I was curious as to the population density in the more rural and wilder areas of the World of Greyhawk. For instance, is every hex on the map of the Gran March populated with villages, hamlets or such? Can a man, elf, half-elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome or half-orc walk in areas of "civilized" lands and kingdoms for days without coming into contact with any like company? Are the Lortmils so heavily dotted with dwarven strongholds that a man can't walk without being spotted? If this is the case, then what is the case in regards to say....The Wolf Nomads, The Yeomanry or The Theocracy of the Pale? Any input is greatly appreciated!
This is sort of a sore spot. The population figures given for the Flanaess are extremely low by medieval European standards, both urban and overall. If you do use those figures, then yes a lot of land inside civilized kingdoms is sparsely populated and, outside of the hexes containing towns and cities (where the urban and rural populations would be the most dense), it is quite likely that one could go days without encountering a village or the like. A lot of areas might have homesteads and such, much like the colonial fringe of the early America.
If you disregard those figures and use ones more matching the real world, then one could sometimes go a day or three without meeting a village, but generally you wouldn't unless you were travelling some sort of badlands or out of the way place.
In the case of medieval Europeans, most lived in fairly tight cultural groups. They often set up their towns in areas where travel would be most convenient and thoroughfares would be easily accessible. They often lived near a keep and developed townships (usually walled) to protect themselves from marauders and bandits. The world outside the town, away from the protection of the keep, was perceived as dangerous and fairly unknown. (Hmm. a lot of campaigns start on this premise.) Whether this was really true or not is irrelevant. The vassals were told what was real by their feudal masters (the keeps Lord or the clergy). This gave the Lord tremendous control over their vassals. What they said was generally accepted as truth, if not gospel. Openly challenging this was just not done without dire consequences -- fining, imprisonment, or loss of status and livelihood.
If this basic stereotype is held over into Greyhawk, then, with its smaller population, it seems reasonable that there is a lot of uninhabited (but not unclaimed land). A group of Knights from Keoland could march across much of Furyondy before being noticed, if that was their intent. Orcs, too, if their habits didn't give them away so often.
Use whatever it takes to feel comfortable as the GM and for your players to have fun. Be consistent with "your" Greyhawk demographic to further the player-to-GM trust.
Use whatever it takes to feel comfortable as the GM and for your players to have fun. Be consistent with "your" Greyhawk demographic to further the player-to-GM trust.
I think this is the best idea...I seem to remember previous arguments/discussions about population density. In some ways I think it makes more sense to have a lower population density than in historical Medieval times. If every hex had settlements in then then there would be a smaller chance of various beasts and villains being around as by now someone would have been sent by the local lord to deal with them...the chances of a roaming owlbear or stray band of ogres seems less. Plus in real world models rural settlements were not threatened by fantasy beats and the living dead so with bandits being the only real threat (in times of peace) there wasn't much issue being a small hamlet in the countryside.
Also in real world models there were no active organisations/individuals or deities who supported the preservation of the wild. In Greyhawk druids or agents of gods such as Obad-Hai take an active role in preserving the wilderness.
For these reasons I think the lower sparcer population model makes more sense from a fantasy game point of view.
Well, the problem with the low population is more in the knock on effects with other aspects of the civilization's development: military, economy, etc. And if the roads are as dangerous as supposed above, that affects trade to a great extent. All that can be easily ignored if desired, of course.
Also, its important to realize that wilderness persisted even in medieval european level populated regions. People simply didn't settle "everywhere": mountains, dense forests, moors and swamps, etc were all too much effort or too infertile to support settlement regardless of desire.
Small medieval towns were often about two day’s journey apart, with a small village in between sometimes. People tended not to travel much due to a lack of available free time and because of the danger of outlaws and wild animals. Raiders and even small armies could skirt around populated areas because of this and often did so (see Scottish history for numerous examples). Armies would use outriders/scouts to make sure nobody saw them, and to silence those who did. WOG would be very similar, even if the population numbers were increased a bit more.
The majority of rural villages are pretty much self-contained and the populace doesn't venture far beyond the boundaries, as the ruler's troops and lawmen are not around all that much to handle problems that may pop up. Safety in numbers basically.
To answer your question, yes, you could travel in most areas of WOG for a few days (maybe even weeks in some of the rougher terrain) without seeing another soul, particularly if you stay off the roads and take a more overland route. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Given the various dangers in a fantasy world, monsters, humanoids and evil magic, the populace would tend to "huddle" for protection.
One should also look at the beneficial factors, druids, healing, if a rural community wanted to ensure prosperity the last thing it would do is violate the wild and upset the local druid, people would stay close to priests, even cure light wounds can be a life saver,
Socially the authority of the church and nobles within a feudal system where the Gods are manifestly real can't be overstated and to preserve the worshippers and tax base the last thing the church or nobility wants is pioneers, if anything any new settlements would probably be planned and supported.
Finally, demi-human competition, many of the areas that humans consider less than desirable such as forests, mountains, hills are given their enviromental skills prime real estate for the demi-human races, which explains why their isn't more inter-species conflict. The only race that desires the same landscape is the halfling which helps explains the friendly nature, population wise they can't compete so they found ways to be helpful.
Granted the Flanaess is grossly underpopulated, however there are reasons that the Flanaess wouldn't neccessarily mirror medieval earth.
I would generally expect a town, small or large, in every clear hex. Add the population of those to the cities, then sprinkle villages in to account for the rest. Even though the population density is low, you will still wind up with settlements 1-2 days apart at most.
I think an important thing to remember here is just how little space such a settlement will occupy. A village will be 2 square miles at most, a town 2-5 times that amount. With 780 square miles per hex, that is a LOT of empty space.
A village will be 2 square miles at most, a town 2-5 times that amount. With 780 square miles per hex, that is a LOT of empty space
I don't have the maps at work here with me (unfortunately!): Is that scale on the Darlene maps hexes or the GH map released with the 3rd edition? I seem to remember the Dalene maps having many more hexes... _________________ Michael Erin Sandar Bard of Midwood
The Darlene maps are 30 miles across to the hex.
Using arcane and unknowable calculations (that is, it took me an hour to find a website with a simple formula to use to calculate the area of a regular hexagon when you only know the radius to a side), the area of such a hex is about 780 square miles.
Just curious because I seem to remember the 3e hexes being 64 miles across, which would make a big difference. _________________ Michael Erin Sandar Bard of Midwood
For these reasons I think the lower sparcer population model makes more sense from a fantasy game point of view.
I agree with wolfling in that you need the lower density poulation if your going to go with a classic D&D fantasy setting like Greyhawk, it allows the monsters on the outskirts of town ect.. to exsist.
In my Campaign if I'm flushing out an area in more detail, I usually look up the population of the area such as by county or Duchy if possible instead of entire Kingdom, I look at the major population centers listed in Ref. ect.. and subtract thier population then start to add my own villages and thorps throughout the area, mostly along routes between population centers and farms and plantations or inns between the villages. Then add some woodsmans cottages or trackers homes ect.. in the fringe areas, maybe a small freehold keep here or there along with a demi-human or humanoid settlement where it makes since.
If you figure those settlements are depending on size going to keep beasties a certain distance away, then even in a "civilized Nation such as Nyrond or the like it still gives plenty of area for "monsters, caves, lairs ect..." Should the adventures go off the main thoroughfare or beaten track.
This gives the untamed wilderness the Creatures need, plus a since of reality with thicker population growths along trade routes or near resources.
If you think about it even in the world today its the same Las Vegas is huge and bustling and the Road between LA. and Vegas is remote but still has small towns and way stations for the traveler between but get off that road in the Desert and you could walk for days in the Harsh "wilderness" without seeing anthor soul......and this area is in the civilized country of the United States; now populate that desert with Giant Fire Ants, Hook Horrors and the like and you got the same thing a band of roving Orcs might nor mess with LA. or Vegas but it might with Barstow.
The Darlene maps and the latest Dungeon magazine poster maps use a hex grid 30 miles across(780 sq. miles per hex). Most of the larger overland maps use this scale, though the hex grid on the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer map is 65 miles across(about 3,660 sq. miles per hex). I think this has led to much confusion. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Actually, I don't think a significantly lower population density is needed for a fantasy setting.
The overall population density should remain in line with historic norms, and thus some "space" needs to be reserved for monsters of varying sorts, but you don't need to cut that many to get huge amounts of fallow land. Look at how easy it is to get lost in wilderness in the modern US with our population density of about 83/square mile.
I must admit, I personally like the idea of a low population. I think it's interesting for the PC's when they are out and about and come across a lone castle or settlement.
PC #1- "Castle! Whose castle? Think they're friendly? Get the map."
PC #2- "Uh, the map doesn't show a castle....anywhere."
PC #1- "Are you reading it right?! Give it here."
PC #2- "Are you kidding me? Of course I'm reading it right you dork! I mean come on, the DM isn't the best map maker, but it's ledgable. Oh, sorry DM. Anyway, is this right; a castle out in the middle of nowhere?"
DM (me)- Oh yes, it is correct. You can see a small flock of sheep coming over the ridge and a dark Flan sheep herder dressed in simple and soiled herdsman's clothes freezes as he spots you. Then sudenly runs, leaving his flock.
PC's- Crap!
Plus I think that as much as they may, the nobles simply don't have a way of policing the lands. Somebody sends out a patrol of say half a dozen men-at-arms and a knight. They don't come back. The noble sends out a patrol to see what happened. If the patrol finds remains, they may find who killed the first patrol. If they don't, they may just assume something big and nasty got them....and it might still be in the area. Yikes! They may not know to look over the next two ridges and find someone has been refurbishing some ancient ruins and making a "claim to the area." Now granted, this is a very loosely controlled society, but you get the idea. Nothing more intimidating than finding out that your next door neighbor's castle is now in shambles...Oh wait, the last time you spoke with your next door neighbor in the castle was what one or two months ago? I figure if peasants don't normally travel more than 5 miles outside their village, there's all kinds of room to play in. Any opinions? Bueller? Bueller?
It's probably been pointed out before, but no harm in beating the drum - of course human pops wouldn't be evenly spread across the landscape. They'd cluster according to resources - fertile soils, water, exploitable minerals, trade nexes, along roads, cities etc - and security.
So in the Sheldomar or Flamni basins, you'd expect to see fairly dense populations (perhaps approaching typical medieval levels). As you move away from the good land, things begin to thin out a lot. Lots of pastures and wide open spaces. Villages become more fortified (and might cluster around the keep of the local lord, if there is one), you don't see isolated homesteads any more, the chances of running into trouble - be it bandits, orcs or critters - go up.
It does indeed offer lots of possibilities for adventure hooks.
Even with a medieval population density there's going to be plenty of 'wilderness' in settled countries. Even with demi humans occupying some of the otherwise uninhabitable spaces, there'll be plenty of open space for monsters and future settlement.
With a place like Sterich, a back of napkin calculation is only giving 6 people per square mile. About 35 Dungeon mag hexes and an LGG pop of 150k. That country is going to be EMPTY in a big way, especially considering 10% of the population lives in Istivin itself. Keoland, which is fat farmland with almost no history of recent warfare on its territory is something like 13 per square mile. Medieval Scotland, hardly a high pop place, had something like 16 folks per square mile while England had like 40 per. And both had plenty of wilderness still.
Keoland is going to have vast tracts of uninhabited land at the given values. Probably 1/2 to 2/3rds of the land is effectively empty. Medieval agriculture is labor intensive and doesn't travel well. So the population is going to be concentrated around the cities and towns in the best sites. A band of villages around that, then emptiness until the next blotch of settlements.
Oeridan horse and cattle hearding might explain or at least fill the spaces somewhat. You can take the nomad out of the plains, but you can't take the plains out of the nomad. :)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
They may not know to look over the next two ridges and find someone has been refurbishing some ancient ruins and making a "claim to the area." Now granted, this is a very loosely controlled society, but you get the idea. Nothing more intimidating than finding out that your next door neighbor's castle is now in shambles...Oh wait, the last time you spoke with your next door neighbor in the castle was what one or two months ago? I figure if peasants don't normally travel more than 5 miles outside their village, there's all kinds of room to play in. 
Any opinions? Bueller? Bueller?
