Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Beyond The Flanaess Populations
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Beyond The Flanaess Populations
    Author Message
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:29 pm  
    Beyond The Flanaess Populations

    As you may or may not know....
    I am spearheading several gazetteers for the "beyond the flanaess" project. I have some ideas as too realistic population figures but thought I would open it up for discussion.

    No doubt; you all have opinions, which I am eager to hear, and perhaps some have even crunched the numbers. I am using the LGG as a population template; Flanaess population estimated @ 30 million.

    Just a thought...
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:11 am  

    As an initial response, should such a population estimate include subterranean/underdark populations?
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:37 am  

    No, nor undersea and the wild humanoid tribes. I am just trying to find some sort of broad concensus. So when released the community is comfortable with the areas beyond the flanaess.

    Just throw out some numbers and discuss...
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:12 pm  

    Sorry about taking so long to get back to you but life interceded.

    Here is how I have gone about determining populations.

    1. Estimates of historic human populations for all of Earth (from online sources)

    1,000 BC 50,000,000
    500 BC 100,000,000
    1 AD 300,000,000 to 170,000,000
    500 AD 206,000,000 to 190,000,000
    1000 AD 310,000,000 to 254,000,000
    1500 AD 540,000,000 to 425,000,000

    2. Using estimates of human populations, derive estimated population densities (Earth land area equals 57,490,840 square miles)

    1,000 BC .87 humans per square mile
    500 BC 1.7 humans per square mile
    1 AD 3 - 5 humans per square mile
    500 AD 3.3 - 3.5 humans per square mile
    1000 AD 4 - 5 humans per square mile
    1500 AD 7 - 9 humans per square mile

    3. Choose a population density (I chose 9 per square mile). Instead of humans per square mile, this then becomes "Societal Creature Equivalents" per square mile. Now I have to explain what I mean by "Societal Creatures." I don't intend for this number to express the total population of all "creatures" as that would include chipmunks, mammoths, purple worms, etc. Because I used historical human populations as a guideline, I am only addressing those creatures that have the capacity for a society more complex than a herd, pack or flock. They may not necessarily create a society, but they have the mental capacity (INT greater than 3 in 3rd ed. terms) to do so, as well as some physical capacity (if not thumbs, then some other means including magic, of manipulating their environment). Even an awakened porpoise would not be necessarily included, as it cannot readily manipulate its surroundings.

    I chose 9 per square mile rather arbitrarily because I felt the presence of magic would have an effect on longevity and survival rates.

    4. Using the population density, figure the population. Note that a 30 mile hex (from side to side, not corner to corner), has an area of 779.4 square miles. (The Darlene Map scale is 30 miles from side to side, not corner to corner, right?) I apply my population density evenly regardless of terrain. Why not decrease it for desert or wasteland? Because there are non-real fantasy creatures for whom such locations are their preferred environment.

    5. Break out the population by HD (1st or 2nd ed.) or CR (3rd ed.). For each population I generally consider half of the population to be a CR 1/2. The CR 1 creatures are then a 1/4 of the population, and each CR beyond that is 1/2 the previous amount until the progression stops with 1 creature. This idea of half a population advancing to the next highest level (or creatures of a higher CR being half as prevalent as those below it) comes from Players Option High Level Campaign book for 2nd ed. I like the idea that someone either has or hasn't gotten to the next level (50/50 chance) - at any given time. Especially when level losses, deaths, raising from dead, etc., can really screw up normal notions of progression.

    Example: In a village of 650 individuals (the median village in the 3.5 DMG) where 50% reach the next highest level:

    CR 1/2 325
    CR 1 163
    CR 2 80
    CR 3 40
    CR 4 20
    CR 5 10
    CR 6 5
    CR 7 3
    CR 8 2
    CR 9 1
    CR 10 -

    Note: NPCs with PC classes (fighter wizard etc), are considered in 3.5 ed. to have the elite ability score array, and so are only 10% of the population, and that should be true at each CR level. So if this was just a village of humans, 90% of the individuals in each CR level have the standard array and have an NPC Class (warrior, aristocrat, adept, commoner, expert). So I don't think it is too over the top. 90% of the time that 9th level member will be a commoner, expert, etc.

    For some particular populations I break it out on a more progressive manner where 2 out of every 3 in a population have advanced to a higher level. This reflects a population that advances over a greater portion of its members lifetimes. I use it for dragons, elves, dwarves, etc., to reflect their long life span, and help explain why they don't get overrun by the masses of orcs, goblins, etc., that are subject to the 50% advancement.

    In a village of 650 individuals where 66% advance to the next level:

    CR 1/2 216
    CR 1 144
    CR 2 96
    CR 3 63
    CR 4 41
    CR 5 27
    CR 6 18
    CR 7 12
    CR 8 8
    CR 9 5
    CR 10 3
    CR 11 2
    CR 12 1
    CR 13 1
    CR 14 1
    CR 15 -

    (Note that there are so many 1's because I have been rounding up all fractions above .5 to a whole number then using that whole number to determine the 66% advancement.)

    So in the 66% advancement village its possible the most powerful character is casting a limited wish. I'm willing to accept this in elf, dwarf, dragon, etc., populations that are notoriously low in number anyways in the published Greyhawk sources.

    6. Assign percentages to the desired races. Of your population, now broken down by CR, assign the races you desire. High CR creatures will include intelligent monsters with no levels (mind flayers) as well as creatures with numerous character levels. It will depend on what percentages you wish represented in the area.

    Campaign consequences: The population numbers for the Flannaess, as published are very low for humans, demi-humans, and humanoids, given the land area. With my chosen population density of 9 creatures per square mile, this means that the vast majority of societal creatures have not been counted. It can mean that the nations of the Flanaess really only hold their villages, and their surrounding farms, and nothing else. Some discussion was made about 4th edition "Points of light" notions for their campaign world. I suggest that Greyhawk always was such a place, where human and allied races were always surrounded by vast tracks of monsters, ruins, and tribes of creatures.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:13 pm  

    A-Baneful-Backfire wrote:

    Campaign consequences: The population numbers for the Flannaess, as published are very low for humans, demi-humans, and humanoids, given the land area. With my chosen population density of 9 creatures per square mile, this means that the vast majority of societal creatures have not been counted. It can mean that the nations of the Flanaess really only hold their villages, and their surrounding farms, and nothing else. Some discussion was made about 4th edition "Points of light" notions for their campaign world. I suggest that Greyhawk always was such a place, where human and allied races were always surrounded by vast tracks of monsters, ruins, and tribes of creatures.


    That is some excellent mathematical reasoning on the subject, A-Baneful-Backfire! Thanks for sharing your skills with us. Happy

    As to the above quote: I'd like to point out that you didn't make any mention of humnanoids like orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, etc. Since they are competing with humans and demi-humans for resources within those same square miles, it seems reasonable that the human and demi-human population totals would not be equal to those of real-life earth in 1500 AD despite our assumption that it is of a similar cultural and technological time period.

    SirXaris
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:36 pm  

    A-Baneful-Backfire wrote:


    3. Choose a population density (I chose 9 per square mile). Instead of humans per square mile, this then becomes "Societal Creature Equivalents" per square mile. Now I have to explain what I mean by "Societal Creatures." I don't intend for this number to express the total population of all "creatures" as that would include chipmunks, mammoths, purple worms, etc. Because I used historical human populations as a guideline, I am only addressing those creatures that have the capacity for a society more complex than a herd, pack or flock. They may not necessarily create a society, but they have the mental capacity (INT greater than 3 in 3rd ed. terms) to do so, as well as some physical capacity (if not thumbs, then some other means including magic, of manipulating their environment). Even an awakened porpoise would not be necessarily included, as it cannot readily manipulate its surroundings.


    I include all the "humanoids" as they were labeled - the orcs, goblins, etc., - with this overall population density and resulting population for an area. I consider them to have something of a society - tribal - but still more than an animal herd. In fleshing out a regions population - I've taken the entire population as I computed, subtracted the numbers of creatures indicated in the Gazetteer, and assigned the remaining population to other creatures, keeping in mind the races that are supposedly dominant in a particular nation.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:27 am  

    A-Baneful-Backfire wrote:

    2. Using estimates of human populations, derive estimated population densities (Earth land area equals 57,490,840 square miles)

    1,000 BC .87 humans per square mile
    500 BC 1.7 humans per square mile
    1 AD 3 - 5 humans per square mile
    500 AD 3.3 - 3.5 humans per square mile
    1000 AD 4 - 5 humans per square mile
    1500 AD 7 - 9 humans per square mile


    Any average for the entire land area of the Earth is going to include places like inhospitable deserts, Antarctica, high mountain ranges, and so on, and so this density is going to look much, much lower than it was in more hospitable places like, say, France. The Flanaess also contains high mountains, deserts, and so on, but this average should be much higher in places like the Sheldomar River plains. An average for all the lands of Earth isn't going to be of much use in populating any given hex.

    Quote:
    Why not decrease it for desert or wasteland? Because there are non-real fantasy creatures for whom such locations are their preferred environment.


    Well, yes... but their population densities are still going to be much lower than the population densities in fertile areas, because resources are going to be lower. Thri-kreen may prefer arid regions, but that doesn't mean there are as many thri-kreen in the Dry Steppes as there are in the Sea of Dust, and there are going to be more humans in the County of Urnst than there are thri-kreen in either place. Not just because the County is more fertile, but because humans practice agriculture, and will thus be able to sustain a larger population than the hunting and scavenging thri-kreen.

    If the population of Earth was equally dense in the Gobi Desert as it is in Italy, population density across the planet would look much, much higher. It's not, so applying Earth's average to every part of the Flanaess makes the average population much, much lower than it is on Earth in fertile areas and higher than it is on Earth in less fertile areas. While I can imagine norkers might be better at surviving in the Bright Desert than humans would be (maybe they sweat less, and eat rocks), that still doesn't explain why things are so low elsewhere.

    Even in a fantasy world, I think some truisms apply. Agricultural societies will have denser populations than non-agricultural societies. Herbivores and omnivores will have denser populations than carnivores. Places with lush vegetation can support higher populations than places with less vegetation. War-torn areas will have less population than comparatively peaceful areas.

    Quote:
    Some discussion was made about 4th edition "Points of light" notions for their campaign world. I suggest that Greyhawk always was such a place, where human and allied races were always surrounded by vast tracks of monsters, ruins, and tribes of creatures.


    I agree with this. To some extent, we just have to accept that Oerth's populations in general will be much less dense than Earth's populations. I question whether a comparison with Earth is useful at all. If the monsters of Oerth can really survive Oerth's wastelands in numbers comparable to human populations along fertile river systems, Oerth's population should be much denser on average than Earth's. If the population is lower even in the most fertile areas, why are we bothering with direct Earth comparisons at all?
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:30 am  

    rasgon,

    Actually, I tend to disagree. In a fantasy environment where there are creatures that favor living in or immediately next to pools of lava, I think it completely appropriate for a uniform population density.

    Antarctica. It is a land mass that throughout history has had no permanent human settlement. Real world population density 0. Yet, there are complete game resources (Frostburn, etc.), and particular Greyhawk references to populations that would survive, and in fact have their entire society located in such a climate and terrain (a certain Glacial Rift comes to mind).

    A uniform population density solves more problems than it creates. Why wouldn't there be a significant population of dwarves up in the mountains (an agriculturally deficient form of terrain)? Where do the snow goblins have their warrens? Perhaps its because they enjoy the lichen and willows available when they can't kill an animal or steal from reindeer herders. I'm just not getting why you think what are wastelands to humans would be wastelands to other species. For a long time in the real world, humanity thought that nothing could live where there was no available source of sunlight - that all ecosystems had the sun as their ultimate source of energy. Then we found the tube worms in the oceanic depths with the energy of their ecosystem derived from volcanic vents. In a fantasy environment it should be illogical to suggest that life can't thrive in a particular environment.

    Additionally, a uniform population density addresses significant statistical differences between creatures and explains why none are necessarily dying out or going extinct from the pressure of others. This addresses your concern regarding degree of technology or social advancement. Orcs - primitive in technology and agriculture practices. Yet, they are genuinely super-human in physical strength. How would you account for that statistical difference in terms of their survival and population? Sure they don't grow as much food as humans, but perhaps they bring in far more through raiding and looting to make up for the difference.

    By essentially saying that all creatures are equal (at least for their particular terrain and challenge rating) it is easier to address changes that the players impose by their actions. If the players wipe out a tribe of orcs, then you know just about what will replace them. The replacements will survive using different techniques than the orcs, but will still have the same typical chances.

    You did mention an artificial form of terrain such as the Sea of Dust - the result of a unique magical event. In this case there may be a need to depart from a uniform population density. But that is the exception that illustrates the rule for a uniform population density. There is a particular and special reason why it is not like the rest of Oerik or Oerth, and it is that history that makes it unique. But as with all fantasy environments, the basic features need to be familiar and make sense, in their own fantastical way.

    Well thats my two cents anyways.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:58 am  

    Another little bit of information for those who are trying to populate the Oerth.

    The U.S. Census once defined the "frontier" as those areas with a population density of 2 persons per square mile or less.

    Just a tid bit to help you decide how many critters to stuff onto the Oerth.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm  

    A-Baneful-Backfire wrote:
    Antarctica. It is a land mass that throughout history has had no permanent human settlement. Real world population density 0.


    Well, exactly. But you're trying to compare Oerth's average population density to Earth's average population density. If you're assuming Telchuria has a huge population of frost men and snow goblins, Oerth is going to have a much higher average population density than Earth. Any Earth comparison is going to be meaningless unless you're comparing like to like.

    Quote:
    Why wouldn't there be a significant population of dwarves up in the mountains (an agriculturally deficient form of terrain)?


    We know there are large numbers of dwarves in the mountains, but what do they eat? Presumably they trade with farmers in the lowlands, so their total population plus the population of human/halfling/gnome/dwarf farmers isn't going to be a lot more than the lowland farms can support. They might supplement their food source with subterranean farms/rothe/giant beetles/fungi, in which case they're not going to be such a drain on the lowland farms, but there's still no reason to think there's going to be as many dwarves in the Lortmil peaks as there are humans near fertile rivers.

    Quote:
    I'm just not getting why you think what are wastelands to humans would be wastelands to other species.


    What do you think snow goblins eat? If they can eat snow, that's well and good, but lichen and reindeer are simply less plentiful in an arctic climate than wheat and oats and cows are in a fertile temperate climate. Wastelands are going to be wastelands for everyone who competes for the same sorts of food, and most D&D monsters eat the same things humans eat - which is to say, meat or plants. Plants are a more efficient source of food than meat, so they can support a higher population. It's more efficient to farm herbivores than carnivores, so a species can establish a higher population density by feeding on cows than it could by feeding on orcs. Faster-breeding forms of life are more efficient to farm than slower-breeding forms of life, so cows make better food animals than humans do. If an animal is capable of being domesticated, it's more efficient than trying to farm something like a bear or a troll. Any kind of farming is more efficient than hunting and gathering. Bread is a more efficient food source than grass. Cooked food is a more efficient food source than raw food. A species that understands cooking will be more plentiful than one that doesn't. A race that farms will be more plentiful than one that doesn't.

    I'm not getting why you think that the fact that arctic and desert creatures exist in D&D means they have to have the same population densities as creatures in temperate/fertile climes.

    Quote:
    In a fantasy environment it should be illogical to suggest that life can't thrive in a particular environment.


    Sure, for a given value of "life" and "thrive." What forms of life? Creatures like goblins, orcs, dragons, chimerae, humans, and halflings all have known diets. Creatures like orcs and dragons, who are generally seen as pure carnivores, are going to be much thinner on the ground than omnivores. Something like an elemental may not need anything recognizable as "food," and their population density may be much higher. And the definition of "thrive" may be different in the Underdark or Telchuria than it is in the County of Ulek.

    Here is a medieval demographics table that looks like this:

    Barren, desolate - ten people per square kilometer
    Rocky, chilly - fifteen people per square kilometer
    Cool, dry, swampy - twenty people per square kilometer
    Hilly, temperate - thirty people per square kilometer
    Abundant arable land - forty people per square kilometer
    Fertile, war, idyllic - forty-five people per square kilometer.

    If ten snow goblins can scrape a living in a Telchurian square kilometer, that might be "thriving" for them. But it's unlikely to look like a thriving population on the island of Fairwind.

    If a given species looks like it can survive on rock or air or whatever, that's one thing. If it eats meat or bread, its population is more likely to look like an equivalent human population in a given environment.

    Quote:
    Orcs - primitive in technology and agriculture practices. Yet, they are genuinely super-human in physical strength. How would you account for that statistical difference in terms of their survival and population?


    Apex predators just don't have large populations, Baneful. They just can't, or by your reasoning the population of dragons would be thicker than the orc population. If orcs eat meat, they need a stable population of food animals to feed on. They're going to have to protect those animals from other rivals: humans, wolves, bears, chimerae, hobgoblins, dragons. I would assume they keep herds of animals and supplement their food supplies from raiding, but they're not going to have any denser population than any human group with an equivalent lifestyle in the real world. Compared to settled farmers, their population density is going to be tiny. Being strong might help them compete against other primitive nomads, but it's not going to make up for them being primitive, carnivorous nomads.

    The strength advantage orcs have over humans in some editions of the game is basically irrelevant; it's not about how strong they are, but how much food they have. They can't use their strength to will food out of nowhere. And their lifestyle isn't going to supply them with that much food. They may be able to physically take food from weaker races (goblins, poorly equipped humans), but the total population density in a region orcs control is still going to be less than what it would be in a region controlled by a group of agricultural herbivores. If they rely on humans to make food for them and just take it, then they have to sustain a stable population of humans, larger than their own population, to ensure they continue to have a consistent supply. They're essentially farming humans, in other words, and like any farmers their population of food animals has to be greater than they are. But if there are a lot more humans than orcs, the humans can gang up and kill the orcs. If they kill most of the humans in the area, they have to find someone else to start farming for them, or they're going to start starving.

    Plus, if an orc is stronger than a human, an orc will need more calories than a human, and there's going to be fewer orcs even when you don't account for their less efficient diet and lifestyle. Additional strength is going to result in less population density, not more.

    Quote:
    By essentially saying that all creatures are equal (at least for their particular terrain and challenge rating) it is easier to address changes that the players impose by their actions.


    Easier, I guess, but it doesn't make much sense.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:56 pm  

    rasgon,

    I don't seem to have the hang of using multiple quotes. I hope I address all your questions.

    Let me start by recalling what "population" I am addressing. I specifically referred to, and defined, Societal Creatures. In game terms creatures with an intelligence of 3 - beyond that of animals. So they have a shared language and are also then capable of a society. Additionally, I will note I described them as those creatures whose society is more advanced than a herd, flock or pack. So more advanced than mere predator/prey, consumer/producer interactions. I am not attempting to determine the gross amount of all creatures. That is not what I suggest. I am addressing how to infer the population of those creatures that have a society. Because they have a society, they actually have a capacity to transform their environment (ie. agriculture, animal husbandry, aquaculture, etc.), altering the carrying capacity of an environment to their own favor on a local level.

    Comparing Like to Like. I utilized real world population densities because the genre of the game has depicted some aspects - particularly humans and their society - in a particular way. I extend this beyond humans to all other societal creatures, as I have so described, because the depiction in the game is very often similar to that of humans. As real world humans are like to Greyhawk humans, so Greyhawk humans are like to other Greyhawk societal creatures because that is how these other creatures have been described (especially once you put in place a progression for challenge rating or HD).

    Environment. You address the difference in environment and how it should effect population, as well as the effects of agriculture. Are you so sure that frost giants are not efficient in their own agricultural efforts? They live in the land of the midnight sun, and experience a short but intense growing season. Are their herds of mammoths any less productive than a human shepherd's flock? When frost giants cast a net into the arctic sea, their net is a lot bigger. And the arctic seas are actually a lot more bountiful than most plus of all those seals and walruses. Also, the strong can cultivate far more acres of fields than the weak. And so the snow goblins sneak about stealing from the giants, yeti and other arctic races, just like their warmer kin, when unable to catch some beast or scrounge some carcass. Humans might not be thriving in the polar regions, but that doesn't mean other creatures don't.

    The orc example. I think I mentioned how the strong can plow and cultivate more acreage than the weak. There is a rather impressive real world example from the Dark Ages, involving the horse collar. Starting in the 900's AD, draft horses with the horse collar started replacing the oxen and yoke. Production went up, surpluses appeared, and a mercantile class began appearing in Europe. Thank goodness our ancestors traded in the draft horses for the even stronger tractor.

    In my example I was attempting to show that similar CR creatures, in their preferred habitat, should be computed equally. I still hold that position. An orc may be stronger than a human, but they are dumber and the calorie requirements of the brain are far more than that of muscle. "Brain tissue consumes a large amount of energy in proportion to its volume, so large brains place severe metabolic demands on animals." "Although the brain accounts for less than 2% of a person's weight, it consumes 20% of the body's energy." Good thing those stupid orcs don't have to worry about having such big brains since the energy obviously got redirected into their arms. While an orc's technique as a farmer would suck compared to a human, he would certainly make up for it in the number of acres planted. (Or in the number of acres he forces others, including female or young orcs, to plant). Again, even with a sub-human level of intelligence, orcs are beyond mere hunting or gathering when it comes to their average intelligence.

    Despite the differences between races of the same CR(3rd ed.) or HD(1st and 2nd ed), the game does treat them as having the same potential in many ways. Most importantly they are the same in the fundamental currency of the game, which is experience points. It is easier to say how they should be treated the same rather than treated differently in their own preferred environment.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:53 pm  

    A-Baneful-Backfire wrote:
    Let me start by recalling what "population" I am addressing. I specifically referred to, and defined, Societal Creatures. In game terms creatures with an intelligence of 3 - beyond that of animals.


    The purpose of my question was to point out that not all life on Oerth - not even all intelligent life - is the same, and it can't all be grouped together as neatly as that. An elemental or dryad might be able to survive in large numbers without the sort of infrastructure a human needs, since they don't have the same sort of dietary concerns. An orc or a snow goblin or a frost giant, however, has the same basic needs that a human has, and the same sort of things you have to think about with human cultures are important in their societies. So when you said it was illogical to suggest that life can't thrive in some environments, I asked, "What sort of life?" Saying "intelligent life" isn't enough, nor is it enough to specify that they all have "advanced" social structures.

    Quote:
    I utilized real world population densities


    Excuse me, but you did not. You used an average population density of the entire planet, which is pretty much a meaningless number, since it includes wastelands where no humans can survive in any numbers (like the Sahara Desert and Antarctica). Then you compared it to a version of Oerth in which sentient life can not only survive but flourish in similar areas. That's not comparing like to like. That's comparing a meaningless number that has nothing to do with real-world population density to a version of Oerth that would, by your own reasoning, be denser than that.

    If you're assuming that Oerth's wastelands are more inhabitable (by some species) than Earth's, then Oerth's average population density will be more than Earth's, more like the average density of a fertile part of Earth (since, according to you, every part of Oerth except perhaps anomalies like the Sea of Dust are equally inhabitable). So in this case, comparing "like to like" would involve comparing the population of the Bright Desert to, say, France, rather than some meaningless average of the Earth in general.

    If you don't assume that every hex on the Flanaess map is equally populated, then fertile hexes should be compared to fertile areas of Earth and less fertile hexes should be compared to less fertile areas of Earth. Like to like.

    Quote:
    Are you so sure that frost giants are not efficient in their own agricultural efforts? They live in the land of the midnight sun, and experience a short but intense growing season. Are their herds of mammoths any less productive than a human shepherd's flock? When frost giants cast a net into the arctic sea, their net is a lot bigger. And the arctic seas are actually a lot more bountiful than most plus of all those seals and walruses. Also, the strong can cultivate far more acres of fields than the weak.


    First of all, most canonical frost giants (for example, in the GDQ series) live in the mountains (the Crystalmist Mountains and the Corusk Mountains are named places where frost giants thrive), not near the sea, so any speculation about their food sources has to take that into account. What could they grow in the mountains that would support large numbers of creatures who, according to the 3rd edition Monster Manual, weigh an average of 2,800 pounds (they're smaller in 1st edition, but still obviously big creatures)? According to this calorie counter (a grain of salt is needed because it obviously wasn't built for giants), each frost giant would need 24,477 calories every day to avoid eventually starving to death. I think that's equivalent to 22 pounds of ground beef. I suspect the real number would be much larger than that, since as I said a moment ago the calorie counter I used probably wasn't meant for calculating the calorie requirements of creatures weighing over a ton.

    Mammoths don't work well as domesticated food animals because if they're anything like elephants they take a very long time to reach maturity (13 years). Since the frost giants have to slaughter enough of them every day for every citizen to eat around 22 pounds of meat daily, faster-breeding species are better. They're also very aggressive compared to cattle, and even a 15-foot-tall giant would be better served with comparatively placid cattle than trying to deal with an enraged mammoth (who were at least 16 feet tall at the shoulder and weighed 6 to 12 tons, making them much bigger and stronger than an individual frost giant). It would be better for giants to simply keep larger herds of cattle than deal with mammoths.

    Frost giants are only around three times as tall as a human, but they're around twenty times as massive (not because they're fat, but because body mass is inversely proportional to the square of body height even in fit people). I'm pretty sure dietary needs from increased size would increase at a correspondingly faster rate than whatever increased agricultural efficiency you'd get from giant-sized plows. Plus, frost giants tend to live in areas like the high mountains and, probably, the extreme arctic where growing crops just isn't going to be an option. The Inuit are almost purely carnivorous. If you're going to assume that every single hex on the planet is equally populated, then frost giants in areas where no one's growing crops should be as densely populated as frost giants in regions with "short but intense growing seasons," right? And then you're stuck with the fact that carnivorous diets aren't as efficient as plant-based ones, and can't support the same density of populations.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were frost giant communities in Telchuria or somewhere (not in the mountains, obviously) that get most of their food from hunting for fish and marine mammals. However, their nets are not going to be big enough compared to humans to get them correspondingly enough food because of that pesky inverse square law - their mass grows geometrically greater while their height only grows linearly, so their reach and ability to manipulate large nets isn't going to make up for the geometrically greater amount of food that they'll need. Thus, their communities will be smaller than equivalent human communities.

    I recommend Jared M. Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel for insights on why we keep the domesticated animals we do, why certain areas have more population and more technologically advanced cultures than others, and more.

    Quote:
    And so the snow goblins sneak about stealing from the giants, yeti and other arctic races, just like their warmer kin, when unable to catch some beast or scrounge some carcass.


    Sure, and goblins have the advantage of requiring less food, proportionately, than bigger creatures. But the problem is that in arctic regions the communities they have available to steal from are going to be much smaller (for the reasons stated above - there's simply less food available and greater strength and size isn't going to make up for the greater need for food that larger creatures have), which means the size of scavenger communities is also going to have to be smaller.

    Quote:
    The orc example. I think I mentioned how the strong can plow and cultivate more acreage than the weak.


    If your orcs are busy plowing fields, then they're very different from my orcs, or from the orcs commonly presented in game materials. Orcs are normally presented as purely carnivorous creatures who survive by raiding, pillaging, and mining. If they have farms, they're farmed by slaves of other races, and the plants only go to feed their slaves and any other herd animals that they eat.

    What's more, orcs may be stronger than humans, but they're not as strong as oxen. They'd still be better off having oxen pull their plows, in which case they're only going to be as efficient as humans with oxen are. If they're pulling their plows themselves, humans with oxen are going to outcompete them.

    But sure, if you have orcish farmers farming crops just like human peasants, than they can have the population density more like that of humans. But they're still going to be more common in areas where crops grow readily than in areas where crops don't grow readily.

    Quote:
    An orc may be stronger than a human, but they are dumber and the calorie requirements of the brain are far more than that of muscle.


    Well... that's one possible interpretation of an orc. I don't see them as having smaller brains than humans have (intelligence is thought to be linked more closely with the wrinkles on a brain rather than pure size, and orcs in 1st and 2nd edition were about as smart as humans are anyway). But sure, it's valid enough to assume that orcs have smaller brains, if you really want them to have smaller brains. Illustrations of orcs vary, but sometimes they're shown as if they have skulls similar to Homo habilis or other primitive hominids, who did have smaller brains and, thus, smaller calorie requirements. Some anthropologists believe that it was the invention of cooking that gave hominids a more efficient source of calories and, thus, room for their brains to grow. Alternately, though, they may be more like neanderthals, who had larger brains than modern humans.

    Quote:
    Again, even with a sub-human level of intelligence, orcs are beyond mere hunting or gathering when it comes to their average intelligence.


    Hunting and gathering isn't a function of intelligence; it's a function of culture. Hunter-gather societies among humans on Earth have brains the same size and complexity as agricultural societies. If orcs don't have farms, it's not because orcs are stupid; it's because that's what orcs do. The Rovers of the Barrens don't have farms, and it's not because they're dumber than orcs. I would assume orcs in the north, at the very least, would have societies more like that of the Wolf and Tiger Nomads and the Rovers of the Barrens than like the settled peoples to the south. And those areas are more thinly populated than the south, by humans and nonhumans alike.

    Quote:
    Despite the differences between races of the same CR(3rd ed.) or HD(1st and 2nd ed), the game does treat them as having the same potential in many ways.


    Sure, but that potential's going to be constrained by their habitat, size, weight, diet, and other factors, just like the potential of humans is (despite the fact that base humans have the same CR or hit dice everywhere in the world).

    Quote:
    Most importantly they are the same in the fundamental currency of the game, which is experience points.


    What does that have to do with their population density?

    Quote:
    It is easier to say how they should be treated the same rather than treated differently in their own preferred environment.


    Easier, perhaps, but nonsensical. Humans in different environments have different population densities. So will orcs, giants, goblins, and other species. If the Barrens are as densely populated as the Yeomanry, then why are they called the Barrens?
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:54 am  

    rasgon,

    I'll start at the end.

    Quote:
    If the Barrens are as densely populated as the Yeomanry, then why are they called the Barrens?


    The Barrens are definitely the Barrens to humans. Empty of other humans, and from which no routine news is heard. But they need not be a Barren land to others.

    Lets take a piece of real world Earth. In the early 19th century it was called the "Great American Desert." To people of that time it was useless. Fifty or so years latter it was the "Great Plains" and the subject of the land rush. To the latter people it was valuable. These distinct groups of people were separated by time and had different capabilities. The capabilities of one group made all the difference in the utility of the identical terrain.

    Quote:
    What does that have to do with their population density?


    Different races in the game come with different capabilities. Yet they are balanced in terms of Challenge Rating (CR) or HD (for 1st or 2nd ed). Admittedly, we can all think of examples were the balance isn't so great. But despite these differences in capabilities, creatures of the same CR are considered to be of equal value in terms of overcoming their efforts to survive.

    Quote:
    Humans in different environments have different population densities. So will orcs, giants, goblins, and other species.


    In my initial post I did indicate that the total population should be assigned to the races desired. If you choose to follow the favored terrain or environment entries in the manuals, then you would follow those guidelines. You would put the bullywugs in the swamp, the orcs in the hills, the elves in the forest, etc. If the region is all swamp, then native swamp races would dominate - isolated pockets of others could certainly exist.

    But - and here is where we differ - I would put an equal number of bullywugs in an area of swamp, as elves in the same area of forest, and as snow goblins in the same area of tundra. This is because I deem the capability for survival, of a creature in its preferred environment, to be the same as other creatures in their preferred environment.

    Quote:
    You used an average population density of the entire planet, which is pretty much a meaningless number, since it includes wastelands where no humans can survive in any numbers (like the Sahara Desert and Antarctica).


    I used the average population density of the planet's entire land surface. If this then is improper, what is the correct sample size? What are the proper divisions? And why? And won't every sample size of land lack uniformity? Will all sampled land be uniformly settled? Will that sample of medieval English countryside not be marred by stretches of river bank, bog and bottom land? Will that sterile expanse of desert not be violated by the occasional oasis?

    Variation of populations due to the particular terrain or environment is taken into account because all terrains and environments were included when using the entire land surface of Earth. By including all land surface the result includes those locations where a creature will thrive as well as those where they will waste away.

    If there is a flaw in deriving a population density using the whole of Earth land surface, it would be because the Oerth land surface would be significantly different. Yet, much of Oerth seems plausible and convincing even with the exceptional terrains and climates that are unique to it and to its fantasy genre. But with cold regions at the poles, tropical regions near to the equator, etc., so much of it is all very real-worldish.

    This exercise of producing populations only serves to assist us in representing a convincing backdrop to the players. It is more convincing to me (and to my players now that I brought it up to them - but they are a questionable bunch) that a population of creatures is just as likely to populate its favored terrain, as other creatures populate their favored terrains, regardless of how the creatures manage it.

    Exceptions exist to this general population backdrop - but those exceptions are often what drives an adventure. What caused a whole woodland to be infested with dryads? Why are there vast hordes of owlbears in that swamp? Why is there nothing alive in the Sea of Dust. The normal populations role as a backdrop is to make those exceptions stand out.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:55 am  

    Wealth of information been flung around in this thread ....

    But hell you guys are making my head hurt Razz
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:53 am  

    A-Baneful-Backfire wrote:
    The Barrens are definitely the Barrens to humans. Empty of other humans, and from which no routine news is heard. But they need not be a Barren land to others.


    What are you picturing here? If you're imagining the Barrens are filled with productive nonhuman farms, towns, and cities (to the same extent, say, the Great Kingdom is filled with human farms and settlements), then they're not going to be "the Barrens" to any observer. Whether or not the settlements are human in origin, the land is clearly not "barren."

    If the land is a vast, desolate northern plain, then it can't be inhabited densely by anyone, human or not.

    So yes, if they're called the Barrens, they need to be a land that actually looks barren, regardless of which species are predominant. Unless it's populated with invisible stalkers, I suppose.

    For that matter, what kinds of creatures do you imagine are so well adapted to land that Carl Sargent (in Iuz the Evil, referring to the Barren Wastes region) described as "almost totally barren, blasted rock, with but a few mosses, lichens and patches of scrub birch hanging on to a precarious existence" that they're able to maintain populations in it equivalent to that of humans in southern Nyrond? Orcs? Gnolls? Trolls? Yeti? Adherers? Flumphs? What makes them so much better at surviving here than humans? Are they farming this land? Are they eating the rock? Why are you so against accepting that some parts of Oerth are more suitable to dense habitation than others ?

    Quote:
    Lets take a piece of real world Earth. In the early 19th century it was called the "Great American Desert." To people of that time it was useless. Fifty or so years latter it was the "Great Plains" and the subject of the land rush. To the latter people it was valuable. These distinct groups of people were separated by time and had different capabilities.


    So... what exactly are you arguing here, beyond vague generalizations and platitudes? That there are monsters on Oerth who have developed advanced agricultural techniques similar to what Americans developed in the Great Plains, and humans haven't noticed or been smart/magically adept enough to imitate them? Which monsters would those be? If that's not what you're arguing, then that's a pretty terrible analogy.

    You've decided on this improbable, arbitrary standard (the same population in every terrain type), but even you haven't been able to muster any specific arguments about how that would work in practice. Which monsters have figured out how to turn the Barrens into the breadbasket of the Flanaess? Why are humans so different that they can't do the same thing?

    Yes, better farming techniques can help make land that's seemingly useless by 19th century standards more arable. But unless you can show how that analogy is applicable to this situation, it isn't really an analogy.

    Quote:
    Different races in the game come with different capabilities. Yet they are balanced in terms of Challenge Rating (CR) or HD (for 1st or 2nd ed). Admittedly, we can all think of examples were the balance isn't so great. But despite these differences in capabilities, creatures of the same CR are considered to be of equal value in terms of overcoming their efforts to survive.


    No. CR measures something very specific: it measures what level a party of four average characters (I think WotC used Regdar, Jozan, Mialee, and Lidda in their playtests) need to be for a given monster to expend about 20% of their resources.

    That leaves a lot of things that CR doesn't measure: birth rate, diet, habitat, society, place in the food chain. It doesn't measure their ability to survive anything but four adventurers of their encounter level armed with weapons and magic (to be more accurate, it measures their ability to not survive four adventurers of their encounter level). It's not some abstract value that's intended to be any guide to how well a monster is going to deal with a drought, plague, overpopulation, or unusually cold winter - there's no reason to apply game statistics to those things unless gamers are playing droughts or cold winters and rolling dice to defeat monster populations with inclement weather or natural disasters. Since gamers generally don't play weather or natural disasters, instead CR measures how well monsters do against swords, spells, backstabbing rogues, and the like.

    Experience points in earlier editions of the game simply measure a monster's hit dice plus a bonus for each special ability that can be used in melee (the Master DM's Book in the old D&D Master Set specifically warned DMs not to count abilities that are "characteristic of basic survival skills"). Hit dice in 1st and 2nd edition, of course, are just the number of dice you roll to determine how long a monster is going to last in battle. Hit points are an abstract measure of combat endurance, representing a character's ability to dodge, parry, roll with the punches, fight while injured and bleeding, and remain standing while wounded. Hit points don't measure a monster's ability to outbreed their rivals, their ability to grow crops in barren rock, or any ability to will food animals into existence where the environment wouldn't allow them to survive in sufficient numbers. Thus, hit dice don't measure those things either.

    There are many ways for a creature to be well-adapted to their environment, and having a high population density isn't always a sign they've done so. Depending on the creature, it can be a terrible idea.

    Look at it this way. Wolves are pretty good predators, well-adapted to their niche, wouldn't you agree? But if there are too many wolves compared to the number of food animals, that's a sign that something is wrong. So instead, herd animals tend to exist in large numbers (because plants are a more efficient food source, allowing for herbivores to exist in larger numbers), while wolves have evolved to live in smaller packs, which are well-suited to a sustainable life. If they existed in vast armies or if they were significantly more deadly predators, they'd soon wipe out their prey and starve to death, and that's hardly a good example of a creature well-adapted to its place in the world.

    Here's an example of an animal that was horribly adapted to the niche it was in: humans with rifles, slaughtering all of the bison on the Great Plains. If they had been relying on those bison to survive, they would've starved. Disaster!

    I'd keep that sort of thing in mind when looking at D&D monsters. Gnolls may be more effective predators than wolves with their greater intelligence and tool use, but you can't say they're so effective that they're able to sustain a population as dense as a human agricultural society. That's exactly what gnolls don't want! They need to maintain a ratio of predator to prey sufficient for them to be able to survive season after season, and that means they have to have comparatively small social groups compared to the creatures they hunt. Being well-adapted to their ecological niche would mean a relatively thin population distribution. If there are other rival predators in the area (bears, trolls, ogres, hobgoblins, humans, dragons), then their numbers have to be even thinner.

    Or look at dragons. Nobody can doubt they're effective predators; they can fly, breathe destruction on their foes, and their scales are tough enough to fend off swords and axes. They're among the greatest predators in the world, if not the very greatest. And they're huge, so they need a lot of food. If dragons lived together in the same density as humans, it'd spell doom not only for the rest of the ecosystem, but for the dragons themselves. No matter how tough dragons are, they still need a reliable source of food to survive. So they live mostly solitary lives, spaced hundreds of miles from one another, and they kill (and, likely, eat) any rival predators in their vicinity so that there are enough animals for them to live off of.

    That sort of reasoning works for every monster. Generally speaking, the tougher and stronger something is, the fewer you'll see living in the same place and the smaller their social groups will be. Ogres need a lot of food compared to orcs, so a given area is only going to be able to support a few ogres for every orc it could support. If ogres want to exist in greater numbers, they have to drive off some of the orcs, goblins, and humans in the area to make more room for them. Trolls are terrifying foes and virtually indestructible, so if they haven't outcompeted most other creatures around them there needs to be a reason for that: a low birthrate, a short lifespan, or a very specific nutrient source that exists only in certain areas. Maybe they're all sterile, and the same group of trolls has been regenerating since their race's creation thousands of years ago, with them only slowly dwindling as other races figure out how to use fire and acid against them.

    So bullywugs are well-adapted to swamps. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Does being well-adapted to swamps mean having a similar population density to human farmers and city-dwellers? Probably not, in most cases; bullywugs are normally presented as hunter-gatherers, so their best path to survival would involve having a thinner population density. Bullywugs are, however, likely better adapted to swamps than human swamp-dwelling hunter-gathering groups, so they'll probably be more populous than those sorts of humans in their native environment. But if the swamps haven't been drained, cleared, and turned to arable land, they're not going to have the same population as settled human lands. Not even among bullywugs. That doesn't make bullywugs inferior to humans, and it doesn't mean their CR or XP total is inaccurate: CR and XP remain a fairly accurate way to determine their ability to challenge parties of adventurers. But bullywugs don't have the sort of society that lives densely and they're not supposed to.

    A dense population isn't the goal of evolution. Ants are creatures who live in huge numbers, far more densely packed than humans. Ants are the most populous animal on dry land; the total number of ants in the world may represent up to a quarter of all terrestrial biomass. Dogs live less densely. That doesn't mean that ants should be given more hit dice than dogs, or have a higher CR than dogs. It just means that ants have adapted in such a way that they can live in really huge groups, and dogs haven't.

    It's exactly the same with, for example, humans and gnolls. Humans tend to live in larger groups than gnolls, but that doesn't mean they should have higher CRs or hit dice totals than gnolls have. It just means that a successful strategy for humans isn't necessarily a successful strategy for gnolls, because gnolls live different lifestyles.

    Quote:
    I used the average population density of the planet's entire land surface. If this then is improper, what is the correct sample size?


    As I said, that's a meaningless number. If you insist that every environment on Oerth is as densely populated with sapients as a fertile river valley, then a good sample would be the population density of a fertile, subtropical river valley in preindustrial times (say, for example, Egypt, which has always been very densely populated). Then apply that density to every hex on the map (to start with - see below for notes on the effects of monsters and hostile rivals).

    If you believe, as I do, that some areas are better suited for large populations (even of well-adapted native creatures) than others, then it's a better idea to look at the population levels in given terrain types on Earth and compare them to similar terrain types on Oerth. For example, compare a temperate agriculturally-active land like France to a temperate agriculturally active land like Nyrond, and compare an arid region like Arabia to an arid region like the Bright Desert. I agree that creatures adapted to a specific terrain type will probably be able to live more efficiently than humans would in their own terrain, but it doesn't follow that they'll live in numbers as large as creatures do in regions where more food is available.

    Of course, there are many other things that can affect population density in a region. The fact that Oerth is full of horrible monsters that can eat peasants who venture too far from the lands under their lord's protection may naturally limit population size. Greyhawk is presented officially as (as you said) a "points of light" type world with a very small population, much smaller than that of Europe at an equivalent time period. With that in mind, Earth comparisons in general may have to be substantially reduced.

    I do think you're on the right track with your instinct that general population densities should be divided between humans and nonhuman sapients of all appropriate kinds. If multiple races are competing for the same resources, there may be something of a zero-sum gain where greater numbers of goblins come at the expense of fewer humans and vice versa. This may not be at a one-to-one level if the goblins live a less (or more) efficient lifestyle than humans do.

    I'd also add that if the races are at peace (for example, humans and halflings in the County of Ulek) it may be appropriate to simply split the expected population density between them, while if the two races are hostile to each other (for example, humans and orcs in the Vesve Forest), the total population will be substantially less than you'd otherwise expect. If you think there should be nine sentient creatures per square mile in the Vesve, but the races are elves, gnomes, humans, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, and so on, then the fact that these races are actively killing each other means the total population is going to be substantially less than nine per square mile.

    Quote:
    What are the proper divisions? And why?


    It's pretty simple, I think. An ecosystem starts with plants at the bottom, which can grow in larger numbers in areas with more sunlight, more water, and better soil. Next you have herbivores - no matter how tough they are, how strong they are, or what CR they have, their numbers are going to be limited by the number of plants available. Then there are carnivores and raiders/slavers who prey on herbivores. Their numbers have to be smaller still, no matter how tough they are, how strong they are, how many hit dice they have or how many XP you get from killing them, because they're limited by the number of herbivores available.

    More fertile areas, places with more plants, are going to be able to support more herbivores, which will be able to support more carnivores. Less fertile areas, like deserts, steppes, tundras, taigas, and so on, will have less herbivores, and thus less carnivores.

    If a creature (say, a norker or thri-kreen) is better adapted to the desert than a human, it'll be able to survive in the desert in larger numbers than humans will. It'll still live in smaller numbers than creatures in fertile areas, because less plants mean less population. Being well-adapted to a given ecological niche doesn't mean living in large numbers. Often, the opposite is true.

    So a more proper division would be to look at what the population average for that particular terrain type and climate is and compare it to a similar one on Oerth.

    Quote:
    And won't every sample size of land lack uniformity? Will all sampled land be uniformly settled? Will that sample of medieval English countryside not be marred by stretches of river bank, bog and bottom land? Will that sterile expanse of desert not be violated by the occasional oasis?


    Why would you expect or want the population of every scrap of land on Oerth to be uniform, anyway? But like I said, just take an average for that terrain type, not the entire planet.

    Quote:
    Variation of populations due to the particular terrain or environment is taken into account because all terrains and environments were included when using the entire land surface of Earth. By including all land surface the result includes those locations where a creature will thrive as well as those where they will waste away.


    And the end result is an average that looks like nothing on Earth and has nothing to do with any actual populations, and comparing it to a world where you believe none of the limitations of Earth apply. You'd get the same quality of result by picking numbers at random.

    It might make sense to use Earth's planetary average if you believed that, like Earth, Oerth also had locations where creatures thrive as well as locations where they waste away. But you don't believe that - you've said you believe they thrive everywhere. So why compare it to this artificial average? Why not compare Oerth to some specific, extremely fertile part of Earth?

    Of course, if you believed that Oerth was like Earth in that some places were more hospitable than others, you might start with a planetary average but you'd have a system of bonuses and penalties to that average depending on the climate, terrain, and local culture. Places without arable land, or places where the natives don't cultivate the land, would have penalties to the average. Places that were unusually fertile, where efficient forms of agriculture are practiced, would have bonuses to the average. Places with lots of monsters and hostile humanoids would have penalties. Races that are particularly well-adapted to a given terrain might have bonuses - but not bonuses so great that it doesn't matter that they have substantially fewer resources to live off of. Farmers get a bonus, while nomads get a penalty. Herbivores get a bonus and carnivores get a penalty. If a race is so intensely magical that it doesn't need to eat anything recognizable as food, then just pick whatever population you want to give them, since obviously it's not appropriate to compare them to anything on Earth.

    Quote:
    If there is a flaw in deriving a population density using the whole of Earth land surface, it would be because the Oerth land surface would be significantly different.


    Or maybe the flaw that you've argued repeatedly, ad nauseum, that Oerth's lifeforms are significantly different?
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:56 pm  

    Quote:
    Or maybe the flaw that you've argued repeatedly, ad nauseum, that Oerth's lifeforms are significantly different?


    Yes, just about all Oerth's life forms that play a major role in the game are significantly different from real creatures. Dragons that enjoy eating gems, elves making some sort of funny waybread though they live in an uncultivated forest, and dwarves who seem to not have any food production of their own populate the fantasy genre, including Greyhawk. Yep, they're different all right.

    My premise, and it is only a premise, is that the best way to compare such varying creatures of D&D is through their respective CR or HD (1st and 2nd ed). There could be no other way, as they are so different. And the goal is to produce a background that is somehow convincing, where one particular race does not have a profound set of advantages over another, especially in population. To produce a convincing population background I referred to historical human populations. I include using a progression or progressions to determine how there are fewer creatures of high CR than there are in relation to those of low CR. (Adapted from the 2nd edition Player's Option source)

    Quote:
    What are you picturing here? If you're imagining the Barrens are filled with productive nonhuman farms, towns, and cities (to the same extent, say, the Great Kingdom is filled with human farms and settlements), then they're not going to be "the Barrens" to any observer. Whether or not the settlements are human in origin, the land is clearly not "barren."


    If its the willows that are surviving, stunted by the winds that the sweep the Barrens, then maybe it is willow-looking treants, equally bent over by the wind, that are left to thrive without others with whom to compete. Indeed the Barrens sounds perfect for them. Stone and minerals in abundance, being weathered by the sun, wind, and precipitation. Perfect for the willow cultivating varieties of the treants. The question between terrain/environment types isn't by how many creatures do they vary, its by what type of creatures do they vary. (taking CR into account).

    This was the point of my "Great American Desert" versus "Great Plains" example. The same land had a different degree of fertility to different types of humans (early 19th century humans v. late 19th century humans). In that example varying degrees of technology made the difference. The creatures of Greyhawk are different not necessary in technology (though that can be one difference) but in more basic ways as set forth in their creature description and ability scores. The exact same land is not similarly fertile to different races.

    Quote:
    It might make sense to use Earth's planetary average if you believed that, like Earth, Oerth also had locations where creatures thrive as well as locations where they waste away. But you don't believe that - you've said you believe they thrive everywhere. So why compare it to this artificial average? Why not compare Oerth to some specific, extremely fertile part of Earth?


    It is more accurate of me to say that all environments should generate the same amount of creatures (adjusted for CR) - though not the same type of creatures.

    The whole world land surface average takes into account lands that are favorable as well as unfavorable for all surface dwelling races. Which species you fill up an area with depends on what you as DM think is appropriate: Follow the manuals, and you will be filing the forests with elves and ettercaps, the hills with orcs and dwarves, and the swamps with bullywugs and lizardmen. Choose alternatives to the manuals if you have a reason and want to deviate.

    I happily admit that the number I did chose was almost an arbitrary pick from a selection of pre-modern populations.

    Quote:
    Why would you expect or want the population of every scrap of land on Oerth to be uniform, anyway?


    Wait, thats my argument against you singling out uniform terrain types for separate treatment, my sample is the whole - very much not uniform - planet land surface.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:57 pm  

    a duplicate of my previous post - sorry for the duplication

    Last edited by A-Baneful-Backfire on Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:58 pm  

    duplicate of previous post - apparently got some glitch

    Last edited by A-Baneful-Backfire on Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Posts: 126


    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:00 pm  

    duplicate of previous post

    Last edited by A-Baneful-Backfire on Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 17, 2004
    Posts: 924
    From: Computer Desk

    Send private message
    Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:22 pm  

    Wow, really pleased I achieved such a spirited response Smile
    Well, the population theories are interesting in and of themselves. Perhaps we should move the discussion out of the abstract and look at the practical applications of the math.

    I would be happy to provide the enviromental and social parameters of the areas I am currently working on.

    Any takers, pm me...
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    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

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.48 Seconds