They were always a magical race, very closely in tune with the elements and nature (or at least aspects of it), and vaguely fey like. So there isn't the real impetus to change thme to fit. Really the 4E version of the gnome is going back the original concept of the gnome, as opposed to the DragonLance or Forgotten Realms versions. So I wouldn't go through some massive change in game unless you've been playign them all wrong (in your current opinion) for some time, and need a change.
Also, one other thing I might point out is that just because they are a fey race doesn't mean they wouldn't live in cities. Their parts of the city might be a bit weirder, and definately have more in common with moving through a semi underground city than through a normal city (the sun peaks through the canopies, but only when the lighting is dramatic or helpful to inhabitants, and with the colors of the signs, buildings, and canopies you get the impression you are moving through tunnels lined with semi precious stones and gorgeous veins of rock, with growing plants everywhere, and a general fey quality to the air. Humans could get the same effect - but they don't ever really think to try. And humans can live quite happily in those same neighborhoods, as long as they can stand being near that many gnomes, and the pranks they will pull.
Hey, I am not sure about the whole Gnome/Fey transition, that must be 4ed. Anyway, i wont be going that route.
One of the simple fixes for this as discussed on last nights grey chat is that the "nations,' of the Flaness are often not natiions as we envision them. They often claim much broader areas of land than they actually control.
I will take Gran March as an example. It "claims," the Rushmoors, though I doubt the lizardfolk worry too much about it. GM claims a large portion of the Dim Forest, but I doubt the Elves worry too much about that either.
IMC, GM claims the large plains north of Hookhill, stretching nearly to Bissell. However, large herds of centaurs roam the area under their own leadership and laws. There is a soft agreement between the Commandant and the various herd leaders that they will not take up arms against the March and for mutual defense, but other than that they are an independant entity.
The only time one of the kings worrys about their "dominion," is when taxes are do or someone invades. This is not true in evey case: Keoland is IMO one noteable exception.
It's great to get all this feedback, thanks guys. I think I'm going to go with an amalgam of the '83 figures and the LGG, although I'll probably skew it a little towards the LGG numbers. I think Anced_Math's right that the population is sparse even using the LGG figures but I think I want it just a little sparser. Your arguments have certainly made me adjust my thinking, however, AM.
I also agree that later versions of both the game and world made relationships between the races a little too "cosy"; a little racial and national tension always added an edge to encounters and the overall verisimilitude. I'm presuming this was all toned down deliberately to fit in with the political correctness of our times.
Again, the writers have my sympathy.
I love the image conjured up by having some races turning their enclaves into "Little Feytown" and so on. A really evocative image that I'm certainly going to, er........borrow.
Things weren't all that cosy for the Flan nations: Geoff overrun by giants, Tenh wiped out by Iuz and then that LG 'ghost' plot, Rovers of Barrens hunted almost to extinction... It was starting to feel like the writers had it in for the poor old Flan. I guess the Oerid/Flan nations didn't fare too badly though (Perrenland & the Pale) nad Geoff was probably the most racially mixed of all the nations even if its culture was predominently Flan.
Maybe with the rise of Barrack Obama we'll see an Oerid/Flan becoming the next ruler of the Great Kingdom. Bring on the Flan love I say!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
But then I never got the arguement that Points of Light wouldn't work in GH ). They were always a magical race, very closely in tune with the elements and nature (or at least aspects of it), and vaguely fey like. So there isn't the real impetus to change thme to fit. Really the 4E version of the gnome is going back the original concept of the gnome, as opposed to the DragonLance or Forgotten Realms versions. So I wouldn't go through some massive change in game unless you've been playign them all wrong (in your current opinion) for some time, and need a change.
