| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 09:21:59
Hi again. Lately I've been looking for information about the number of inhabitants of each realm, because if there's a war between two countries, knowing each other manpower should be essential.
There's a lot of official lore about this... but the problem is I'm a bit disappointed. As far as I know, many of the realms are somewhat similar to european real countries; Amn is related to Spain, Cormyr is somewhat related to France, and so on.
So, using the Forgotten Realms Atlas (what a great tool, BTW; hope they'll do it again) I began to compare areas between real countries and imaginary countries, and, as I study History (and I'm a freak :P), I took some information on demography in the late middle ages and the rennaissance. And that's the reason I'm here posting :D.
Amn has an area of 450.000/550.000 km2 (sorry I'm not using square miles). Iberian peninsula has a total of 592.000 km2. So, they're similar, maybe Amn is a little bit smaller, but even though, it' still a big country. Nevertheless, the official lore estimates Amn has a pob. of nearly 3 million people. During the reign of Philip II, Castille had 7 million people, Aragon had 1 million people and Portugal had another million people. It makes a total of 9 million people (maybe more, you know). And there was no demographic boom during the XVI century; even more, during the reigns of Charles I and Philip II there was a fairly important migration to the colonies and some issues relating food production, so the general poblation didn't change much during the XVI century.
Even in the times of the roman province of Hispania, the total was of 7 million people (estimate), which had to be very similar to the XV century, during the reigns of Henry IV (of Spain, of course :P) and Isabella I.
I apologize for all the useless information, but I just want to expose my disappointment. Amn have three great rivers, big plains perfect for farming, even a city focused only on farm products (Purskul). Great plains, great resources, a colonization in progress, and ~500.000 km2. And even though, just nearly 3 million people. I think it's a nonsense, and I just want to know your opinion about this. And it's not only about Amn; Cormyr, for example, is supposed to be a very important country, and it has only 1.300.000 inhabitants. Ok, it has a lot of mountains and forests, but it makes no sense for me to state Cormyr is a great country when a city-state like Hlondeth has around 500.000 inhabitants; Vilhon Reach, overall, has a total pob. of 5 million people. So why is Cormyr depicted as a powerful and ancient country even if it really has no demographic power to do anything with its neighbors?
Calimshan, on the other hand, has a big desert, and no colonies, and still has more than 5 million people. It's area is nearly the same (even a little smaller). I don't think it's wrong, anyway. A lot of commerce, a big coast... it's reasonable. But I think a country like Amn should have a lot more people. I think Amn should have around the same inhabitants as Calimshan, or even more (~6 million). Even Tethyr, with the Wealdath covering a lot of its area, has 3.700.000 people. Is has less plains, less commerce and even had a civil war recently (3rd edition); still, more people living in less land. Same with Thay: around 5 million people, and it's a region with no stability (Rashemen raids, the wars with Aglarond, its own goverment form...), and a good part of the country is on a plateau, which is far less suited for farming than the great plains of Amn.
Anyway, if any of you have useful information about the matter (maybe I'm wrong after all and there's something I didn't know), I'd be very grateful for any opinion. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 05 Feb 2010 : 15:09:48
quote:
Originally posted by rjfras
You also have to take into account that most in the realms worship or pay homage to multiple deities, not just one like devout clerics and many PCs who only worry about their patron deity cause it's required. Also, except for a few city-states in the shining sea area (and a few others in other places), you have multiple churches/shrines in a lot of towns, not just just one faith. So the rules/laws aren't made by just one faith, if at all nor control the populous like in MA.
This is something Ed built into the Realms from the very beginning. As he said back in '04:-
"So thats the way I did it. DRAGON issue 54 contains my work-in-progress unfolding of a pantheon of gods, and a glance at that article will show you three things at work: like all D&D gamers at the time, I was trying to stay official, matching deities with what Gary Gygax had revealed of his (the Greyhawk setting); I wanted lots of gods (one aspect of the Realms thats thus far been neglected is the extent to which Jonthun the baker next door worships Chauntea for a good harvest, Tymora for good luck in the baking, Talos for good weather so the grain crops wont be ruined, and so on, all in the same day);" |
| rjfras |
Posted - 05 Feb 2010 : 14:48:24
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Apart from divine casters, is it easy for people to change their faith? Are there no drawbacks? What about Kelemvor (I love this god, btw :D) dealing with people having... unstable faiths? Kelemvor is supposed to rip memories from the souls of atheist and non truly believers, and that souls become part of the Wall of Souls.
Well, in the Realms, your dominant faith (the deity you pay the most attention to) is going to be the one that most matches your own temperment and personality. So while it's possible to change faiths, in a way it would involve changing your personal outlook on matters. Obviously it would be easier to convert in some cases, like from Torm to Helm, than it would be in some other cases, like going from Torm to Waukeen.
And its important to remember, too, as Power of Faerūn states that "Most folk in Faerūn embrace (or drift into) primary worship of one deity above -- even if only slightly above -- all others."
You also have to take into account that most in the realms worship or pay homage to multiple deities, not just one like devout clerics and many PCs who only worry about their patron deity cause it's required. Also, except for a few city-states in the shining sea area (and a few others in other places), you have multiple churches/shrines in a lot of towns, not just just one faith. So the rules/laws aren't made by just one faith, if at all nor control the populous like in MA. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 05 Feb 2010 : 00:48:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Apart from divine casters, is it easy for people to change their faith? Are there no drawbacks? What about Kelemvor (I love this god, btw :D) dealing with people having... unstable faiths? Kelemvor is supposed to rip memories from the souls of atheist and non truly believers, and that souls become part of the Wall of Souls.
Well, in the Realms, your dominant faith (the deity you pay the most attention to) is going to be the one that most matches your own temperment and personality. So while it's possible to change faiths, in a way it would involve changing your personal outlook on matters. Obviously it would be easier to convert in some cases, like from Torm to Helm, than it would be in some other cases, like going from Torm to Waukeen.
And its important to remember, too, as Power of Faerūn states that "Most folk in Faerūn embrace (or drift into) primary worship of one deity above -- even if only slightly above -- all others."
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Feb 2010 : 00:39:02
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Apart from divine casters, is it easy for people to change their faith? Are there no drawbacks? What about Kelemvor (I love this god, btw :D) dealing with people having... unstable faiths? Kelemvor is supposed to rip memories from the souls of atheist and non truly believers, and that souls become part of the Wall of Souls.
Well, in the Realms, your dominant faith (the deity you pay the most attention to) is going to be the one that most matches your own temperment and personality. So while it's possible to change faiths, in a way it would involve changing your personal outlook on matters. Obviously it would be easier to convert in some cases, like from Torm to Helm, than it would be in some other cases, like going from Torm to Waukeen. |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 17:29:50
I did receive your files, and they're ok, even if I still have to work on them as there are some things that I do not understand.
About children, you're right. It was, generally, until the age of 7 (at least, from what I've read and studied) when they were "recognized" by their parents (not in the legal sense of the word, of course; until the Council of Trent in 1563 there was no need to register your children). So family members average rates on the MA are made taking this into account.
Anyway I just wonder how big are families supposed to be on the realms. If contraceptives are, with monsters and other things, the main cause of low demography, I wish anyone could give me some more info about families. But I think that family is something most roleplayers do not take care of, so there should be little information about this. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 16:24:22
Arzakon, did you get files ok? Were they useful or hard to understand/use?
I would think the high education has other effects as well, recognizing that too many people per area causes all people to do less well. There is also much better health care in D&D.
In MA many children were had and in some regions it appears a child was not counted until they reached age 5 or so, the real world death rate of the young must have been much higher then in the realms. A peasant had many children in hope at least one would survive to take care of them when old age approached (at least I have seen this claim often made).
Knowledge is power, those of FR have a lot more knowledge then the peasants or serfs of the MA. |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 15:42:37
That changes things a lot. With such a high proportion of owners and free peasants, the majority of the peasants would have no salary; instead, they would sell their own products, making them less dependant on nobles and/or landowners.
So, checking back to the main question about peasants' resources, they could really afford cassil herbs and nararoots, and they should even have money to spend on the education of their children (this does not, however, mean that churches have no influence in this matter). And, finally, about demography, if they can really afford contraceptives and there's a high level of literacy, maybe the 4,5-5,5 family members average ratio doesn't fit the Realms.
Well, I think this question is finally solved, after all :D. Even if I do not agree to such a high amount of free peasants (it's not about "logics", just a matter of likes/dislikes), Ed's words answer any question about the low demography on the realms. If families are smaller because of contraceptives and a high degree of literacy, then it's okay to have Amn with such a low population. The only thing left to answer is about the big cities, but that's a minor issue.
Thanks for Ed's quote. That's been quite helpful. :) |
| rjfras |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 15:20:47
quote:
Posted - 28 Nov 2009 : 03:05:52
Hi again, all. A quick Ed-reply to Kajehases question: . . .what is the ratio of land-owning farmers to farmers paying someone (probably a noble or religious organisation, I'm guessing) for the privilege of working their homesteads in Cormyr, the Vast, and the Waterdeep uplands respectively?
Ed replies:
The owners versus tenants ratio is about 85 percent owners to 15 percent tenants in Cormyr (with almost all tenant farmers in the southeast; if you expand the definition of tenants to include the household staff of nobility working the nobles farmland, AND include farmers who farm their own land but also farm a field or two owned by absentee landlords [[usually city folk or nearby nobles]], the ratio shifts to about 70 percent land-owning farmers versus 30 percent renting farmers).
In the Vast, its 75 owners to 15 tenants, but if you use the expanded tenant definition above, matters shift to about 67 percent owners to 33 percent tenants.
In the Waterdeep uplands (Goldenfields and similar temple-farms farmed by the resident clergy specifically excluded), the ratio is 82 percent owners to 18 percent tenants, but if you use the expanded definition, things shift only slightly (to 79 owners vs. 21 percent tenants).
So saith Ed. Who adds that Amn is the land where tenants widely outnumber owners, except in the hilly and mountainous borderlands.
love to all,
THO
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 02:06:22
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
I didn't read "temple support". And... it's quite obvious, after all :P. I'll work on that idea.
You must remember when you consider the idea that the different religions all are given respect, or in some cases caution, because all of them are valid. There is viable proof of healing, raising from the dead, increasing crop yields, flying, fireballs, blade shields and the rest of all magic can do.
In FR the clerics are trying to get all to accept their deity as patron deity. Even the clerics of one faith pay some homage to other faiths that are aligned. It thus follows in my thought these clerics would provide some schooling for any that entered their temples. The tradition of knowing clearly would tend to expect attendance provided education as to reading and writing. As Woolpert indicated if cleric one did not serve parent or child well, parent clearly could select cleric two (or five). |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 01:57:03
That brings another question, but it has nothing to do with demography. Or maybe not, as its difficulty would influence this matter.
Apart from divine casters, is it easy for people to change their faith? Are there no drawbacks? What about Kelemvor (I love this god, btw :D) dealing with people having... unstable faiths? Kelemvor is supposed to rip memories from the souls of atheist and non truly believers, and that souls become part of the Wall of Souls.
I don't think normal people are aware of this, but maybe clerics can use (even if they're not sure about it) somewhat similar ideas to prevent people from changing their faith. Do Faiths & Pantheons handle this? (I just do not recall having read anything about this; maybe Power of Faerūn will handle this issue). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 01:48:07
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Sage and Wooly, even if there is no monolothic religion group, there's no reason to believe things should be so differente when we're talking about nobility and the church. Just take a look at old politheist civilizations: the clergy had a lot of power, even if there were a lot of gods. Of course, some gods had more power than others, but anyway religious groups had a lot of power. Of course, if we compare Forgotten Realms to ancient Rome or Greece... things could be a bit different, as those cultures, even if quite religious, were also civic cultures, and state religion didn't have as much power as in ancient theocracy-like states. Maybe I'm wrong after all and this is the general overview about god worship and churches, but I'll have to think about it. Good point, anyway :).
I'm not saying that churches don't have a lot of power. It's just that since there's no monotheistic religion, you don't have nearly all the power consolidated in one group. Even if all power was held by churches, each church is a different organization, and people outside of that church don't have to pay too much attention to it. A monotheistic religion can say "do as we command or your immortal soul is in danger!", but when there's other deities, you just pick any of them.
It's like the difference between having ten people control one room, or having ten rooms each controlled by a single person. If the guy in room A is a tyrant, check out room B.  |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 01:35:21
I wish they made more books with social issues. Education is quite a complicated thing, because if parents are the only source for children education, I doubt there would be such a high literacy. Or maybe not, because there's a strong tradition on literacy. Do any of you have any info about this? Any core rulebook? I just have some general ideas.
EDIT: I didn't read "temple support". And... it's quite obvious, after all :P. I'll work on that idea. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 01:29:15
Education is easy, the parents teach the children with some temple support. This is a cultural difference between MA and FR. There clearly are examples of home schooling dating back at least a few hundred years, I though have not found any direct reference to home schooling by peasants during the MA.
As for living on 1sp a day, I did look at goods and a person could live on:
1 pound of wheat 1cp
and
One pound of flour, or one chicken 2cp
Leaving a day worker the ability to have 7 cp left for shelter.
One bedroll costs 1sp, something that could be purchased with two days labour. Th bedroll likely would last at least six months.
Also I will remind you that it appears 1 pound of food is required per day. |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 01:08:18
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
As you have stated above, the 3.5 rules set does not allow for the type of simulation-ism detailed in the above thread. I get it, you're trying use the 3.5 rules as a launch point for deep simulation-ism, and you've found that the simulation breaks down under scrutiny. We agree that the rules don't support simulation-ism. Here's the catch: If the rules don't support it, you cannot appeal to them.
There's no need to become so radical in this matter. I think there are some flaws, so I try to fit them. I mean, if rules have flaws, why is so bad to discuss them? There are some illogical things within the same ruleset, so I just want to say that within that ruleset, there's something to change (as always, from my point of view). I'm not making a full scale comparison with our own world, but rather a partial one. After all, roleplaying games are supposed to be games in which you take the role of a person on a fantastic world. That means there are some logical things that everybody should know, and that means there are some things that are related to realism, even if you don't like it. As I said before, it's a matter of quantity, not quality. There's no black and white. I appeal to the rules because I want to reach a middle term in which the rules and some things I consider real would be fine with each other. And I think it's quite possible. Most people, even among some of my friends, always criticize "realist" based games, but they do not care about a lot of social issues which are being treated as "logic" dictate. It's difficult to explain it in another language, but I think it's clear enough. Again, it's a matter of degree.
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Your idea that the Profession skill is over-powered is inherently flawed; it is not obvious that a blacksmith should earn more than farmer. A farmer who reaps the harvest of 1000 hectares would be far more wealthy than a blacksmith who shoes two horses a month. Operating under such broad, and inconsistent, generalization is deleterious at best.
Believe it or not, but there are currently professions far more lucrative than others with the same "skill". Just think about a miner with a pick and gold. It does not require a lot of skill to take the pickaxe and take the gold. Just selling raw gold would make the miner far more rich than any 20 lvl peasant. And, again, when I talk about peasants, I talk about the average peasant. Could it be possible for a peasant to own a little piece of land, grow plants and crops, sell them and live a good life? Of course, why not? But the majority of them would not have it that way. As I told before, there's a book covering the business issue better than only with a simple skill.
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
All thought your problem was that the cities weren't big enough...
I've never spoken about cities. I've always been talking about general demography. And the problem is not they're big or small enough. The problem is that big cities need, in this world and all worlds, big farm surplus. And Faerūn cities seems to me a little big for the small population of the countries they're part of. I do not say now cities are too big, as you suggest. I still think population should be bigger to fit the cities shown on the core rulebooks.
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
quote:
People living in those overpopulated cities do need to eat, and they need a lot of goods from the fields. If there are not enough farms and farmers, then the cities should be smaller.
That's exactly the point, yes...
So I do not agree with general demography, and I make fallacious arguments out of logic. But anyway you think cities should be smaller appealing to your logic and it's alright. Fine then. The only difference is that I think pop. should be bigger, and you think it should be smaller. I've no problem with that, but please, do not say that logics are out of the question because it has nothing to do with rules and/or fantasy.
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
The number of presumptions in the quote above make it impossible to rebuke logically. My knee-jerk response is to say "Why would anyone become an adventurer!", but that only follows a line of presumption. I'm sure we can agree that many people pursue status within their culture in different ways, and that human beings have explored regions both habitable and inhabitable.
Indeed. Greeks went on to explore even beyond the limits of their known world. It's not impossible. The problem is with sea exploration, and it has something to do with superstition (and even in this world, with Umberlee, it's even worse). Anyway, there are a lot of reasons to become and adventurer in a magic world, and even in the real world there were some kind of "adventurers", when people thought they could amass a fortune and gain prestige and glory. I do not agree with that. My "presumptions" are really simple: when you do not know if there's anything on the other side of the ocean, you think the travel will end bad for sure, and anyone travelling to the west will die. Why risk yourself in such an adventure? As far as I know, if Maztica was "discovered", it's because the main human realms didn't know of its existence. If I'm quite sure that travelling to the west I'll only find water and more water and there's no reason to want to get to Kara-Tur (as commercial routes, as I said, do not have any problems), then it's quite stupid to get to the big ocean.
As for inhabitable regions beign explored, many explorations of hostile lands were made during the XIX and XX century, and for scientific reasons. If you take a look at the history of the conquest of spanish colonies of America, there is no single conqueror who explores lands "for the good of exploration". They actually claimed those lands, and all of them wanted to become the next Hernįn Cortés finding a great civilization with a lot of gold and silver mines on the surface. By the way, Cordell had sponsorship of The Council of Six, and that means the council did really have interest (and resources) to begin the colonization. And it comes back to a previous thing I said about the reasons of colonization.
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
You get no free money in DnD. IRL, my employer pays me a salary. I also have retirement plans. And a health care policy. The people who manage my retirement and health care are paid. These things are not free, they are part of my compensation. It is impossible for a farmer, even the slavish serf you portray in your assessment, to survive on 1sp per day. The 3.5 ruleset do not support simulation-ism. Your response is that nobles give more goods to the peasants... well, that has a coin value. The table is either wrong, or the peasant goes hungry, if he wants to own anything but "poor meals". His entire life. How do you account for the literacy rate? Do the slave masters, er.., feudal lords pay for education for the peasant children they also feed?
Ironies are not polite, and I'm trying to be polite, as with anyone. I did not talk about slave masters, and didn't compare feudal lords to slave masters.
Anyway, I'll get to this issue. I'll explain it again. When I said peasants earn 1 sp, I did not say they did produce 1 sp. The farmer has a salary, but he produces X silver/gold pieces and his lords manage the money as he wish. The peasants do not go hungry because, first of all, their basic subsistence is guaranteed by their own work (some of the farming surplus it's for their subsistence; the main part of that surplus is for the landowner). So, it's ok, everything has a coin value, but nobles do actually have money, because even if your salary is of 1 silver piece, you actually produce more, so the noble owning the lands you're working benefits from any surplus you have. They do not have to fear hunger (at least, with good harvests) and the landowner has enough money to lend tools to their peasants. That was the way it worked on the middle ages, roughly. So it's not an impossible setting.
And about education... I do not really know how to handle this, truly. It's something I've got to think about.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Arzakon, I did look at emailing you some of my files, however this system or your settings do not provide a direct email address. What I get instead is a Candlekeep interface that does not appear to allow attachments. Not sure how much use my notes would do for you, they were collected for trying to estimate the size and economic well being of Kentinal Realms...
Really? Ok, I will send you my email adress to yours :).
About work, that was what I tried to mean with the unbalance of Profession skill. It's a rough skill, and doesn't count a lot of things I'd rather take into account. Anyway, you're right, some farmers could actually earn more than some blacksmiths working for a duke or count.
And as I said in my response above to Brace, I do not pretend a total simulation. It's a game. Just want a higher degree of realism, that's all. If finally I find there's no way to make it possible to make the two ideas work together fine, I'll rely on official lore and take away any demographic issue.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
You could try contacting Wizards of the Coast's international customer service and asking about possible translations into Spanish. They'd likely have the info on hand to help you in your search.
Is it really possible? I mean, I don't think there's a market here for that book, as most people would just buy the core rulebooks. I'd rather buy the english version and get accustomed to it. Anyway I'll take a look to Wizards main page.
EDIT: (Another edit :P). I've found that Devir, the distributor here in spain, does indeed have Power of Faerūn in its spanish version. So there's no need to complain at WotC. I will just look for it and buy it. :D |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 01:06:10
Arzakon, I did look at emailing you some of my files, however this system or your settings do not provide a direct email address. What I get instead is a Candlekeep interface that does not appear to allow attachments. Not sure how much use my notes would do for you, they were collected for trying to estimate the size and economic well being of Kentinal Realms (since geocities went 404 no longer readable available, though I have some backup). My notes are summery of what I collected and researched, often with no notes of what the numbers mean, I relied on memory of what the notes meant and of course with old computer had referring bookmarks. I have at least 3 Xcel files I complied, of which some have historical sources as reference material. Odds are likely there are a few more, oh I have more Kentinal files, army size and other things that does not relate to this discussion, I just do not currently have means to provide them to you. If you wish PM me an email address of which I could send files.
As to the ongoing discussion, it clearly is possible a farmer could hire full time a blacksmith, however it is more likely the Noble would control such as a worker. Brace is correct in that some Farmers clearly can earn more then blacksmiths. The big thing however to remember is that the rules have set prices for one moment in time. The wages, the costs of goods and even the supply are all set as unchangeable in the rules. The onset of a rust monster invasion clearly causes a greater need and wage for blacksmiths that can replace lost metal and wooden weapon makers to kill the rust monsters. In such an event the pay would be much higher. Oh miners also would be paid more as well as fighters skilled with using wooden weapons.
The system is not a Sim and never really was, though earlier versions did more look at minor things like food and weight being carried. There is no real way to compare Earth to any D&D rules. There is no supply or demand.
There is also in FR unmapped areas left for the DM to populate, the census is of only the mapped lands. More people leave within the borders and on the borders then any realm has counted.
it strikes my memory that a few years ago there was a discussion of how many people lived in the realms (maybe three to five) where the numbers did not add up. As I recall past of the discussion was concerning percentage of humans, elves and so on. The numbers did not add up then, since then the Realm has been reduced in land mass and it appears the numbers still do not suit everyone. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 00:37:22
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Mmm... this book? http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Power_of_Faerun
That's the one.
quote:
If that's the book I need... well, I think there's no translation to spanish. Some books never get to my country, and it's quite difficult to read a rulebook in another language, you know :P. Anyway, I've never noticed that book. I'll try to find some way to acquire it (hope eBay has some titles :D). Maybe it has a lot of official lore about things that are being discussed on this thread. Thanks a lot :)
You could try contacting Wizards of the Coast's international customer service and asking about possible translations into Spanish. They'd likely have the info on hand to help you in your search. |
| Brace Cormaeril |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 00:08:26
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Hey man, there was no need to be rude. Anyway, I'll try to reply what you said; don't want to start an argument.
If you have taken my replies above as rude, my apologies. However, these posts can get quite long if not clipped. I hoped to contend on a few points, those were highlighted.
quote:
Speaking about sources, every labour wage, pricing guideline and lore regarding contraceptive products was, indeed, taken from source rulebooks. Labour wages are taken from DM Handbook, and prices for contraceptives and other basic equipment are either taken from FRCS, DM Handbook and Player Handbook. I didn't use ducats, denarii or anything else.
As you have stated above, the 3.5 rules set does not allow for the type of simulation-ism detailed in the above thread. I get it, you're trying use the 3.5 rules as a launch point for deep simulation-ism, and you've found that the simulation breaks down under scrutiny. We agree that the rules don't support simulation-ism. Here's the catch: If the rules don't support it, you cannot appeal to them.
quote:
About Profession skill, I do not really understand where's the point of your argument. I've spoken about the unfair use of Profession (a blacksmith earning the same as a farmer, even if it's obvius that a blacksmith should earn more money). But you didn't tell me why do you think I'm wrong. That would be useful for discussing the matter.
Your idea that the Profession skill is over-powered is inherently flawed; it is not obvious that a blacksmith should earn more than farmer. A farmer who reaps the harvest of 1000 hectares would be far more wealthy than a blacksmith who shoes two horses a month. Operating under such broad, and inconsistent, generalization is deleterious at best.
quote:
About monsters inhabiting areas of land... how large are those areas? I do not have any official lore showing the total % of land occupied and inhabited by monsters. The reason why I think it should not be 30 or 40% is that cities are so big, so they should need a big field and a big peasant population working to feed the people of those cities.
All thought your problem was that the cities weren't big enough...
quote:
People living in those overpopulated cities do need to eat, and they need a lot of goods from the fields. If there are not enough farms and farmers, then the cities should be smaller.
That's exactly the point, yes...
quote:
The question was: why an amnian would risk his life going into the unknown waters of the west if there are less risky and known ways to become famous? You say that Cordell fits my vision of adventurer looking for social promotion. but I insist that, without the need of exploring new lands (as I explained above), adventurers like Cordell would have never crossed the ocean. Portuguese and spanish adventurers began to explore new lands when there was a real reason to do it (as I pointed above, the Ottomans). Why would anyone risk his live going into a vast ocean to the west without knowing if there's land on the other side and without the need to establish a trade link between east and west? Why would anyone risk his live doing this if there's no need of new lands? Why would anyone risk his live doing this if there are enough monsters, enemies and foes to kill and earn a social promotion? I just cannot see the reason behind that travel.
The number of presumptions in the quote above make it impossible to rebuke logically. My knee-jerk response is to say "Why would anyone become an adventurer!", but that only follows a line of presumption. I'm sure we can agree that many people pursue status within their culture in different ways, and that human beings have explored regions both habitable and inhabitable.
quote:
The only reason behind that travel is that the creators of Faerūn wanted a colonial-like setting, apart from Chult.
I don't think it was the creators of Faerun, but besides that, you're spot on.
quote:
About salaries, I do not really understand you. You mean salary should be equal to productivity? A farmer may indeed produce some more goods, but their salary has nothing to do with their productivity. If they're free peasants, then it's okay, as I told Kentinal. But many peasants are not free. Even in Tethyr, where there is no serfdom after the civil war, they are still ruled by many dukes. So even if they're "free" (in the legal sense), they're still laborers without ownership of any land. Freedom and property are not always the same; salary and productivity are not the same. So if a peasant earns 1 sp, he does earn 1 sp. It's in the DM Handbook. And, speaking about rules, it does not say anything about that being money saved after buying what you need daily.
You get no free money in DnD. IRL, my employer pays me a salary. I also have retirement plans. And a health care policy. The people who manage my retirement and health care are paid. These things are not free, they are part of my compensation. It is impossible for a farmer, even the slavish serf you portray in your assessment, to survive on 1sp per day. The 3.5 ruleset do not support simulation-ism. Your response is that nobles give more goods to the peasants... well, that has a coin value. The table is either wrong, or the peasant goes hungry, if he wants to own anything but "poor meals". His entire life. How do you account for the literacy rate? Do the slave masters, er.., feudal lords pay for education for the peasant children they also feed?
|
| Arzakon |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 00:04:14
Mmm... this book? http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Power_of_Faerun
If that's the book I need... well, I think there's no translation to spanish. Some books never get to my country, and it's quite difficult to read a rulebook in another language, you know :P. Anyway, I've never noticed that book. I'll try to find some way to acquire it (hope eBay has some titles :D). Maybe it has a lot of official lore about things that are being discussed on this thread. Thanks a lot :) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 23:28:08
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Sage and Wooly, even if there is no monolothic religion group, there's no reason to believe things should be so differente when we're talking about nobility and the church. Just take a look at old politheist civilizations: the clergy had a lot of power, even if there were a lot of gods. Of course, some gods had more power than others, but anyway religious groups had a lot of power. Of course, if we compare Forgotten Realms to ancient Rome or Greece... things could be a bit different, as those cultures, even if quite religious, were also civic cultures, and state religion didn't have as much power as in ancient theocracy-like states. Maybe I'm wrong after all and this is the general overview about god worship and churches, but I'll have to think about it. Good point, anyway :).
I'd recommend you read the "Keep the Faith" chapter from Power of Faerūn. It elaborates on the scope of mortal power among religious groups across the Realms. |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 19:54:36
Hey man, there was no need to be rude. Anyway, I'll try to reply what you said; don't want to start an argument.
Speaking about sources, every labour wage, pricing guideline and lore regarding contraceptive products was, indeed, taken from source rulebooks. Labour wages are taken from DM Handbook, and prices for contraceptives and other basic equipment are either taken from FRCS, DM Handbook and Player Handbook. I didn't use ducats, denarii or anything else. About Profession skill, I do not really understand where's the point of your argument. I've spoken about the unfair use of Profession (a blacksmith earning the same as a farmer, even if it's obvius that a blacksmith should earn more money). But you didn't tell me why do you think I'm wrong. That would be useful for discussing the matter.
About monsters inhabiting areas of land... how large are those areas? I do not have any official lore showing the total % of land occupied and inhabited by monsters. The reason why I think it should not be 30 or 40% is that cities are so big, so they should need a big field and a big peasant population working to feed the people of those cities. People living in those overpopulated cities do need to eat, and they need a lot of goods from the fields. If there are not enough farms and farmers, then the cities should be smaller.
About colonization of Maztica, I've tried to explain that colonization "into the unknown" need some reasons I've showed above. Of course, if Maztica was discovered for some reason, and it was clear for amnians there were a lot of resources which would make them rich, they will begin the colonization. The question was: why an amnian would risk his life going into the unknown waters of the west if there are less risky and known ways to become famous? You say that Cordell fits my vision of adventurer looking for social promotion. but I insist that, without the need of exploring new lands (as I explained above), adventurers like Cordell would have never crossed the ocean. Portuguese and spanish adventurers began to explore new lands when there was a real reason to do it (as I pointed above, the Ottomans). Why would anyone risk his live going into a vast ocean to the west without knowing if there's land on the other side and without the need to establish a trade link between east and west? Why would anyone risk his live doing this if there's no need of new lands? Why would anyone risk his live doing this if there are enough monsters, enemies and foes to kill and earn a social promotion? I just cannot see the reason behind that travel. The only reason behind that travel is that the creators of Faerūn wanted a colonial-like setting, apart from Chult.
About wars, I do not really know when the last full scale war began. At least not for Lands of Intrigue. But what about the constant war between Zhay and Aglarond? What about Unzher and Mulhorand? What about Halruaa and Dambrath? There have been many wars, and I try to explain that, having such a powerful foe within your country as the setting of overwhelming forces of monsters states, the first thing to do for any ruler would be wiping and routing all these monsters, which are far more dangerous than other countries from what it seems.
About salaries, I do not really understand you. You mean salary should be equal to productivity? A farmer may indeed produce some more goods, but their salary has nothing to do with their productivity. If they're free peasants, then it's okay, as I told Kentinal. But many peasants are not free. Even in Tethyr, where there is no serfdom after the civil war, they are still ruled by many dukes. So even if they're "free" (in the legal sense), they're still laborers without ownership of any land. Freedom and property are not always the same; salary and productivity are not the same. So if a peasant earns 1 sp, he does earn 1 sp. It's in the DM Handbook. And, speaking about rules, it does not say anything about that being money saved after buying what you need daily.
Finally, as for demography, your scenario lacks for just one thing; if there are 200 farmers dying from ogre raids, the country would surely make a punitive expedition to prevent more raids; therefore, farmers would have a relatively peaceful land to prosper, so general population would increase. That's what I said about wars and so on. If a country do have the strength and manpower to start a war with a foreign country, why would it not be possible for them to wage a war with inner foes such as these monsters? Furthermore, with peaceful realtions with its neighbors, the only real enemy of a country would be the monsters. A king/duke/count would surely see the potential enrichment of an expedition against the orcs inhabiting the rich plains of the east side of the country (just an example), rather than sending a lone sea-wolf searching for an unknown continent to the west. Killin the monsters will benefit pop. growth, farm surplus and overall revenue.
In your scenario, if countries didn't even stood a chance against monsters, they will soon crumble and disintegrate. On the other hand, if they can help their citizens and they just ignore them because they want to wage wars against their neighbors, soon someone would rise in arms. When we speak about subsistence and basic security, people do really care. As for your example, raids of indians against the american colonists suffered the same fate as I said above: counterattacks and their lands occupied by colonist citizens. I think it's far from illogical. |
| Brace Cormaeril |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 17:45:31
quote:
Brace, even if there are no rules about some basic things like eating or drinking, I would not just forget them. Of course, roleplaying games are not The Sims (:P) and they're not supposed to be simulations of real middle age living with a bit of fantasy. But as always, there's a degree of realism in all of this. We would not be discussing a lot of things about the realms if we thought everything shown on the core rulebooks is fine. I just want a higher degree of realism, even if there are things that I do not wish to change, for the best of playing my games.
Adopting a "higher degree of realism" may well enhance your gaming experience. However, you cannot logically appeal to sources (The D&D 3.5 rules set) which do not apply to this enhanced realism; hence, quoting day laborer wages, pricing guideline tables, and established lore regarding contraceptive products, and the legitimacy of the Profession skill do not advance your argument.
quote:
You know, some DMs even speak about physics and so on when dealing with some issues; I'd never got to that point. The main question of this post was that I think, from my point of view, that dangers of the realms have an out of scale influence on demography, and while you can just say that there are no rules about it and it's just another fantasy game, which you can handle as you wish, I feel somewhat dissapointed in this matter. Demography seems so small, and as I've read a lot about ancient urbanism, I just cannot see the coherence of countries all over the realms having such big cities with little population in the fields, and having a lot of wars, commerce, riches... they're like middle age-modern states (of the modern age, XV-XVI century) but with far less people.
A significant portion of areas within the artificially defined borders of all countries on Faerun are, in fact, populated with monsters. This is clearly represented in the established lore.
quote:
With those low rates of populations, big alliances (which require good communications) could not really exist. Such small countries would be somewhat isolated from each other, and they would not have neither strength (manpower) nor real interest for international diplomacy. Therefore, many things from the realms would have little reason. For example, if Amn has a lot of free lands infested with monsters, they would rather begin exterminating those monsters to let people occupy those lands rather than sending people to an unknown place like Maztica. The colonial phenomenon is usually related to the lack of farming lands (like Greece, so there cannot be population growth as there are not enough lands), the lack of trade routes (the Ottomans cut all commerce with the christian world during the XV century, so they needed another way to trade with Cathay/China) and the social stability which prevents further social mobility (many people in Spain wanted to become nobles making war to infidels, so when the Reconquista came to an end, they went to America looking for social promotion).
The colonization of Maztica is due to the vast natural wealth of Maztica, and the need to establish the infrastructure to exploit it.
quote:
Why make war over any foreign power if there's still a lot of land to exploit within your very country?
When was the last full blown war between countries in Faerun?
quote:
so if Amn did really luckily find Maztica,
They did.
quote:
there's enough room for social mobility, as you can easily kill the ogres raiding the lands so you can become a famous adventurer (therefore having the chance to become a noble or a rich landowner)
One such socially mobile adventurer, Cordell and his Golden Legion, chose to adventure by sea, as opposed to slaying ogres.
quote:
About peasants, having no money doesn't really mean they're extremely poor. As I said, if they have no money, most of the things they should need are granted by their landlords (even if they're a particular church, a noble, a rich merchant or whatever the case). There's no need to portrait them as poorer than the poorest guy you'll ever meet. They're just dependant on other people, speaking about economics.
You don't get free money in DnD. If your serfmaster gives you 1sp per day, a set of clothes once every 5 years, feeds your kids for you (as you cannot afford to on your salary), etc... you make more than 1sp per day.
quote:
Anyway, I just want to point how illogical is to say that the realms are so dangerous and risky that demography is low while kingdoms and peasants are portrayed in some idyllic way; they have terrible lifes but when adventurers come to villages, they see rich, well-dressed and well-eaten peasants. If magic, monsters and evil gods are so bad for demography, then the general setting should be far frome idyllic; more like Ravenloft. Anyway, it doesn't need to be logical. It's a game, after all, but I don't like such illogical settings.
It is far from illogical, although many of the touchstones of logic used in this thread are fallacious, at the least, as I have pointed out above. The Realms are risky; if you build a farm on the outskirts of the Dales, you have access to good lands, timber, etc.
Scenario: Two farmers move their families onto new (yeoman) farms. One farmer and his family dies in an ogre attack. The other farmer prospers significantly, as per a model more reminiscent of the colonial american farmer. Demography is cut by 1/2.
|
| Arzakon |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 16:27:29
Well, I'll try to reply to all of you in order :P.
Sage and Wooly, even if there is no monolothic religion group, there's no reason to believe things should be so differente when we're talking about nobility and the church. Just take a look at old politheist civilizations: the clergy had a lot of power, even if there were a lot of gods. Of course, some gods had more power than others, but anyway religious groups had a lot of power. Of course, if we compare Forgotten Realms to ancient Rome or Greece... things could be a bit different, as those cultures, even if quite religious, were also civic cultures, and state religion didn't have as much power as in ancient theocracy-like states. Maybe I'm wrong after all and this is the general overview about god worship and churches, but I'll have to think about it. Good point, anyway :).
Brace, even if there are no rules about some basic things like eating or drinking, I would not just forget them. Of course, roleplaying games are not The Sims (:P) and they're not supposed to be simulations of real middle age living with a bit of fantasy. But as always, there's a degree of realism in all of this. We would not be discussing a lot of things about the realms if we thought everything shown on the core rulebooks is fine. I just want a higher degree of realism, even if there are things that I do not wish to change, for the best of playing my games. You know, some DMs even speak about physics and so on when dealing with some issues; I'd never got to that point. The main question of this post was that I think, from my point of view, that dangers of the realms have an out of scale influence on demography, and while you can just say that there are no rules about it and it's just another fantasy game, which you can handle as you wish, I feel somewhat dissapointed in this matter. Demography seems so small, and as I've read a lot about ancient urbanism, I just cannot see the coherence of countries all over the realms having such big cities with little population in the fields, and having a lot of wars, commerce, riches... they're like middle age-modern states (of the modern age, XV-XVI century) but with far less people.
With those low rates of populations, big alliances (which require good communications) could not really exist. Such small countries would be somewhat isolated from each other, and they would not have neither strength (manpower) nor real interest for international diplomacy. Therefore, many things from the realms would have little reason. For example, if Amn has a lot of free lands infested with monsters, they would rather begin exterminating those monsters to let people occupy those lands rather than sending people to an unknown place like Maztica. The colonial phenomenon is usually related to the lack of farming lands (like Greece, so there cannot be population growth as there are not enough lands), the lack of trade routes (the Ottomans cut all commerce with the christian world during the XV century, so they needed another way to trade with Cathay/China) and the social stability which prevents further social mobility (many people in Spain wanted to become nobles making war to infidels, so when the Reconquista came to an end, they went to America looking for social promotion). So, when speaking about Amn, if there is a small amount of people, then they have no lack of lands; should they have, they'll fight against the monsters inside ther own frontiers. Why make war over any foreign power if there's still a lot of land to exploit within your very country? About trade routes, Faerūn doesn't really have any problems with them (as far as I know), so if Amn did really luckily find Maztica, and they have what they need, there is little reason to star a big colonization, with even a war against natives, in far off lands. And finally, about social promotion, if there are so many monsters waiting for adventurers and heroes to kill them, there's enough room for social mobility, as you can easily kill the ogres raiding the lands so you can become a famous adventurer (therefore having the chance to become a noble or a rich landowner). In short, many political events of Faerūn have little reason if there is such a small demography. Of course, there may be a lot of wars concerning other things than these three issues; but they're quite relevant when speaking about things like the Lords Alliance and other international organizations and they're the main cause of colonizations. Phoenicians and Greeks had those problems, and Spain also had these problems (maybe land problems were not as critical as with greeks or phoenicians, but it was still a problem to solve).
About peasants, having no money doesn't really mean they're extremely poor. As I said, if they have no money, most of the things they should need are granted by their landlords (even if they're a particular church, a noble, a rich merchant or whatever the case). There's no need to portrait them as poorer than the poorest guy you'll ever meet. They're just dependant on other people, speaking about economics. You may not agree, and I think it's fair. I do not pretend to force anyone to change demography on the realms just because I think it doesn't fit my ideal vision of a medieval fantasy world. Anyway, I just want to point how illogical is to say that the realms are so dangerous and risky that demography is low while kingdoms and peasants are portrayed in some idyllic way; they have terrible lifes but when adventurers come to villages, they see rich, well-dressed and well-eaten peasants. If magic, monsters and evil gods are so bad for demography, then the general setting should be far frome idyllic; more like Ravenloft. Anyway, it doesn't need to be logical. It's a game, after all, but I don't like such illogical settings.
Anyway, that's my point of view, which I wanted to discuss. I have now a lot more ideas than before, and this is why I started this post.
Kentinal, I'd really appreciate any document you could send me. As I said, I have two or three of them (and most of them are from the main Candlekeep website :P). But any additional helping excel sheet, or information related to farming issues, would be welcome.
About farming profession... I didn't want to say farming is not a profession :P. Of course, there's a lot of knowledge involving farming. I just wanted to point out how odd is that a farmer can make the same money as a smith with Profession skill. Farming IS a profession, of course, but the Profession skill deals with different jobs with little difference. That's my complaint. And that's why I highly recommend DM Handbook II; it's quite useful.
There are lot of possible ways for a freelance peasant to make even a good amount of money making cheese, selling crops, planting nararoots (that's quite a business :D)... but I think that the amount of free peasants should be small. So their possible gains (of the majority of peasants) go directly to landowners, which are rich because they exploit peasants (even if they have enough to live). There's a lot of lore related to farming (and there's a lot of lore I do not know about this matter).
Arf... I think that's all for now. There's still much to discuss (and I hope there will be more), even if many of you do not share my point of view. All these ideas are really helpful. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 03:12:38
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
That information is so useful :). Where did you get it? I have some .xls files for farming revenues and that kind of things, but it would be useful anyway having such info.
Some 5 plus years ago I did a lot of research on the topic. The bookmarks are on old computer however I could or should be able to retrieve the URLs that I used to come up with the numbers I use (Some of the sites of course might be 404 now). The numbers are a composite, for example "On the March" website discussed and provided facts about how much wheat a Roman troop was issued per year. The was a site that scanned medieval documents which included annual reports of operations for a fief. I also found a report of crop yields spanning a period of years of crop production reported from various parts of the UK. I have also looked at history of farming websites, the development of the deep plow, horse shoes and the horse collar. One of the more interesting thing I discovered in my research is that rice had a much higher yield per seed then other grains, however also was lower in food content per pound. If you are really interested I can try to retrieve the URLs.quote:
About farming as a profession... I've already told I do not consider "profession" skill as a good and balanced skill. You may use that, of course, and there's no problem. But I'd rather suggest using rules from Dungeon Master Handbook II. They're quite good, despite being complex, and they can be really good for players wanting to become merchants, farmers, principal of a university... there are a lot of jobs, and they're differente from each other (income, difficulty, a lot of differences). But using these rules (profession or Dungeon master handbook) should only work for free peasants owning their own land, without any tithes and without being a servant of a noble. The real problem about peasants is not just they earn little and produce little, but the nobility. And if it's not the nobility, it's the rich landowners of the merchant families of Amn. Peasants are mostly servants, not self-employed farmers. The real amount of self-employed farmers should not be high, as these countries are supposed to be between Middle Age and Modern Age. Peasants were mainly servants and under the full control of nobles and the church during those periods.
Anyway, I'll take a look for crop prices. Thanks :).
Well I do not have DM II so can not debate with you how reasonable the prices are when fit into the D&D world.
Picking a time to compare is one thing, however you must still consider things are different.
FR has something like 90 percent literacy, MA had perhaps 10 percent if that high. Even on Earth the 1066 invasion is what mostly brought fiefdom to the UK. The Domesbury book (The Brits called it the Doomsday book) included an inventory of every territory in the UK occupied/controlled (The Brits called it Doomsday because it provided the Normans a way to impose taxes on what was reported found there). Even after 1066 there are cases recorded of freemen refusing to become a peasant.
Oh I still consider farming a profession, on and off I have worked farms. Oh certainly you can use day labour to pick crops, pick up bales of hay or sheaths of wheat. It however takes training in order to cut sheaths of wheat without much lose, it takes wisdom to know when to plant, one needs to know how to care for, harness and use Oxen or Horses. A farmer learns how to do minor metal work to repair plows and certainly needs to know how to build barns or shelters.
Making cheese and ale was also something a farmers family did. Oh parts of running a farm clearly could be day work, however no farm can succeed unless there is a guiding farmer knowing enough about how to do it all or get it done.I have seen farms fail because a want to be farmer made errors and choose to add to them to try to make the first error become a blessing. he result of that effort was expanding weeks trying to plant seed in places it was not best to plant and would be hard to harvest if crop came in. The farm went bankrupt amid bounced checks. Not all can farm and certainly a day worker can not be a farmer. I suspect you will continue to disagree on this point and that is not a problem, people can disagree n issues or points of view. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 03:10:42
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
When my PC's encounter a farmstead in the Dales, or Cormyr, or in the Heartlands, they do not encounter a dreary turnip patch, some old lady in rags hauling sticks bound about her back, all under the oppressive yoke of theo/politcal serfdom.
Help, help, I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!  |
| Brace Cormaeril |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 02:00:09
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Arzakon, I was just pointing out to Brace that there are rules for eating, I did not say they made sense *wink*
Thanks for that; I guess I managed to miss that. However, you were unable to find *any* deleterious effects of lack of sleep, save the inability to recover spells, yeah?
I offered up these points for one reason only; the 3.5 DnD system does not allow for simulationist exercercises, the rules clearly don't support them, as you seem to agree, Arzakon. So no matter how you may interpret the core rules, the bottom line is that at 1sp a day, a farmer cannot afford to have children, and also feed them and himself.
When my PC's encounter a farmstead in the Dales, or Cormyr, or in the Heartlands, they do not encounter a dreary turnip patch, some old lady in rags hauling sticks bound about her back, all under the oppressive yoke of theo/politcal serfdom. Instead, they encounter the idealized yeoman farmer, who, though vigor and steadfastedness, makes his way. At the end of the day, there is good cider made from the fruit of trees none too far away, pipeweed to smoke and share, a good, hearty meal and perhaps song, if not strung on a family harp or lyre then sung accompanied by drums. The farmers children dance by the light of a passing Harper's faerie fire,tales are exchanged and joy is there for all.
I do not believe that the Realms are meant to be representative of the real world, in fact, the creator of said Realms has stated thus. I believe that the populations of the Realms is small because these numbers are sustainable. The impact of civilization on the world, when a Realms Shattering Event is not occurring, is limited.
When was there last open warfare between Cormyr and Sembia? Can an equivocally long period of peace be found in Europe? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 01:41:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
The real amount of self-employed farmers should not be high, as these countries are supposed to be between Middle Age and Modern Age. Peasants were mainly servants and under the full control of nobles and the church during those periods.
That's in the real world. The Realms does not have any monolithic religious groups, so you can't make the same comparison.
Indeed. Faiths and Avatars elaborates on this, somewhat.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 00:52:11
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
The real amount of self-employed farmers should not be high, as these countries are supposed to be between Middle Age and Modern Age. Peasants were mainly servants and under the full control of nobles and the church during those periods.
That's in the real world. The Realms does not have any monolithic religious groups, so you can't make the same comparison. |
| Arzakon |
Posted - 01 Feb 2010 : 23:27:13
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Arzakon, I was just pointing out to Brace that there are rules for eating, I did not say they made sense *wink*
I still prefer to treat farming as a profession, which increases daily income. And clearly makes more sense when one can become a Com20.
As for income there is another rule, a bushel of grain is worth 6 sp and yield per acre of land was between 5 to 10 bushels per acre (depending of Early and Mid Middle Ages). Even a small farm had 10 acres planted.
I spent a lot of time on food production including looking at historical records. Various grains had a different yield, practices varied as to how much seed was used per acre depending on the gain. Two field system, three field system of rotation effected crop yields as well. I even found some references to 4 and 5 year rotation practices.
There crop yield was increased mostly by going to 3 year rotation and use of the deep mold plow. Modern yields of course are much higher, this in part improved practices, however planting more seed per acre also resulted in a yield increase. Wheat and other gains if no over planted portect their companion plants so all grow better.
That information is so useful :). Where did you get it? I have some .xls files for farming revenues and that kind of things, but it would be useful anyway having such info.
About farming as a profession... I've already told I do not consider "profession" skill as a good and balanced skill. You may use that, of course, and there's no problem. But I'd rather suggest using rules from Dungeon Master Handbook II. They're quite good, despite being complex, and they can be really good for players wanting to become merchants, farmers, principal of a university... there are a lot of jobs, and they're differente from each other (income, difficulty, a lot of differences). But using these rules (profession or Dungeon master handbook) should only work for free peasants owning their own land, without any tithes and without being a servant of a noble. The real problem about peasants is not just they earn little and produce little, but the nobility. And if it's not the nobility, it's the rich landowners of the merchant families of Amn. Peasants are mostly servants, not self-employed farmers. The real amount of self-employed farmers should not be high, as these countries are supposed to be between Middle Age and Modern Age. Peasants were mainly servants and under the full control of nobles and the church during those periods.
Anyway, I'll take a look for crop prices. Thanks :). |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 01 Feb 2010 : 20:38:31
Arzakon, I was just pointing out to Brace that there are rules for eating, I did not say they made sense *wink*
I still prefer to treat farming as a profession, which increases daily income. And clearly makes more sense when one can become a Com20.
As for income there is another rule, a bushel of grain is worth 6 sp and yield per acre of land was between 5 to 10 bushels per acre (depending of Early and Mid Middle Ages). Even a small farm had 10 acres planted.
I spent a lot of time on food production including looking at historical records. Various grains had a different yield, practices varied as to how much seed was used per acre depending on the gain. Two field system, three field system of rotation effected crop yields as well. I even found some references to 4 and 5 year rotation practices.
There crop yield was increased mostly by going to 3 year rotation and use of the deep mold plow. Modern yields of course are much higher, this in part improved practices, however planting more seed per acre also resulted in a yield increase. Wheat and other gains if no over planted portect their companion plants so all grow better. |
| woodwwad |
Posted - 01 Feb 2010 : 20:26:57
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I just looked at the first post, but I noticed right away you were looking at real world numbers vs fantasy numbers but what you are not taking into account is all the other races that are in that country. The monsters, there are a lot of them. So that ups the numbers a lot and was likely not part of the numbers you had listed.
It's been some time since the last post, but I think someone already suggested that idea. Anyway, that could be a good idea, but I don't think that if Amn should have (at least in my opinion) nearly two times its population (from ~3 million to ~6), 3 million monsters... well, you know, it's a BIG number. I didn't count monsters when making my demography of the realms, but I'd rather introduce them in small numbers. They have no cities, just a bunch of caves and tunnels on the slopes of the Small Teeth, so they could be like tribes within a civilized country. So their numbers should be... well, somewhat smaller than the total human/halfling population of Amn. Anyway, I'll take it into account.
it certainly might not get you to the numbers you are looking for but it will get you at least a little closer. And there are a lot of different kinds of humanoid monsters in Amn, so each has to have at least a small population. So it should add up to no small number. |
|
|
