tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post3730673514031924342..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: The StartAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-30427970983901771982010-09-25T06:10:57.211-06:002010-09-25T06:10:57.211-06:00Example of an unusually sparsely populated medieva...Example of an unusually sparsely populated medieval nation: Scotland. In 900 AD was a mix of tribal and feudal culture, with a low-end population estimate of 500,000 over (a bit more than) 30,000 square miles. That gives a population of 16.6 per square mile, varying from close to 0 in the higher mountain terrain to several times that in the better farmland. <br /><br /><br />By contrast medieval France, mostly good farmland had a population close to 120 per square mile.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-72198450697171593462010-09-25T05:55:57.375-06:002010-09-25T05:55:57.375-06:00Another starting point is the carrying capacity of...Another starting point is the carrying capacity of the land. As per Malthus, populations normally increase until they reach the maximum capacity of the land. The exception is where the disease load increases with population density so fast that it sets a limit below the potential food output of the land - historically that has only happened in tropical areas, especially malaria in sub-Saharan Africa.<br /><br />For medieval farming techniques, the usual carrying capacity of farmland is in the 30-200 per square mile range, varying from very marginal land to the richest farmland. Newly settled land would reach its carrying capacity within a few centuries at most.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-60111099012985025172010-09-25T05:49:05.924-06:002010-09-25T05:49:05.924-06:00Hm, well I think you need to distinguish between i...Hm, well I think you need to distinguish between inhabited/settled areas, which will have a population of well, well over 1 per square mile, and uninhabited wilderness. Modern Canada or colonial America are both good examples (although I suspect your 1790 Georgia figure is for European settlers only, not natives).<br /><br />One village per 20 mile hex is not sustainable as an integrated economic entity, because then each village is effectively cut off from its neighbours. If you look at maps of real countries inhabited before motorised transport, you'll see that villages are no more than about 6-8 miles apart (with 2-4 miles being more typical), enabling pedestrian travel and trade to take place.<br /><br />Different sorts of social structure have different minimum population densities. 1 per square mile is ok for scattered bands of hunter gatherers. <br /><br />If you look at the real middle ages, you'll see that inhabited areas' population did not go below about 10 per square mile, in say the Scottish highlands where clan-based social structures lasted until the 18th century. Contested borderlands and wilderness frontiers may also have this kind of low density.<br /><br />But for actual medieval feudalism you're looking at 30+ per square mile, minimum. This is excluding uninhabited areas - moors, high mountains et al.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-17133722582111805402010-09-24T10:08:33.491-06:002010-09-24T10:08:33.491-06:00It does sound rather empty, but not actually. In a...It does sound rather empty, but not actually. In a 20-mile hex, that works out to about 306 people, large enough to form a fair sized village and provide a strong game-hunting and woodcutting economy.<br /><br />Consider the State of Georgia, which had a population of 82,548 in 1790, just over one-and-a-half persons per square mile, and without a doubt less in 1776 when delegates from there took part in the Constitutional Congress. I doubt they would have considered Georgia 'uninhabited.'<br /><br />Perhaps it is because I live in Canada, which still has vast areas with one person per square mile (or less) ... where it is still possible to stumble across other people on a regular basis.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-52481736580572228762010-09-24T05:48:39.862-06:002010-09-24T05:48:39.862-06:001 person per square mile is effectively uninhabite...1 person per square mile is effectively uninhabited. That seems like a really odd starting point to me.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-12709089247702272912010-09-20T20:12:17.406-06:002010-09-20T20:12:17.406-06:00I hear you.
It's not epic world-spanning con...I hear you. <br /><br />It's not epic world-spanning conquests and incredible feats of magic that make a game fun. That's all just background noise.<br /><br />What makes it fun is when your henchman won't go with you this one last time because his wife just had a baby, or the Baron welcomes you with open arms and a tear in his eye because you remind him of his long-lost grandson. <br /><br />It's the realism and the nitty-gritty of everyday life that makes our gaming magical, not the spells by level chart.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596442998967851832noreply@blogger.com