# Vanilla Essence: 1E Demographics and the Implied Setting



## Sepulchrave II

This began as a short argument in favor of 1E demographics, and got rather bloated on ideas about play style. It's kind of long, so you've been warned.


Recently, I've been pondering the issue of demographics in the typical campaign world and wondering how (or if) to fix it. There is the compelling question of _why bother_? After all, D&D is a game of heroic fantasy, so why worry about this trivia? Nonetheless, it bugs me, and being a geek who would like a model to at least be superficially plausible, I've been fiddling with the numbers.

I've also been Jonesin' for that 1E feel – the more so after reading Reynard's An Examination of Differences Between Editions thread, probably the most thoughtful, non-partisan exchange of views I have ever read on the subject – at least, the first three or four pages. Something that struck me was the truth of the 'Darker' feel of 1E: I think the demographic assumptions of the 1E world were largely responsible for this.

So I've been scouring the boards for prior threads on the subject of demographics – there are surprisingly few, as I think it's something which people generally hand-wave for a variety of reasons. One of the more informative threads is here, where many of the key issues are raised – as well as a variety of possible solutions to the nagging inconsistencies which bother people.

Finally – perhaps rather strangely – an exchange which occurs in a bathroom in _Reservoir Dogs_ kept resurfacing in my mind, so I looked up the exact quote:



> MR. PINK:  Tagged a couple of cops.  Did you kill anybody?
> MR. WHITE: A few cops.
> MR. PINK: No real people?
> MR. WHITE: Uh-uh, just cops.




_Real people_ aren't gangsters, and they're not cops. They're everybody else. Somehow, the analogy seems apt. Whether the PCs and their enemies are the good guys or the bad guys is immaterial – they aren't _real people_. We all know what happens when real people fall a hundred feet, or get shot ten times by crossbows. For the purposes of this post, anyone who  isn't a Real Person is a Hero.

As an aside, I think this system would work rather well with *rycanada's* E6 rules


*Heroes and the 1% Solution*
Many years ago, I read an article in _White Dwarf_ magazine (I think an issue numbering in the 50s or 60s) which alluded to the likely incidence of high-level characters – specifically high level Magic-Users – in a campaign. I suspect that Lew Pulsipher wrote the article, and I think it was about (and against the notion of) 'Magic Shops' although I can't be sure – it's been twenty years since I read it, and my mags are in a box somewhere in Britain and I'm in the States. I might be conflating two different articles.

In any event, the numbers were burned into my mind. For a long time, when I was playing AD&D, I used them when I was designing settlements in order to determine the incidence of PC-class characters: I know some still use this system (S'mon, amongst others), or variations thereof. Here are the magic numbers:


1% of characters are PC-class; the remaining 99% are 0-level
For every PC-class character of level _N_, there are half as many PC-class characters of level (_N_+1)

Bear in mind that this was 1E, and we don't have 0-level characters anymore. But the assumed incidence of PC-class characters is more-or-less 1E canon (if such ever existed). On p.35 of the 1E _Dungeon Masters Guide_ it states:



> Human and half-orc characters suitable for level advancement are found at a ratio of 1 in 100.




The populations of characters above 1st level is not addressed in the 1E _DMG_, but the _White Dwarf_ article to which I refer assumed a survival rate of 50% from each level to the next – after all, adventuring is a hazardous business. This seemed reasonable to me; Skip Williams assumes the same incidence of higher-level characters in the 2E supplement _Dungeon Master's Option: High-Level Campaigns_, possibly from the same source.

For example, in a town of 3200 people, the breakdown might be like this:


3168 x 0-level characters
16 x 1st-level characters
8 x 2nd-level characters
4 x 3rd-level characters
2 x 4th-level characters
1 x 5th level character

It would take a population of around a hundred thousand people to produce one character of 10th level, according to these numbers. This is consistent with the idea that, by the time a character reaches 'Name' level in 1E (Master Thief, Lord, Paladin, Wizard or whatever), he or she has likely made a significant impact on the game world.

The numbers in the 3E DMG obviously paint a very different picture of the world. Using Jamis Buck's handy  Town Generator, a random large town (pop. 3014) yielded the following distribution of character levels:


2798 x 1st-level characters
28 x 2nd-level characters
16 x 3rd-level characters
6 x 4th-level characters
8 x 5th-level characters
6 x 6th-level characters
2 x 7th-level characters
2 x 9th-level characters
2 x 10th-level characters
2 x 11th-level characters
1 x 12th-level character

The main gripes against the 3E method of population generation are

[1]It scales poorly – you can't break a population up into more convenient chunks and then recombine them
[2]You get many more PC-classed characters per capita in smaller communities than in larger ones
[3]You get too many high-level characters overall

A high population of powerful Heroes – especially spellcasters – changes the shape of the campaign world to the point where it is very difficult to predict, which is contrary to the Essence of Vanilla.

_10th-Level (or Thereabouts)_
When characters reached 'Name level' in 1E (generally between 9th and 11th-level, according to class), it was implicit within the ruleset that the nature of the game would shift. A number of rules factors conspired to encourage a change of playstyle:


Characters could establish a stronghold, attract followers, and levy taxes from the inhabitants of their 'fief'
Further increases in hit points were limited: instead of rolling a die (+ Con modifier), a character instead received a set number of hit points for advancing a level (+3 for Fighter-types, +2 for Rogues and Clerics, +1 for Wizards)
Access became available to key spells which radically changed the basis of the campaign: _commune, contact other plane, teleport, plane shift, raise dead_

The PCs' concerns became more global at 'Name level,' or shortly thereafter. They were established in the campaign world, they could potentially go anywhere or know anything; death was now an obstacle which could be overcome. There was a natural tendency to look to exotic locales – the planes or the underdark – because the mundane campaign world could not logically contain sufficient challenges to keep the characters occupied on an ongoing basis.


_How Big is the Pond?_
One of the key features of the Vanilla setting is that population density is very low: for example, the World of Greyhawk has a population density around one tenth of that of medieval Europe. In Vanilla, large areas of unexplored or unsettled wilderness remain, and some kind of 'frontier' exists. The frontier is a liminal zone, representing the interface between the world of Real People and the world of monsters and demihumans (the mythic world, so to speak); much of a campaign's action is expected to occur in this space.

Higher-level PCs and NPCs can be considered to have a 'pond' – an average radius within which, all things being equal, they would be the most powerful character: i.e. the biggest fish. If we assume a population similar to Greyhawk – 10 people per square mile – the size of a character's pond according to their level looks something like this:

3rd level:   5 miles
6th level:   15 miles
9th level:   40 miles
12th level: 100+ miles

When a 12th-level fighter boasts that no-one within a hundred miles is his equal, he is probably telling the truth.


*Incorporating the Norms from 1E Greyhawk*
The _Glossography_ from the 1983 Greyhawk boxed set (p.3) suggests the following numbers as far as population is concerned:


20% of the population are fit to bear arms
Half of these are in prime condition, suitable for man-at-arms status

This is not to suggest that each of these characters is a Warrior who comes equipped with arms and armor; more that they represent a pool of resources upon which a ruler can draw in times of need.

Furthermore, the distribution of PC-classed characters by character class (p.16) can be expected to follow this pattern (I'm using 3E language, here):


50% Fighter-types
25% Rogue-types
15% Cleric-types
10% Wizard-types

For our purposes, Fighter-types can be assumed to incorporate Paladins, Monks and Rangers; Cleric-types can be assumed to include Druids; Wizard-types to subsume Sorcerers; and Rogue-types to include Bards. Populations of 'new' base classes – such as Warlocks or Knights – can generally be set against obvious existing populations (e.g. Wizard-types and Fighter-types respectively).

A world where lots of high-level spellcasters are present is obviously going to be very different from anything resembling a medieval one – and that's fine. The problem is that the medieval model still remains the default setting 'type.'

The _DMG II_ (p.81) states:


> A successful Dungeons and Dragons setting is neither an authentic portrayal of medieval history, nor an exercise in logical extrapolation from a fantastic premise. Instead, think of it as a medieval flavored game environment.




Quoted for truth. But it's a sad truth. Essentially, it's saying _don't think too hard about the game world, because if you do, it will fall apart_. This may have always been the case, but I think the veneer of plausibility was once a lot thicker than it is now.

Much of the 'Darkness' of 1E was predicated on the fact that the PCs were highly unusual in the power and scope of their abilities. The vast majority of people – mooks, chumps, fodder (if you will) – were frail, vulnerable Real People ™.


*Real People*
Real People often die when they're stabbed. They don't cast spells or have amazing supernatural powers, they're not descended from dragons or celestials, and they usually pursue mundane occupations such as farming.

1E was good at modelling Real People – it called them '0-level.' Usually, they stayed in the background; sometimes, they got in the way; occasionally you could pay them to lug crossbows around, and shoot things that you pointed at. They were crazy easy to kill – a Fighter could make as many attacks in a round against 0-level characters as he had levels of experience.

0-level people stayed at 0-level, never gaining experience. They weren't _eligible_, and that was that. Curiously, this rule applies to the followers of characters with the Leadership feat in 3.X, although the rationale (aside from balance considerations, presumably) is not made clear.

I would argue that it is precisely the sharp contrast between the mundane world of Real People and the liminal world which the PCs generally inhabit which gave earlier editions that special feel. That's not to say that there should be no overlap – the PCs themselves often exist at the interface of both worlds, equipping themselves with weapons which they purchase from a Real Person, before venturing into the unknown; or staying in a tavern where Real People might also be enjoying a drink when their evil nemesis sends a demon to attack them.

One of the principal complaints levelled against the preponderance of 'bizarreness' (half-fiend ogre PCs, or whatever), is that it renders the fantastic commonplace, thus stripping it of its mythic quality; or that the game has become too 'superheroic,' resembling a Marvel comic more than the conventional fantasy genre. But in D&D the PCs have always been superheroes: I think the real problem is that now there are too many NPC heroes as well, and not enough 'regular Joes'.


*Getting Rid of Class Levels for NPC Classes*
I can find no compelling reason why NPC classes should exist in their current incarnation at all, and essentially I'm advocating the return of the '0-level' character – or rather, a 1st-level NPC who is incapable of gaining experience in the conventional sense. Some differentiation between the abilities of NPCs is desirable (a noble will have a different skill set to an artisan or a peasant farmer) but it strikes me that the idea of class levels as pertain to an Aristocrat, Commoner or even an Expert or Warrior are just nonsensical.

Levelling up – the notion of gaining _power_ (of the metaphysical kind) through overcoming challenges – is a very Nietzschean idea. It is perhaps the central premise of D&D, and it works rather well with regard to PCs as it keeps players interested in the game. I don't necessarily think it works with the vast majority of the NPC population. The dilution of the idea of levelling up – by extending its potential to everyone – has come to mean that the population-at-large has moved from the mundane world into the mythic world which should be the province of the PCs.


_Not Necessarily a Meritocracy Based on Ability_
There is a tendency in D&D to equate personal power (how many levels does a character have?) with social power (who is the baron?). Within a population where far fewer high level PC-Class characters exist, the notion of power being transferred through more conventional channels – such as wealth and heredity – becomes more viable. That said, because Heroes demonstrate greater aptitude than Real People in all aspects of life, it is likely that they will meet outstanding success in any area, given the opportunity.

The 1% figure of PC-Class characters in a given population is assumed to represent normal inhabitants – i.e. those who generally fulfill a socially integrated role – and not temporary residents or transients (such as adventurers typically are). Because of their superior ability, their positions will often come to involve exercising power: the relative scarcity of Heroes means that this dynamic is not assured, however, and factors such as a privileged birth will often guarantee success or prevent it. An unusual member of the Garde might be a Hero – a 3rd level Barbarian, say – but he exercises no special social power as a result, and his commanding officer is still an Aristocrat.

A DM is often wasting his time when he stats out a Real Person, and they can be handwaved for most game purposes. Alfric the Barkeep is just that – a name and an accent is probably all he needs, but there are times when it is useful (e.g. if a PC is attempting to persuade a merchant of a certain course of action)

The four main types of Real People are derived from equivalent NPC classes at first level. Three of them – Aristocrat, Expert and Commoner – map approximately onto the upper, middle and lower class strata of society; the fourth (Warrior) is harder to place, as a certain degree of social mobility is implied, but most will be drawn from the lower classes. Spellcasting of any kind is considered beyond the abilities of a Real Person, and is the province of Heroes: the Adept class is omitted, or used as an alternative to PC-classes where appropriate (e.g. tribal 'shamans' and 'witch-doctors', the 1E basis of the class).

_Warrior_
The Warrior uses the following stats:

d8 Hit Points
BAB +1
Fort Save +2
12 Skill points (Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Ride, Swim)
Proficient with all armor and shields, and simple and martial weapons

_Aristocrat_
The Aristocrat uses the following stats:

d8 Hit Points
BAB +0
Will Save +2
20 Skill points (Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge, Listen, Perform, Ride, Sense Motive, Speak Language, Spot, Swim, Survival)
Proficient with all armor and shields, and simple and martial weapons

_Expert_
The Expert uses the following stats:

d6 Hit Points
BAB +0
Will Save +2
28 Skill points (any 10 skills)
Proficient with simple weapons and light armor

_Commoner_
The Commoner uses the following stats:

d4 Hit Points
BAB +0
12 Skill points (Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Jump, Listen, Profession, Ride, Spot, Swim, Use Rope)
Proficient with one simple weapon

All real people (I'm assuming they're human) receive two feats; if their Intelligence is above average, they receive 4 extra skill points for each point of Intelligence modifier. Like 1st level PCs, they may invest up to 4 skill points into any single skill.

*Danger of Overidentifying NPC Class with Social Role*
The populations of NPC classes can give a broad indicator as to the shape of a community: for example, a city with many Experts and few Warriors might be considered relatively peaceful, and possess a high culture. It is a mistake to exactly equate the population of NPC classes with their typical social role, however, as considerable overlap is likely in individual cases.

For example, not all members of the nobility will use the Aristocrat class. The Aristocrat class represents a noble who is trained in war as part of his feudal obligation (martial weapon and heavy armor proficiency), but also has an important social role and general level of education (skills and skill points).


The Warrior class can better represent a noble who is more focussed on the martial aspect of his duties. The Warrior gains +1 BAB over the Aristocrat at the cost of a more limited skill list.
The Expert class better describes a noble who is more focussed on social manipulation and/or scholarly pursuits: an abundance of skill points and skill versatility is gained at the cost of a reduced list of proficiencies and a smaller hit die.
The Commoner class can even be used to describe a noble who has failed to distinguish himself in any way: the lazy, drunken son of a baron, for example.

Allocation of feats, skills and abilities allows further refinement within these categories: Weapon Focus will make an Aristocrat or Expert as effective as a typical Warrior with their chosen weapon; Skill Focus and a high Charisma can make a Warrior an effective diplomat etc.


*Skills and NPC Classes*
Because of the way skill check DCs are organized (DC10 = average; DC15 = tough; DC20 = challenging), there is no particular need for a Real Person to have more than a +8 or +10 modifier to any skill check. A formidable task (DC25) is generally beyond the abilities of a Real Person – it is the province of Heroes such as the PCs – although a lucky Real Person might hit it. Very occasionally, a Real Person might pull off a DC 30 check: i.e. perform a heroic act.

'Taking 10' and 'taking 20' can often apply to skill checks. In groups, Real People can also use the aid another option to grant a +2 or higher circumstance bonus to skill checks. A Real Person might have a high ability score adjustment to a skill check. These factors all push the ceiling for achievable DCs higher.

Certain tasks – such as the creation of some alchemical items (DC 25) or a +4 Str bonus MW composite bow (DC 28) – are generally beyond the abilities of any single non-heroic character, although conceivably a group of highly skilled Experts could collaborate and use the aid another option to reliably produce goods such as these.

Consider the following archetypes:


_Master Swordsmith:_ Expert. Craft (weaponsmith) +10 (4 ranks, +3 Skill Focus, +1 Int, +2 MW tools). Such a character can 'take 10' to routinely create MW (i.e. the best nonmagical) weapons.
_Sage:_ Expert. Knowledge (history) +10 (4 ranks, +3 Skill Focus, +1 Int, +2 library); three or more other Knowledge Skills at +7.
_Veteran Mercenary:_ Warrior. Toughness and +1 Con. 1d8+4 hit points. On average, a Veteran Mercenary has more than three times as many hit points as a Commoner.
_Suave Noble:_ Aristocrat. Diplomacy +10 (4 ranks, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Negotiator, +1 Cha).
_Nomadic Tribesmen:_ Commoner. Handle Animal +4 (4 ranks), Spot +7 (4 ranks, +1 Wis, +2 Alertness). Toughness feat. 1d4+3 hit points.

Compared to Heroes, the abilites of all of these characters are trivial; compared to each other, however, they are meaningful. The skill to required to produce masterwork weapons is a rare talent and socially significant; a Warrior who can take one or two hits from a longsword and not go down is a hard man; a +10 modifier to a Bluff or Diplomacy check represents a baffling, silver tongue to one with no ranks in Sense Motive and an average Wisdom.

At the risk of invoking the 'V' word, a campaign which generally rests on normal human interaction and abilities – i.e. lies within the scope of Real People – is much easier to swallow because it is _predictable_. The actions of the PCs, their enemies and their allies – who are Heroes – is not limited in this fashion, but they represent a massive deviation from the norm.


*The Plausibility of PC Actions*
If we return to the 1% PC model with a halving of the population of characters for each successive level, the actions of the PCs and their current adventuring 'status' make a lot more sense. Typically, "Save the ____" type quests work far better with regard to a 1E demographic, because the power level of the characters relative to their immediate backdrop:


A _Save the Village_ type quest makes a lot of sense when the characters are 1st to 3rd level. If a settlement has only 300 people, then a group of four 1st-level characters can reasonably make a significant impact on its fate.
A _Save the Town_ type quest (say a town of 2000 people), makes sense of 4th-6th level characters when the highest level local is only 4th or 5th level.
A _Save the City_ type quest (say the concerns of 20,000 people), is appropriate for characters of levels 7-9, when there aren't thirty or more PC-classed characters in residence of 10th level or higher, all occupied doing something more pressing.
A _Save the Kingdom_ type adventure (from the giants, or whatever) is something worthy of characters of 10th-12th level, because they will be among the most powerful characters in the kingdom by this time.

In each case, the actions of the PCs remain heroic in the context of their environment, and their growth is percievable against the background of the campaign. Conversely, the characters' current nemesis – assuming such exists – always remains a plausible threat to the village/town/country, and a suitable foe for the PCs. Over time, a PC's aura of 'geographical significance' grows.


*Sculpting Populations*
Using the various guidelines gleaned from 1E sources, it is possible to derive populations of characters: the trick is to ensure that the distributions in the final population approximately fulfill each of the various criteria. A more organic approach than the one presented in the 3E _DMG_ is necessary, and requires a simultaneous 'top down' and 'bottom up' approach; that said, some 3E mechanics have been retained. I've tried to minimize appeals to real medieval demographics, looking for an approach which is intuitive and straightforward. At all times, the premise is that the campaign is humanocentric and generally vanilla in flavour.

If we know that 10% of the population are "in prime condition, suitable for man-at-arms status," we can define the most bellicose societies as those in which "everyone capable of being a Warrior _is_ one." Less warlike populations will support proportionately fewer Warriors; 1% (enough to ensure 1 guard or soldier for every 100 inhabitants), is the bare minimum according to the 3E DMG, and that seems a reasonable figure. A city with a large population of Warriors might include the garrison of a professional army, large numbers of private retainers, guards, gangs of street thugs etc.

By similar parallel, the population of Experts in a community might be expected to fall in the 1% to 10% range. A city where 10% of the inhabitants are Experts might be a thriving centre filled with merchants, artisans and scholars – it represents a sophisticated skill base: bear in mind that even though a city might have fifty percent of its inhabitants engaged in crafts of one kind or another, the bulk will still be Commoners.

If 1% of the population are Heroes – i.e possess levels in PC-classes – this leaves only the number of Aristocrats to worry about. As noted, the Aristocrat character class doesn't map exactly onto the upper social class – say 3% in a typical medieval society – but up to 1% seems a reasonable number. When they gather in numbers in wartime they are dangerous – in a feudal setting, they represent a large portion of the armored gentry.

_Logical Characterization_
Characterization – in mechanical terms – is something that 3E is rather good at. When there are far fewer high-level characters, this also becomes a less daunting prospect. The key to unravelling demographics lies in characterization: individual NPCs are detailed, and various organizations can be built upon and around them.


_1. Determine the General Details_
How many people live in the area of settlement? Is it urban or rural? Does it occupy a region of geographical significance? What are its connections with other areas and cities?

Let's say the DM wants to create a large city-state, with a population  of 60,000. It is located on a peninsula in a warm sea, and is a bustling port. The DM decides on the following distribution of classes:

1% Aristocrat (600)
8% Expert (4800)
5% Warrior (3000)
85% Commoner (51,000)

In addition, there are some 600 characters with class levels – "Heroes" – with the following expected distribution:

300 x 1st-level
150 x 2nd-level
75 x 3rd-level
37 x 4th-level
18 x 5th-level
9 x 6th-level
4 x 7th-level
2 x 8th-level
1 x 9th-level

Of these, around 50% will be Fighter-types, 25% Rogue-types, 15% Cleric-types and 10% Wizard-types.


_2. Fix the Power Centres_
The DM determines that there are four main power centres in the city:


An elite aristocratic class exerting power through wealth (LE, nonconventional)
A powerful merchant's guild (N, nonconventional)
A city council (LN, conventional)
A cabal of Wizards (N, magical)

Such centres are unlikely to be discrete entities, and the relationships between them – and any smaller loci which the DM determines – will shape the political landscape of the city. Influential personages often have their fingers in several pies at once, so there will be overlap between the power centres: Aristocrats will have typically have mercantile interests, guildsman will sit on the city council, and so on.


_3. Allocate Highest PC-Class Characters_
Within this context, and with a minimum of creativity, the seven highest level characters in the community can be detailed. Four of them are related directly to each of the power centers:


_Wicked Noble:_ Wicked Noble (9th-level Fighter-type) is an influential character within the aristocratic caste.
_Sly Agent:_ Sly Agent (7th-level Rogue-type) is a Guild representative and spokesman.
_Honorable Soldier:_ Honorable Soldier (8th-level Fighter-type) is Captain of the City Guard, and serves the city council.
_Benign Wizard:_ Benign Wizard (7th-level Wizard-type) is a senior cabal member.

The DM determines that the remaining highest-level characters fall outside of the established power structures:


_Daring Swashbuckler:_ Daring Swashbuckler (8th-level Rogue-type) is a nobleman with a scandalous reputation
_Scarred Boss:_ Scarred Boss (7th-level Fighter-type) is an underworld leader who gets the job done.
_Zealous Priest:_ Zealous Priest (7th-level Cleric-type) is a militant but popular local figurehead.

_4. Allocate Warrior Resources_
Control over numbers of Warrior class NPCs represent a power centre's ability to promote its agenda in the world and defend its interests. Power centres can exert economic, magical, religious and social pressure as well, but having muscle is never a bad thing. The DM decides to allocate the number of warriors thus:


600 city guardsmen (City Council) This is the minimum required for an effective town guard (1% of the total population), suggesting that its resources will be spread pretty thinly.
400 guild retainers (Merchant's Guild) Caravans and ships need to be protected. Warehouses need to be guarded. Estates need to be patrolled.
1300 men-at-arms (Aristocratic Caste) There might be a hundred or more families who count amongst the gentry. Whilst the most minor might have few or no warriors in their retinue, the largest and most influential might employ scores – if not hundreds – of retainers.
200 street thugs, in various gangs The DM decides that the largest gang – led by Scarred Boss – includes fifty warriors.
300 mercenaries employed in private duties These might include doormen for inns, bodyguards for unaffiliated merchants, temple guards etc.
300 warriors currently employed in no particular capacity
Some of these might be retired thugs or soldiers, but mostly they simply represent a pool of untapped potential.


_4. Draw Some Inferences and Make Some Arbitrary Decisions_

a) The City Guard is broken into fifty squads of twelve men, and each squad is led by a sergeant (a 1st-level Fighter-type). Nine lieutenants (2nd or 3rd level Fighter-types), and two adjutants (a 4th and 5th level Fighter-type respectively) comprise the command, in addition to the Captain of the Watch – Honorable Soldier – already mentioned. It employs a half-dozen special operatives (two 1st-level, two 2nd-level and two 3rd-level Rogue-types) in the capacity of spies, infiltrators etc. Numerous Commoners and several Experts form a support staff.

b) Wicked Noble is fabulously rich, and lives in a fortified palace outside of the city walls. He has a private army of nearly a hundred men, and a trio of assassins (all 6th-level Rogue-types) serve him. Wicked Noble also sponsors Furtive Witch (a 5th-level Cleric-type) for her gruesome divinations; Ruthless Henchman (a 6th-level Fighter-type) is his aide.

c) Whilst Benign Wizard might be the most important member of the magical cabal, the overall outlook of this power center is True Neutral. This would suggest some balancing influence is present – in this case Sinister Necromancer (a 6th-level Wizard-type) and Crafty Enchanter (a 5th-level Wizard-type), who are in cahoots with each other.

d) A private company of swords-for-hire operates under charter within the city: their leader – Grizzled Condottiere – is a 6th-level Fighter-type. Two captains (4th-level Fighter-types) serve under him. There are four lieutenants (2nd and 3rd-level Fighter-types), 8 sergeants (1st-level Fighter-types) and eighty men-at-arms (Warriors, drawn from the pool engaged in 'private duties.') Soldiers within the mercenary corps are well-equipped, with banded mail and heavy warhorses; leaders wear half-plate or full-plate.

_5. Stop and See What's Left_
All of the higher-level NPCs have already been accounted for. Only three characters of 6th-level remain, and a slew of 1st – and 2nd – level characters (mostly Fighter-types) have already been alotted. I won't go any further, but you get the general idea.


_Skewing It_
Say the DM wants to introduce an elite order of monastic knights to the city – senior members are represented by a Prestige Class with a minimum BAB +6 entry requirement. If the order's upper ranks contain even fifteen members, it will skew the incidence of powerful PC-classes within the community, doubling the number of characters of 6th-level and higher. In order to support a broad enough base of characters who were even eligible to be members, such an organization would need to look beyond the walls of the city into neighboring territories, and would probably be truly international in scope.


*An Implicit Low Magic Campaign World*
One of the most obvious repercussions of using a 1E demographic model is the effect upon the incidence of spellcasters – especially high level casters.

Certain spells are notorious for their ability to challenge the viability of the default medieval setting, as their existence – or rather their assumed ubiquity – will distort the shape of society to the point where it no longer follows the rules of normal human interaction. In some cases, magic will assume the role of minor technology and its applications will be quite mundane; in others, magic can offer possibilites for society so profound and far-reaching that the DM needs to do an enormous amount of work in order to extrapolate a logical campaign premise, or content himself with a 'medieval-flavoured game environment' which cannot bear too much logical scrutiny.

A high population of high-level spellcasters necessitates an increasing escalation of magical countermeasures: _zone of truth_ fights with _glibness_; _scrying_ leads to _nondetection_; _teleport_ requires _forbiddance_ or _dimensional lock_ to counter; _discern location_ means that _mind blank_ is necessary, and so on. Perversely, it requires powerful spells (like _antimagic field_) to restore the balance to the point where human activity becomes predictable again: within a narrowly defined area. Much of the game world's logic becomes predicated on "She needs _this_ to protect her from _that_," which feeds the buffing frenzy which many campaigns suffer from.


*Give Leadership Free to Everyone*
The BBEG doesn't need the Leadership feat in order to head an evil cult; nor should the PCs be penalized (in the form of investing a feat) for deepening their commitment to the campaign. Leadership is an excellent hook and springboard for many adventure ideas. I'd suggest only two minor modifications to the feat itself:


Let a PC attract cohorts whose combined CR doesn't exceed the CR of the maximum level for a cohort: e.g. a character can attract two 4th-level cohorts instead of one 6th-level cohort.
Increase the bonus for having a base of operations from +2 to +4 when considering followers.

Whether a character chooses to attract followers will naturally shape the direction of the campaign. I'd consider any of the following:


Give Leadership free at 1st-Level: This reinforces the notion that the characters are Heroic from the outset.
Give Leadership free at 6th-level: This is a familiar and 'comfortable' level at which to bestow the feat.
Give Leadership free at 10th-level: this is reminiscent of the benefits of 1e 'name' level

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

I'm a bit of demographics stickler - I like having the details like you present them.  3E doesn't have an easily discernable demographics system - it varies based on settlement size, so its tough to tease out the precise details.

Myself, I like having NPC's of equal level to the PC's around so that they can provide a challenge later in the game - I don't want my PC's to utterly outclass all other humans after 9th level or so.

You bring up the populations densities in the World of Greyhawk setting - I'd love to think they were highlly thought out, but I'm afraid after 30 years of gaming, I'm pretty sure they were totally a shot in the dark.  The densities in the most highly populated kingdoms are less than the most sparsely populated areas of Earth.  You can come up with explanations, but Occam's Razor tells me that the reason is the same as why Eberron is too big - they just didn't give it any thought whatsoever.

I currently use an assumption of around 10% PC classes, and I use the following as the basis for my NPC levels - I've used the same assumptions since 1988 or so:

Roll 1d3
1: 1st level
2: 2nd level
3: roll 1d6 on next table

Roll 1d6
1-3: 3rd level
4: 4th
5: 5th
6: roll 2d6 on next table

Roll 2d6
1-6: 6th level
7: 7
etc, etc - going up to rolling 3d6, then 4d6.

This creates more of a gradual curve that slowly gets steeper as levels go up.  So you have a lot of 6th level and below NPC's, and they get rarer and rarer as levels get higher.  For NPC classes, I roughly slow the progression down by half.

Its a simple system, and I'm happy with it.


----------



## HellHound

Interesting analysis. One thing I think it glazes over in a 3e environment, however, is that a majority of the characters in the levels 2-7 zone will be NPC classed, not PC classed, and therefore immediately inferior to heroes.

Not that this is a big hole that I'm poking in it, just an observation.


----------



## The_Gneech

The _Star Wars Saga Edition_ has one NPC class -- "Nonheroic" -- which has low BAB, d4 hit die, and doesn't get most of the defense bonuses that PC classes do. (In D&D terms, their saving throw would be the stat bonus only.) Most Nonheroics never get past 4th or 5th level, and if they do, they start picking up heroic classes anyway.

One interesting side effect of this is that while Nonheroics can still be a challenge in terms of Skill vs. Skill contests and the like, they are made of tissue paper and make for great mooks to wade through. Thus, when the fighting starts, Nonheroics are toast -- but in the social arena, they can still be quite a challenge.

It's a pretty nifty arrangement.  Works well, I think.

-The Gneech


----------



## Sqwonk

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> You can come up with explanations, but Occam's Razor tells me that the reason is the same as why Eberron is too big - they just didn't give it any thought whatsoever.




Keithe Baker has stated that there was some sort of art dept. error and that "his Eberron" is 10 times as small.  Which makes the continent about the size of Europe rather than Eurasia.  You would have thought the error would have been caught, as the Last War is a critical part the demographics and feel of Eberron.  And the "cold war" feeling it is going for does not seem to fit with a humongous playing area.

The Eberron demographics are really interesting.  Magic as industry/science is very prevalent, but characters higher than 6th level are not.  The war took care of most of them.
So the cities have a very modern feel.  Sharn is very New Yorkish.  But it is a mostly commoners.


----------



## mmadsen

You raise a number of issues Sepulchrave II.

I agree that 1E style demographics place the game in a more "realistic" setting by (a) more closely matching pre-modern demographics and (b) drastically reducing the number of high-level spellcasters.

I like your "real people" metaphor, but I don't think that such real people have to be implemented as 0-level characters to work; they just need real-people classes that don't grant hit dice and improved combat abilities (BAB and Saves) with every level.  (This would be more elegant if D&D moved away from hit dice and toward a Damage Save; then real-people classes simply wouldn't improve BAB and Saves.)  The bulk of elf society, for instance, could be 10th-level experts, but they'd fall before the orc barbarian hordes like wheat before the scythe.  Of course, the biggest difference between adventurers and real people should simply be that real people don't look for fights, and they don't stand and fight if one finds them; they run away.

Lastly, I agree that Leadership should play a much larger role in the game.  Charismatic characters should have plenty of "human resources" to call upon -- enough to rival the power of a hermit wizard's spells.


----------



## HellHound

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> The _Star Wars Saga Edition_ has one NPC class ...
> 
> (snip)
> 
> It's a pretty nifty arrangement.  Works well, I think.




Awesome for the SW universe. High level diplomats that still go splat when shot.


----------



## HellHound

mmadsen said:
			
		

> The bulk of elf society, for instance, could be 10th-level experts, but they'd fall before the orc barbarian hordes like wheat before the scythe.




As it stands, having the bulk of them being commoners would still make them toast before the blades of an orc barbarian.

With an average of 1.5 hit points per level, even a level 10 elven commoner will be toast in a round or two.


----------



## Sqwonk

As my game group is more Beer & Pretzels style most of the details you are speaking are fiddly bits beneath my radar.  But I think it would make a great souruce book for WoTC to put out.  Rouse had started a thread about Fluff books and several people mentioned a World Building book with some mention how prevalent magic would affect the the world.

Not my cup of tea, but it would probably be good read.  Sep, I think you should send in a submission.


----------



## Nifft

One thing I've always wanted was for the Commoner to represent not merely a less-able person, but a person who's undergone some debilitating sickness or injury.

Basically, everyone would be "born" as a Warrior-type. You could advance into Expert-type or Noble-type, but the only way you ended up as a Commoner-type would be to suffer some kind of ability reduction.

Anyone have a way of modeling that?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Delta

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> The populations of characters above 1st level is not addressed in the 1E _DMG_, but the _White Dwarf_ article to which I refer assumed a survival rate of 50% from each level to the next – after all, adventuring is a hazardous business. This seemed reasonable to me; Skip Williams assumes the same incidence of higher-level characters in the 2E supplement _Dungeon Master's Option: High-Level Campaigns_, possibly from the same source.




Wow, long post (didn't read all of it). I did work on 1E demographics in the past (spreadsheet attached below). Obviously you found the important 1E DMG rule that only 1% of humans have the capacity to gain levels. 

What I _don't_ subscribe to is the half-advance-each level rule. Although widely accepted and easy to remember, it does _not_ match up with other details in the 1E AD&D rules. If you compare to things like: (1) mercenary leader levels (vs. number of troops), (2) leader-types for men (as in bandits, buccaneers, nomads, etc.), (3) rulers listed in Greyhawk (vs. population figures), then the 50% rule fails to produce enough high-level NPCs.

What works more accurately is a 50% every _two_ levels rule -- or in other words, about 70% for each single level boost. To get more detailed, what I do is adjust that a bit per class: e.g., 65% for wizards, 62% clerics, 60% fighters and thieves, as the class functions get more physically dangerous. (This also winds up resolving about the same maximum level over all the character classes, since the latter are more common by the rules.)

That's what I find gives the right number of officers (per number of mercenary troops in DMG), the right number of high-level rulers (per percentage table in Greyhawk boxed set), a fair number of high-level wizards on the Greyhawk continent (about 30 Mages, a bit fewer 20 Archmages), and so forth. So that's what I always use for demographics in all my campaigns since 1E. (Spreadsheet attached below.)


In other regards, I'm really struck by how much I agree with what I've read of your thinking -- I completely agree with the importance of the exercise (who the hell is the most powerful person on this continent, or this kingdom or city?), with the sources that you're looking at, etc. I completely agree that the 3E NPC classes were a really bad idea -- what I would recommend in 3E is using simply "unclassed humanoids" (see MM creature types) for the majority of peasant NPCs.


----------



## der_kluge

When you said this was long, you weren't just whistling Dixie!

That said, I think your ideas are spot on.  Though, I don't believe everyone is as "worried" about demographics as perhaps you are, I think it's a good thinking exercise. 

I've got that thread that you referenced opened in another tab, and I'll read it next. Though I suspect that author will mention something along the same lines as I'm about to say here: It seems to me that 1st edition and 3rd edition are quite different (as you describe) in terms of power level. I suspect this has as much to do with the fact that 3rd edition seems to move more away from realism and more towards becoming a "game" for games' sake.  For example, Baldur's Gate would be pretty boring if you did nothing but interact with 0-level people all the time.  So - to be more interesting, the world is "bumped up" to speak and it becomes more fantastical as a result. PCs become less powerful in the scope, but a number of immediate challenges become available. And, if you're of the opinion that "challenges=fun", then the game becomes more fun.

So, how do we make the game more fun?  We add more challenges. How do we do that?  We make PCs less powerful in the scope of the universe.

I suspect a thought process much like this one was what led to where we are. Though, I certainly doubt such a thing was a conscious effort on any one individuals part, though I suspect that Ed Greenwood is partially to blame since Forgotten Realms' high-powered focus certainly has attributed a lot to the feel of the 3rd edition game.

It also seems to me that 1st edition games tended to be - as you suggest, in this liminal zone where adventure occurred. For me, that was always one of the more bizarre aspects of the game. Indeed, if you refer to some of Gygax's own editorials regarding the earliest of games, they followed a pretty predictable formula - gather resources, head to the dungeon, face traps, kill monsters, find treasure, head back to town. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.  At some point, folks wanted to try to adventure within the cities themselves - but the idea probably seemed at least somewhat counter-intuitive given the nature of the original game. Thus, the power level of the game shifted in favor of "the people" in order to make the towns themselves more interesting.

So, ultimately, it comes down to a matter of personal taste. I do prefer the approach you've outlined, however, as it does tend to present the game in more of a realistic manner.


----------



## pogre

I have not delved into this subject at length, but I have long ago rejected the 3e method. I always explain that PCs are fated by the deities to be heroes to explain their very fast rise in power. The rest of the world is fairly static with a very few fated characters wandering around. Some have called this the "Supers" approach, but it works for me.


----------



## grodog

Sep, given that you're using Greyhawk as a comparison point for your demographics analysis, you may be interested in reading some detailed discussions on such over on www.canonfire.com (other good ones are also presently inaccessible in the now-offline Greytalk archives).  

You raise several valid points, which boil down to (on a simplified level, in my mind), 3.x's removal of Frequency from the MM (which I associate with all of the AD&D demographics intentions that were removed from 3.x and which then cascade out into 12th level PCs living in villages of 3000).  

I'll reply further tonight after I'm not supposed to be working


----------



## Raven Crowking

Recently reading _Folkways_ by William Graham Sumner, and I am struck by how the idea of a liminal zone between Real People and the Fantastic World is a part of early human experience.  Moreover, I think that this structure is a lot of where Sense of Wonder comes from within the game....the ability to compare the two zones and have them work in conjunction with each other.

Your post was well thoguht out, and an interesting read.

RC


----------



## Faraer

Sepulchrave, I have to plug Gary Gygax's _Living Fantasy_ again. It looks into exactly those 1E societal dynamics (with revisions to the role of clerics) at book length.


----------



## T. Foster

Fantastic post -- too good for a message board, this should be published as an article somewhere. A lot of the 3E-centric mechanical stuff went over my head, but I certainly agree with the general jist of the post in regards the feel of the game and scarcity of high-level adventuring-type NPCs. I once did a demographic thought-exercise of my own (don't remember the details or criteria that I used, didn't write down the results) and one thing that sticks out in my memory is that a population of 1 million was required for a 12th level magic-user, and that an 18th level magic-user required a population bigger than the entire world (meaning that you wouldn't see one every generation, but likely only once a century or so -- in the entire world (so if the last few 18th-level wizards have been in "China" or "India," then "Europe" may not have seen such a figure for 4 or 500 years). I also remember that I skewed the demographic of character-types towards low-levels, with 1st levels representing something like 75% of the total "classed-character" population. This isn't compatible with 'canonical' examples from modules or the World of Greyhawk, but fits my desired campaign-feel better.


----------



## Yair

Very interesting indeed. An excellent post.



			
				pogre said:
			
		

> I always explain that PCs are fated by the deities to be heroes to explain their very fast rise in power. The rest of the world is fairly static with a very few fated characters wandering around. Some have called this the "Supers" approach, but it works for me.



I like this approach a lot, too. 

This is a very cool thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Fantastic post -- too good for a message board, this should be published as an article somewhere.




Agreed....but I'm glad it _*is*_ here on a messageboard nonetheless!


----------



## Flynn

Very well thought out and well presented. I liked it so much, I downloaded the thread to add to my gaming files!

Thanks,
Flynn


----------



## SavageRobby

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Fantastic post -- too good for a message board, this should be published as an article somewhere.




Agreed. I cut and paste the thing into a word doc and saved it in my archive of gaming materials. I'm going to use that distribution (possibly with the 70% modification suggested by Delta) in my Wilderlands campaign.

Thanks for posting that.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I like your "real people" metaphor, but I don't think that such real people have to be implemented as 0-level characters to work...The bulk of elf society, for instance, could be 10th-level experts, but they'd fall before the orc barbarian hordes like wheat before the scythe.






			
				HellHound said:
			
		

> As it stands, having the bulk of them being commoners would still make them toast before the blades of an orc barbarian. With an average of 1.5 hit points per level, even a level 10 elven commoner will be toast in a round or two.




Maybe. But it really depends on how elves are characterized in the campaign in general. I suspect (maybe wrongly) that the urge here is not to regard them as Real People, but as monsters/faeries or whatever - i.e. inhabitants of the mythic world: in such a case, then Heroic levels would be appropriate anyway. In stock D&D they are simply variant humans, which makes their status harder to peg.

With humans, I'm not convinced that it's necessary to characterize the bulk of the population as anything other than 1st level - if the +10 modifier is available to a skill check, then a 'difficult' task becomes routine with the take 10 rule for the most accomplished 1st-level characters.

I admit, I find myself wondering whether DaVinci or Einstein or Edward Teach could be adequately described using 1st level nonheroic classes, but maybe they could.


----------



## ST

Just wanted to chime in as somebody else who's saving this thread in a "DMing inspiration" folder somewhere. I haven't run D&D for years, and this is the first time something made me really want to use it. 

I think it's interesting that I've reached some of the same conclusions (about "real people" versus those people statted using the rules PCs use), but coming from the fuzzy literary indie-gaming side. Seeing it from the statistical plausibility side makes it gel better for me.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I disagree with dumping NPC classes, and here's why: After a certain (low) point, the party bard or rogue will _never_ fail to be able to sneak past the town guards, never fail to be able to shortchange the local innkeeper, will never fail to be able to hoodwink a knowledgeable craftsperson.

If the only way for them to stand up to the casual bullying of even a level 5 character requires that they have PC levels -- Hey, an ex-adventurer turned innkeeper! Never seen that one before! -- things end up stupid all over again.

Otherwise, I think your argument is interesting and has merit.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Delta said:
			
		

> What I don't subscribe to is the half-advance-each level rule. Although widely accepted and easy to remember, it does not match up with other details in the 1E AD&D rules. If you compare to things like: (1) mercenary leader levels (vs. number of troops), (2) leader-types for men (as in bandits, buccaneers, nomads, etc.), (3) rulers listed in Greyhawk (vs. population figures), then the 50% rule fails to produce enough high-level NPCs.




I've been fairly selective about which cues from 1E sources to use in the above post, and I agree that a 3:2 ratio more accurately reflects the incidence of Heroic characters of level _N_ to _N+1_ in much published material. In fact, I know that at some point, I moved toward those numbers when designing settlements myself, simply because it felt more reasonable - I hadn't made any kind of study of Greyhawk's demographics at that point.

Ironically, when I first got my hands on the Greyhawk boxed set - maybe 1984 - I felt that it was a relatively 'high-powered' campaign setting    Much of my conditioning was based on the 1E DMG, with its repeated admonitions against handing out too much loot - something which also was not reflected in 1E modules themselves.


----------



## jester47

http://www.frontiernet.net/~jamesstarlight/Statistics.html

An interesting article that can definately add to the conversation.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I think that's a pretty good analysis of the "setting shift" in 3e, of how classes and levels are not just for PC's (and villains) anymore, but for everyone.

For me, I like the shift, because I like knowing that the PC's, while heroes, aren't the only heroes around. Other heroes give them potential challenges and allies, and can shape the world in ways the PC's can't. It gives me a way to measure relative NPC power (the village blacksmith vs. the greatest blacksmith in the land) without resorting to DM fiat, and I really enjoy that.

There is something to be said about the "darker" feel of only about 10-12 people in the world having any class levels, however. It paints a much starker picture of humanity in distress in the world. In 3e, an army might be able to handle an orc attack without the PC's help. That pretty much isn't true in any other edition.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I disagree with dumping NPC classes, and here's why: After a certain (low) point, the party bard or rogue will never fail to be able to sneak past the town guards, never fail to be able to shortchange the local innkeeper, will never fail to be able to hoodwink a knowledgeable craftsperson...the only way for them to stand up to the casual bullying of even a level 5 character requires that they have PC levels




But there will always come a point where a PC rogue can outsneak a town guard, it's just a question of when.

In the kind of low magic vanilla I'm suggesting, a 5th-level rogue is not a common, low level occurrence - he is literally a 1 in 12,800 character. Let's say he's human, and has a Hide skill of +17 (+8 ranks, +4 Dex, +5 magic cloak). 

A sentry chosen for his awareness - Keen-eyed Bob - might reasonably be expected have a Spot skill of +5 (+2 ranks, +2 Alertness, +1 Wis). With opposed rolls, the rogue will successfully make a sneak 13/14ths of the time.

Admittedly, things get hairier if the adventurer is a Halfling with a Dex of 20 and a Hide skill of +24. Keen-eyed Bob needs help (other sentries, using aid another?). But the main point is that a 5th-level halfling rogue with a Hide skill of +24 is _absolutely extraordinary_ in the context of the game world, instead of the 15th-level halfling rogue being absolutely extraordinary. These days, we're just accustomed to drawing the bar much higher.


----------



## Alratan

An interesting way of constructing "heroic" campaigns, but I do partially agree with Whizbang.

Interestingly, as I like to run campaigns where the PCs aren't automatically special, but have to prove them selves so over the course of a campaign, I take a very different approach to demographics.

Basically, if a young punk PC challenges a couple of semi-grizzled old workmen in a bar after his first adventure, he can expect to get his ass handed too him. 

All first level characters are basically teenagers.

With this in mind, I have all humanoids start of at a classes starting age, and then accumulate 1 level equivalent of xp in a class for every 5 years of normal practice of that class, up to 5th level. Then 6th -10th level take 10 years each, 11th to 15th 20 years each, 16th-20th 40 years, etc

With the caveat that you can't normally advance to a level of a spell casting class that would grant access to spells you can't normally cast, and special training is required for PC classes (usually from childhood) excluding favoured classes (except humans, who don't have one). Multiclassing is very common

Thus, the militia (most adult males) in an average human frontier village will be something like commoner 3/warrior 1, and a venerable elder might be commoner 3/warrior 2/expert 3/adept 2. In an elven settlement on the other hand, an adult would be something like: warrior 2/wizard 5/expert 2, and an venerable elder, warrior 2/wizard 10/expert 8.

The power of the nobility would be based on the fact that they intensively educate their children in a PC class from a very young age (squires etc), so they start off better, as rather than a human starting their progression at 15 they do so at 10, and live lives much richer in experience. Thus, a 25 year old human noble may well be a war blade 4 (Note that war blades replace Fighters IMC) if the eldest son, or a wizard 4 if the second son, or a cloistered cleric 4 if a daughter.

Of course, exceptions and prodigies still exist, such as the PCs, but also other high level characters from short-lived races., but most high level beings come from races that can expect to last a long time.

This of course, has effects on the nature of the campaign world. The survival of the long lived rates despite their incredibly slow reproduction is explained, as their sheer individual might means that attrition isn't such a threat. Although their are lots of high level characters around, most are so multi-classed as to not over-shadow high level PCs, whilst keeping the low-level ones careful. Low level adventures still exist, but they are very small scale affairs, and generally don't involve huge amounts of physical conflict. You're not saving the village at first level, you're scouting out the tracks of something mildly unusual the local ranger has seen that isn't interesting enough to follow himself, or you're finding the source of an infestation of (normal) insects - essentially a 15 year old kid and that is the type of work you'll be doing.

If you ant to start of doing something more interesting, w begin at 3rd level.


----------



## grodog

Out of curiosity, Sep, how does your inspiration to discuss this topic relate to the epic+ level Wyre campaign?  Are you trying to find a way to bring the power levels down again for your next game, so that you'll not need Demogorgon to reasonably challenge the PCs?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> But there will always come a point where a PC rogue can outsneak a town guard, it's just a question of when.
> 
> In the kind of low magic vanilla I'm suggesting, a 5th-level rogue is not a common, low level occurrence - he is literally a 1 in 12,800 character.



But this is not SimDungeon. What works at the table has to be considered, unless this is a purely on-paper exercise, like so many oWoD discussions used to be.

That fifth level rogue will show up early in any _campaign_, at which point, he might as well have a wand of _suggestion_ where no one is able to beat his saving throw. That's fun for an adventure or two, but very quickly, that becomes very, very boring.

I would push the "guaranteed success" threshold in a campaign much closer to name level.


----------



## Quasqueton

Hommlet, from _The Village of Hommlet_ by Gary Gygax, for AD&D1

Total population: 166 (not counting young children)

0 level = 146

1st level = 1
2nd level = 5
3rd level = 4
4th level = 3
5th level = 1
6th level = 2 - cleric, fighter
7th level = 2 - druid, assassin
8th level = 1 - magic-user
9th level = 0
10th level = 1 - thief

12% of the arms-bearing-age population is above 0 level.

[The amount of treasure and magic items would shock you. I'm truly bewildered looking at the list and total.]

I'm considering adding up The Keep, Orlane, Restenford, and Garroten also.

Quasqueton

Edit: I just added up all the gold piece value of monetary "treasure" in Hommlet -- *134,324gp* total value. Yes, that's one hundred thirty-four thousand, three hundred twenty-four gold pieces total value! This is not counting magic items value.


----------



## Quasqueton

Restenford, from _The Secret of Bone Hill_ by Lenard Lakofka, for AD&D1

Total population: 173 (not counting young children)

0 level = 114

1st level = 23
2nd level = 17
3rd level = 9
4th level = 5
5th level = 1
6th level = 1 - cleric
7th level = 2 - fighter, druid
8th level = 0
9th level = 1 - magic-user
10th level = 0

34% of the arms-bearing-age population is above 0 level.

Quasqueton


----------



## Doug McCrae

Excellent, Quasq, as always. Old school power creep.

It's hard for a DM to stick to Sepulchrave's numbers because he finds he continually needs new challenges for the PCs.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> The amount of treasure and magic items would shock you. I'm truly bewildered looking at the list and total.



 It's funny, I was thinking of your analyses of 1E modules earlier - I've read some of them before. They were *truly* out of whack with the guidelines in the 1E DMG: I remember clearly the amount of strikethroughs that exist in my copy of _Keep on the Borderlands_. With a few exceptions, I didn't generally use modules (although B2, S4 and GDQ saw a lot of recycling). 

But like I say, I've been pretty selective about the 1E sources I've referenced.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's hard for a DM to stick to Sepulchrave's numbers because he finds he continually needs new challenges for the PCs.




It's really tough. Resisting the urge of power creep has always been a losing battle for me.

For me, part of it is also that the PCs exist in a bubble - a kind of discontinuity, around which the normal campaign reality can be expected to warp, and then spring back into its normal shape after the PCs have passed through it.


----------



## Remathilis

It really is an excellent analysis, good job.

One of the biggest changes you cite, but its not really given proper attention, is the removal of name level. In all older D&D, 9th-11th level was special in the same way epic level is now special. This was due to the length of time required to gain that much XP and changing face of the challenges faced (first orcs, then giants, now demons). 

A while back I remember a thread/poll asking how many people got to 20th level before 3e. It was surprisingly few. I know it took 11 years (off and on) to get to 16th as a thief in 2e. It was not uncommon for games to end at 9th and the dynamic shift in gaming. Hence, a lower-level populace seemed better suited to the game. Thanks to 3e's emphasis on faster advancment and actually using levels 11-20, the low level population seems annoyingly weak. This is doubly true for DMs who love to use human or humanoid NPC villains like evil mages or corrupt priests; if 1% of the population is PC level, I'd say half of them are evil mages, if any campaign is to be believed. 

3e's demographics are a response to a couple of fundamental questions...

1.) In a world of animated dead, crushing golems, powerful intelligent swords, and cursed rings, who makes all this stuff?
2.) Where were that PC (my best friend who just rolled up as a new character) before he joined our group?
3.) If guards kill orc raiders for years on end, don't they get the same Xp as I do? 
4.) "Don't worry, I can steal every last coin from the mayor's vault. I'm 6th level, what can they possibly do to me?"

Lastly, if the current demographics seem often like a superhero comic (X-men in particular, aren't there mutants who have non-crazy powers and fetishes for skintight latex?), then 1e D&D can be compared to Wuxia (rent Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). There are a finite amount of powerful kung-fu masters in the area, they all know who each other are, and they are constantly doing crazing things (like flying) while fighting each other in spectacular battles while normal people either watch in awe or are mowed down like mooks. When you limit the amount of advancement a group can make, you make them special. You also make them notorious. If Lord Bragg the Anti-Paladin is the most powerful warrior in Helmhome, you better bet a PC knows of him, will find him, and want to kill him. Like Immortals in Highlander, they'd be drawn to each other as the only people who could seriously challenge each other. That creates its own unique feel not simply stated in the DMG, but implied none-the-less by the analysis.

All that said, I applaud you on your article. Good job.


----------



## Sanguinemetaldawn

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Hommlet, from _The Village of Hommlet_ by Gary Gygax, for AD&D1...




Hommlet is a very poor choice for an example because of its unique circumstances.
Those circumstances being *spoilers* The battle of Emridy Meadows in the recent past and its function as a watch station on the Temple.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

I object to this thread's title solely on the grounds that true vanilla is *delicious*, and thus inappropriate as a comparison to First Edition.


----------



## SWBaxter

Sanguinemetaldawn said:
			
		

> Hommlet is a very poor choice for an example because of its unique circumstances.




Fair enough, but chances are most places an intrepid band of adventurers goes will exhibit some kind of unique circumstances, that being what draws them there in the first place. That makes the demographics outlined in the OP of only academic interest, as the PCs will generally see many more high level folks than the demographic analysis implies. Since the same idea can be applied in 3E (and has been - see _Ptolus_, for example), the idea that this is some kind of difference between editions is also on shaky ground. I suspect it's much more likely to be a difference in DMing style that transcends editions.


----------



## Raven Crowking

My changes to the NPC classes:

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/QLjARn...bpudM_4NqJSQ/Raven Crowking's NPC Classes.pdf


----------



## gizmo33

Remathilis said:
			
		

> 3e's demographics are a response to a couple of fundamental questions...
> 
> 1.) In a world of animated dead, crushing golems, powerful intelligent swords, and cursed rings, who makes all this stuff?
> 2.) Where were that PC (my best friend who just rolled up as a new character) before he joined our group?
> 3.) If guards kill orc raiders for years on end, don't they get the same Xp as I do?
> 4.) "Don't worry, I can steal every last coin from the mayor's vault. I'm 6th level, what can they possibly do to me?"




These are interesting questions, I see them come up all of the time, and I have a few problems with what seems to be the conventional wisdom.  In order:

1.  A 5,000 year old campaign world over time could produce plenty of golems, intelligent swords, etc. without all of those wizards existing in the current campaign year.  Also, I don't think the DnD rules are such a simulation that there aren't other means for creating these items other than those outlined in the rules.  This was especially the case in 1E, where demon lords and such could create items where no explicit power in their stat block gave them the ability to do so (just as no explicit power allowed them to grant cleric spells).  It's a question of how complete you expect the rules to be - IMO the rules are geared towards those elements most likely to come up during the adventure - and a power that allows a demon lord to create an intelligent sword over time is not such an element.

3.  A guard who is responsible for the death of more than one or two orcs in his career is an exceptional individual IMO.  In any case I think the advice in 1E was that powerful characters would be more prevalent in dangerous areas.  3E doesn't solve this problem anyway because AFAIK there's no distinction made between peaceful and dangerous areas.

4.  A mayor who can't deal with his local problems requests help from the local duke, who in turn would request help from the King.  It's a natural result of stingy demographics that if 6th level thieves are that rare that the mayor can't deal with them, then 6th level thieves aren't common enough to cause problems in other areas of the kingdom, meaning the Duke doesn't have worse threats to deal with.

(Edit:  Oh - also 3E sort of created a problem in this area anyway, because a CR 6 creature (like the thief in the example) is as powerful as two CR 4 creatures in theory.  However, IIRC this was not the case in 1E - two 4th level thieves could probably kill a 6th level thief pretty easily.  This means that large groups of low-level mooks were more capable of dealing with mid-level characters than they are now.)


----------



## Baron Opal

Very interesting, Sepulchrave.

At what scale would you consider the minimum or maximum? If I count out the demos for a 1 million people kingdom I will get very different demographics than 1000 towns of 1000 people. Granted, determining who goes where would be a chore.

Does this become the villian / ally pool? If there are competing adventuring parties, are their numbers drawn from these ranks? Put another way, once you determine what the distribution is, who are the exceptions from the rule?


----------



## Jeph

I'd put all those extras in the larger population centers, or in relative isolation. Like, for each town you end up with a few characters in the 5-6 range, but if you add them all together you've got a few in the 10-12 range, and you don't want to just throw a dart at the map and plunk these personalities down in some random hickory town... those NPCs would be the high priest of the grand temple in the capital city, the reclusive archivist in the wizard's tower in the mountains, the spirit-mediator in the depths of the dark forest, and so on.


----------



## mmadsen

Remathilis said:
			
		

> One of the biggest changes you cite, but its not really given proper attention, is the removal of name level. In all older D&D, 9th-11th level was special in the same way epic level is now special.



I really think that's the key point, and it explains so much of the difference between editions.


			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> In a world of animated dead, crushing golems, powerful intelligent swords, and cursed rings, who makes all this stuff?



Most fantasy assumes a great fallen empire in the past, and most of those magic items don't degrade over time.


			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> If guards kill orc raiders for years on end, don't they get the same Xp as I do?



Sure, but how much combat does an average soldier even see, and if he sees much combat, does he survive it?  PCs are living an oddly blessed existence, where they keep stumbling across challenges just within their reach.


			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> "Don't worry, I can steal every last coin from the mayor's vault. I'm 6th level, what can they possibly do to me?"



That sounds like the start of a great adventure...


----------



## grodog

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Heroes and the 1% Solution*
> Many years ago, I read an article in _White Dwarf_ magazine (I think an issue numbering in the 50s or 60s) which alluded to the likely incidence of high-level characters – specifically high level Magic-Users – in a campaign. I suspect that Lew Pulpisher wrote the article, and I think it was about (and against the notion of) 'Magic Shops' although I can't be sure – it's been twenty years since I read it, and my mags are in a box somewhere in Britain and I'm in the States. I might be conflating two different articles.




Found it, Sep.  It's "Magimart:  Buying and Selling Magic Items" by Lewis Pulsipher in WD 43 (July 1983), page 15.  For reference, I posted the article to my site @ http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/temp/WD43-page15.pdf


----------



## grodog

Sep---

Will you be using some of the ideas herein for your looming B/X campaign, or have your thoughts on 1e demographics changed quite a bit over the past couple of years?


----------



## Coldwyn

I don´t really think the post was so thought out, or to clarify, the assumptions made are based on rules that fail to represent a functioning game world.
That´s due to the fact that the opposition is much more powerful than the depicted societies could defend against in a meaningful way.
If I take the Monster Manuals into account, no matter which edition, pick a creature and examine it´s ecology and possible population, it´ll show that a mostly class-less and no- to lowlevel world couldn´t possible put up any resistance.

[Additional Thought] You´d need o chance "a" to "the" to simulate the monsters with the low demographig, so changing "a hydra" to "the hydra", making every capable monster unique and reducing their number to the equivalent number of possible named level characters, thereby dismantling any meaningful sense of simulation.


----------



## S'mon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I disagree with dumping NPC classes, and here's why: After a certain (low) point, the party bard or rogue will _never_ fail to be able to sneak past the town guards, never fail to be able to shortchange the local innkeeper, will never fail to be able to hoodwink a knowledgeable craftsperson.




_Why would you want the PC to fail_?

I think PCs using abilities within their area of expertise should not be failing vs mundane people.  The Rogue should be able to sneak past the soldiers in the castle, just as the Fighter could kill them with his swordand the Wizard go Invisible or Fireball them without fail.   Higher failure rates on skill checks really shaft the skill-based PCs IMO, especially when they're also weak in combat.

Anyway, great article from the OP, sorry I missed it first time round - August 2007 my son was 2 months old, so not surprising! 

Gearing up to run 4e, my perspective has shifted a lot.  Unlike 1e through even 3e, 4e steers hard away from any rules-as-physics, and encourages arbitrary or ad-hoc statting of NPCs.  

Currently I don't think I'm going to be using any PC-class NPCs in my upcoming 4e campaign, rather all NPCs will be statted as 'monsters', like the sample Humans in the MM.  What were high-level spellcasters will be given a Ritual Casting level; blaster wizard types can use the human warmage stats from the MM, increased or decreased in level.  Warrior types can use eg the Human Bandit or Human Guard stats, possibly with different special powers.


----------



## S'mon

Coldwyn said:


> I don´t really think the post was so thought out, or to clarify, the assumptions made are based on rules that fail to represent a functioning game world.
> That´s due to the fact that the opposition is much more powerful than the depicted societies could defend against in a meaningful way.
> If I take the Monster Manuals into account, no matter which edition, pick a creature and examine it´s ecology and possible population, it´ll show that a mostly class-less and no- to lowlevel world couldn´t possible put up any resistance.




I think you need to grok the concept of the Threshold, as Joseph Campbell puts it, between 

(1) The Real World - the World of Real People per Sep, the Mundane World, or as Gygax put it in B2 the Realm of Man and

(2) The Myth-World, the World of Adventure, Campbell's Underworld, Gygax's Realm of Chaos.

Creatures from (2), the inhabitants of the Monster Manual, simply don't/can't manifest in (1).  This was strongly implicit in Gygax's OD&D, weakened somewhat in AD&D (with its vampires and demons in the town encounter table), and explicitly abandoned in 3e (Monte Cook's "This is a mistake" advice in the 3e DMG).

Gygax makes clear in eg B2, or the 1983 World of Greyhawk demographics advice, that the Threshold, the liminal zone, the area of "high PC activity", does not follow the rules of the Mundane World when it comes to demographics, because this is where heroes & villains both concentrate.  The heroes are there to hold back the Realm of Chaos and/or expand the Realm of Man.  The villains are there to do the opposite.  If the heroes fail, *then* Chaos floods into the Realm of Man and the perytons and gargoyles start eating the 0th level NPCs.

Places like Gygax's Hommlet are clearly on the Threshold.   Their demographics are irrelevant when creating a 'real world' backdrop against which the PCs adventure.

Of course this Gygax/Campbell 'Frontier/Threshold' approach is not the only way to play D&D.  Bob Bledsaw's Wilderlands has almost no identifable Frontier, at most it has islands of Law in a world of Chaos.


----------



## S'mon

Coldwyn said:


> [Additional Thought] You´d need o chance "a" to "the" to simulate the monsters with the low demographig, so changing "a hydra" to "the hydra", making every capable monster unique and reducing their number to the equivalent number of possible named level characters, thereby dismantling any meaningful sense of simulation.




You'd be simulating mythic Greece or the Sagas, Beowulf and medieval Romance...


----------



## Charwoman Gene

S'mon said:


> Of course this Gygax/Campbell 'Frontier/Threshold' approach is not the only way to play D&D.  Bob Bledsaw's Wilderlands has almost no identifable Frontier, at most it has islands of Law in a world of Chaos.




Like "spots of brightness" or something...


----------



## S'mon

Charwoman Gene said:


> Like "spots of brightness" or something...




Yeah, it's been well noted that the 4e Points of Light paradigm maps very closely onto the Wilderlands; indeed many 4e concepts seem derived from the Wilderlands (and I know some 4e designers are Wilderlands fans).


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Fantastic thread, and it brings up a lot of interesting questions. I really like the idea of reminding the players that they're special and different, and surrounded by Real People.

4e can fall a little bit into the trap of escalating power levels (you fight with the Kings Guards... who are conveniently all 11th level Soldiers...), which can mean that sometimes you can step back and say "But if the King has 6 11th level Guards hanging around, why aren't they out conquering the Kingdom for him?"

I think I'm going to make it clear in my own game that people that aren't PC's are effectively "1st level" and have only the minimum of a skill training or two to mark them out. With that kind of thing, like you say, the can be differentiated from each other whilst still being less powerful than the Pc's in nearly every way.

Plus it makes it easy for a 1st level Real Person to match skills with a PC. +5 for trained, +2 or 3 stat bonus, possibly +3 for a skill focus feat (assuming all Real People get one feat) gives a score of +11 or so - easily challenging in an opposed skill check for any Heroic tier character.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

S'mon said:


> I think you need to grok the concept of the Threshold, as Joseph Campbell puts it, between
> 
> (1) The Real World - the World of Real People per Sep, the Mundane World, or as Gygax put it in B2 the Realm of Man and
> 
> (2) The Myth-World, the World of Adventure, Campbell's Underworld, Gygax's Realm of Chaos.




I really like this as a conception for a campaign world. It makes a really clear distinction between different areas, and also neatly explains why the PC's end up doing so much of the "hero" work in a world - they are the ones that are on the Threshold all the time, and so this stuff just keeps happening to them.


----------



## S'mon

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I think I'm going to make it clear in my own game that people that aren't PC's are effectively "1st level" and have only the minimum of a skill training or two to mark them out. With that kind of thing, like you say, the can be differentiated from each other whilst still being less powerful than the Pc's in nearly every way.




Hi Matt - that's pretty much how I'm going to do it in my 4e campaign.  I'm assigning Ritual Caster levels to spellcaster NPCs, who may or may not have any combat-casting ability.  At the same time I'll assign appropriate skill mods to expert NPCs like smiths, where necessary.   For hit point total & combat stats, making them 1st level (probably artillery or skirmisher) should work, or they can just be Human Rabble.  

For combatant 'mundane' NPCs like town guards, the MM & MM2 stats for Human Guard, Human Bandit, Human Noble, Human Cavalier et al are useable, and can be levelled up or down several levels - eg an 8th level version of the MM Human Guard would work well for Overking's Palace Guard IMC.  If I were running a Paragon campaign though I might stat them as eg 15th level Minions instead.


----------



## S'mon

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I really like this as a conception for a campaign world. It makes a really clear distinction between different areas, and also neatly explains why the PC's end up doing so much of the "hero" work in a world - they are the ones that are on the Threshold all the time, and so this stuff just keeps happening to them.




It's noticeable that many CRPGs like Diablo & Diablo II, which tap into the classic Gygaxian model, use this.  If Joseph Campbell ('Hero With A Thousand Faces') is right, it has a powerful mythic resonance, which helps explain why D&D is so much more successful than other RPGs.  In a game like Diablo, the PCs' powers only function beyond the Threshold; "in town" you can't fight people, you can only talk and buy things! 

In OD&D's original books, 'adventure' took place only in "The Underworld & Wilderness", and thus it stuck very close to the Campbell paradigm - which notably is not the Swords & Sorcery paradigm at all.  It's a mythic paradigm, and you see it in Star Wars as well as many many 'mythic' 'fairy tale' 'fantasy' type movies & books, including The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings*.

But Swords & Sorcery is modernist, not mythic.  In S&S evil lives in the mean streets of the City, and in the hearts of Men.  It's Raymond Chandler - "Down These Mean Streets a Man Must Go".  The hideous monsters of the Outer Dark pale before the horrors of the human psyche.

*Lord of the Rings does of course include a final bleak flourish to Modernism - The Scouring of the Shire.  It's notable that Peter Jackson rejected that, along with the humourous elements in the original books, and created something much more in line with traditional Romance of the 19th century & earlier.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb

I'm sorely tempted to start a separate thread to put an end to the myth (yes, _myth_) that leveled characters in AD&D are this "rare commodity". _They're not._ Sepulchrave subscribes to the "1% fallacy". The "1% fallacy" is that in AD&D, only 1% of the population had levels, while the rest of the NPCs are zero-level nobodies. _Nothing could be further from the truth._

He mentions this: 



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> In any event, the numbers were burned into my mind. For a long time, when I was playing AD&D, I used them when I was designing settlements in order to determine the incidence of PC-class characters: I know some still use this system (S'mon, amongst others), or variations thereof. Here are the magic numbers:
> 
> * 1% of characters are PC-class; the remaining 99% are 0-level
> * For every PC-class character of level N, there are half as many PC-class characters of level (N+1)
> 
> 
> Bear in mind that this was 1E, and we don't have 0-level characters anymore. But the assumed incidence of PC-class characters is more-or-less 1E canon (if such ever existed). On p.35 of the 1E Dungeon Masters Guide it states:






			
				From the 1e DMG said:
			
		

> Human and half-orc characters suitable for level advancement are found at a ratio of 1 in 100.




Unfortunately, the OP takes this quote completely out of context. That magic number of 1%? It refers to the level advancement of _henchmen_. Now before anyone says, "so what?"....please allow me to point out a couple things. For starters, in AD&D, _you can already have class levels, and be unsuitable for level advancement._ For an example, check out the 1e DMG on page 30. That section is devoted to "expert hirelings", and one of those hirelings is labeled as a "Captain", which is simply a capable leader who happens to be a fighter of 5th to 8th-level. Again, you might say..."so"? And I'd say, "_captains are incapable of working upwards in level"_. In other words, they have levels, but they don't advance.

Oddly, that's not even my main point. If you _really_ want an idea of the level of NPCs you might encounter in 1e, then just skim through the _City/Town Encounters Matrix_ in the 1e DMG, on page 190. It's a perfect example of what to expect if you travel through any town or city. If you read it, you'll see that over half the encounters have NPCs that could easily mulch a 1st-level Fighter. But don't take my word for it. _Read it._


----------



## S'mon

SL - The DMG Town Encounter table is intended to provide exciting city encounters for D&D's core level range.  In terms of demographics, the highest level NPCs on it - around 12th level - are likely to be the most powerful people in the city.  You see similar from the Random Fortress table, albeit it's intended for 'Wilderness' fortresses beyond the Threshold (making up 1 in 20 random Wilderness encounters), not castles within the mundane civilised world.  Its Fortress rulers are typically 9th-12th level, up to 14th for some classes.

However you are right that that 1% figure is for 'heroic', PC-type NPCs, who can gain XP and advance as PCs.  It does not include fixed-level NPCs like mercenaries and sages.  It probably doesn't include the leader-type NPCs in the Men section of the MM, like Pirate Chiefs (although again those are Wilderness encounters, you don't expect to battle 20-200 Bandits + Leaders while travelling the roads of Furyondy, unless the DM is very mean).

You also need to take account that cities are power centres for a wide area; a rural population around 20 times that of the city.  A city of 30,000 will likely hold most of the highest level NPCs from a rural hinterland (including market towns) of around 600,000 - in Greyhawk; in the real middle ages it'd typically be 3 million to 6 million+, but Greyhawk population figures are all very low, as has been noted.   

Thus, when the PCs walk through the city and the GM rolls up an encounter with a 12th level high priest, that may well be the highest level Cleric in a population of hundreds of thousands of people.

A final point - the 1/2 ratio is for levels up to name level.  After name level the 1e XP curve flattens out and the ratio becomes more like 3/2, per the 1983 Greyhawk set.  Actually at the highest levels it gets more like 1/1 as progression increases rapidly while lethality declines; that's how you get 29th level Arch-Mages.


----------



## Eridanis

What a great discussion; I'd missed it last time round. I'll archive it for posterity when the new discussion has died down.

For myself, I'm always torn between campaign worlds where so much of the "good stuff" has already happened (the great warriors and mages lived in the past, and we live in the ruins of what they left behind) and worlds where someone cool and interesting could be right around the corner (we are the history makers, we change the world). Elements of both appear in my games, so I've never come down on one side or the other, but the great majority of everyday NPCs are 0-level, and always will be (even if they have interesting backstory, as appropriate).


----------



## Doug McCrae

Sacrificial Lamb said:


> If you _really_ want an idea of the level of NPCs you might encounter in 1e, then just skim through the _City/Town Encounters Matrix_ in the 1e DMG, on page 190. It's a perfect example of what to expect if you travel through any town or city. If you read it, you'll see that over half the encounters have NPCs that could easily mulch a 1st-level Fighter.



But what if the encounter table is for PCs only? Like heroes in adventure fiction, they lead coincidence strewn lives quite different from those of ordinary people.

PCs go in a tavern and it's a front for the Thieves' Guild. PC gets a girlfriend and she turns out to be a succubus. They travel by boat and it's attacked by pirates. They step outside the front door and get eaten by an ankheg. Normal people don't experience any of that, they go in a tavern and have a quiet drink.

The encounter tables may not be simulationist.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb

Doug McCrae said:


> But what if the encounter table is for PCs only? Like heroes in adventure fiction, they lead coincidence strewn lives quite different from those of ordinary people.
> 
> PCs go in a tavern and it's a front for the Thieves' Guild. PC gets a girlfriend and she turns out to be a succubus. They travel by boat and it's attacked by pirates. They step outside the front door and get eaten by an ankheg. Normal people don't experience any of that, they go in a tavern and have a quiet drink.
> 
> The encounter tables may not be simulationist.




Actually, I'm sure "normal people" _do_ experience that kind of thing, though not every day. That tavern you mention that acts as a front for the Thieves' Guild? That would likely be classified as a "_Prime Inhabited Area_", which is considered a special case within the 1e DMG. You wouldn't necessarily use the matrix for that.

I treat those encounter tables as simulationist, in that the _City/Town Encounters Matrix_ acts as an example of what to expect in most towns and cities _that aren't Prime Inhabited Areas_. Most of the NPCs don't start attacking you without provocation, because they have their own business to attend to, though it _is_ more dangerous to travel the towns and cities at night.....


----------

