This is based on some of the discussions that came up in the thread on fantasy world demographics.

What are your thoughts on things like drawing on real world demographics for populating a fantasy setting? Does this stuff matter to you? Is it a deal breaker if cities are too far apart, have population size that isn't adequately explained, etc?

The same with history. How much real world history do you expect in your games? Do you want social structures based on what we know of the actual middle ages or do you find it more helpful if the GM takes liberties and invents things whole cloth?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;788558What are your thoughts on things like drawing on real world demographics for populating a fantasy setting? Does this stuff matter to you? Is it a deal breaker if cities are too far apart, have population size that isn't adequately explained, etc?

Yes it matters.

However, demographics isn't the only thing that matters to me so in and of itself it probably isn't a deal breaker if the demographics don't make sense. But illogical demographics will detract from my play experience.

QuoteThe same with history. How much real world history do you expect in your games? Do you want social structures based on what we know of the actual middle ages or do you find it more helpful if the GM takes liberties and invents things whole cloth?

Depends on the game.

I'm currently running Honor+Intrigue set in 1623 France. It has a lot of real history, real people, real events, real factions, real conflicts, real religions, real equipment, real places, etc. The same thing is true (Mythos aside) when I run Call of Cthulhu. However, when I run Star Wars, there is not much history there.

I don't expect all fantasy games to be set in a faux middle ages. That seems way to limiting. Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne and Stafford's Glorantha intentionally are not Western Medieval and I think those are pretty cool setttings. Similarly, a Bronze Age Heroes of Greek Myth setting or an Irish Epic setting both seem appropriately fantastic and interesting while not at all medieval. I do want the social structures of the game world to make sense and real cultures are a pretty easy model to use since we know they worked - in the sense of actually having existed.

I don't think the GM inventing things out of whole cloth is more helpful, it actually makes it more difficult since there isn't a ready to hand analogy for how the setting works. Which means more work is going to be required of the GM and the players in understanding the setting. EPT and Glorantha both have that issue. The invented stuff is going to have to stand up to inspection and be interesting enough for the group to want to become familiar. EPT and Glorantha do hold my interest.

I have two problems with a-historical games.  Please insert YMMV, in my limited experience, etc. here, but these are consistent trends across the games I've personally played in over almost 20 years.

The first is that games uninformed by history are reliably less interesting.  "You come to a village.  Its got an inn, a store [with everything in the equipment list], and a bank... what do you do?"  Well, great.  The GM is familiar with modern social arrangements, and here they are in pseudo-medieval D&D land.  You know what's interesting?  Market fairs with their own judges for disputes, banking handled by some random organization like the Templars who happened to get there first, churches filling many of the roles now taken up by secular society, etc.

Or take the fortified village discussion from the other thread.  Its not just that stone block farmhouses, village palisades and city walls help make sense of the game world, although that's a worthy goal too.  Its that a stockade around a village is a more interesting detail than open bucolic fields.  It gives color and implies something about the game world.

The second issue is that, anime combat moves aside, GMs I've played with who haven't read history have a smaller sense of whats humanly possible in play.  Want to build a stone wall by spending some time stacking stones up?  "You can hire an engineer in [city]."  No, I just want a dry stone wall.  "Do you have a proficiency?"  No, just a stacked stone wall, I'm not worried about mortar and I only want six or eight feet.  "Well, you need the engineering proficiency or a master engineer-"  ****!

Or want to hire a small army to clear a dungeon or an orc village?  "Well, that's pretty dangerous, I don't think anybody's going to do that."  Dude, the first new world colonists sucked up 50% casualty rates for a shot at owning their own land.  Ditto the casualty rates, minus the land, for European troops stationed in Africa.  You may get younger sons and runaway apprentices, but pay them, and they'll come.

Now, neither one of those two critiques is meant in the sense of "oooOOOooo, you're getting a detail wrong!"  I'm not expecting any game with a spell list to be a historical sim.  But I do think there's a lot to be said for picking a culture for inspiration and for shared reference.  Could be Greeks, Vikings, Aztec, I don't care specifically.  If I have any critique of D&D's emphasis on the medieval era, its that you should be probably be drilling down more, to the Swiss cantons or the French during the Hundred Years' War or... anything, really, except "generic assumed middle ages which I don't know much about lol."

So when you ask about "the GM tak[ing] liberties and invent[ing] things whole cloth" I would suggest that very few gamers are in the class of MAR Barker.  Most of them need to read a damn non-fiction book for once in their life and get on with it.

As far as demographics go-  That does interest me as a GM, and I think its a useful tool when developing a campaign.  Its not actually a deal breaker for me as a player; if anything you can go some interesting places by extrapolating out the howling wilderness of sparse settings.  But a complete lack of interest in it can be a marker for the kind of GM I'm complaining about above.

It matters a very great deal to me: I switched my minor in college to medieval demographics because I was researching the subject so fanatically I figured I might as well get some credit out of it.

That being said, verisimilitude has proven a huge draw for me over the decades.  A repeated compliment that tickles my heart is "You make it so real."  Folks have spent time on waiting lists hoping for a slot.  Of the players in my current Saturday group who don't live with me, two travel over a hundred miles each way twice a month to play; the other two merely travel fifty each way.

Yes, it's been a lot of work.  Yes, I've done dozens and hundreds of hours of research.  But that's what I do.  For some people, a hobby means doing the very best you're capable of doing, whether it means building that scale model to match real-life photos, or practicing twice a week for the amateur sport you play or the open mic nights at which you perform, or arranging your flower garden just so.

And if that's not your cup of tea?  You're in luck.  There are only about a gajillion campaigns of the sort Saladman deftly describes: 21st-century mores and attitudes wrapped up in a 1940s Hollywood/Errol Flynn patina, details getting in the way of the dungeon crawls, doncha know.  As long as there are swords and "gold pieces" and chain mail and tunics and ale, a lot of folks are happy.

And good for them: we should all be doing this to have fun.

Me too.

I expect at least a passing acknowledgement. However it is just as crucial for me to have space to input my own ideas. Otherwise the product cannot be cannibalized as well, and that leaves me sad.

For example, details about how many acres for agrarian use, and making that as equal as possible to ideas about medieval Europe, has no truck with me. I pay attention to the rest of the world, along with their variations of technology, and those oft cited low 14th Cen. numbers has zero relevance to what I work with. I often have far better agrarian ideas going on, often forest/desert management, polyculture farming, aquaculture, etc., even without dipping into magic. Don't presume for me fantasy muck dweller Essex; I can do far better than that.

Essentially, sketch the world, suggest the world, possibly even hint at the everyday know-how and logistic, but don't tell me how to tightly run the world.

Real world outside of Europe could be very different.

And Saladman is absolutely right. There's a paucity of imagination among modern GMs about human capacity. I wholly blame the modern "skills as permission" dynamic.

Now part of me thought it was the people's fault for not reading their DMGs and understanding the assumed competence of characters. However, I just recently took a longer look at PathFinder PHB & DMG equivalent... It is so unhelpful to the new GM, almost crippling so. It could create Adventure Path dependency because of how little it teaches how to build setting and structure campaign. A list of brainstorming questions, and not going into their ramifications, is not constructive beyond re-skinned flavor; hyper-fixation on precious CR approved encounter builds, but not explaining about validity, value, context, etc. of why encounters; things like these assume an experienced GM and skip merrily along, but doesn't help train new GMs to be self-sufficient.

Building the Setting is the most important thing. My bette noir is that people spend hours carefully mapping their dungeon or whatever and no time planning their setting so you end up with a complex well thought our adventure and a party made up of a Viking, a Samurai, a Rennaisance Smurf, a half demon and a living plant. The background can explain none of these things. There is no idea of how the world hangs together and no idea about economy, history etc. Just a very nicely drawn map of an underground dungeon complex.

The worst of it is that settings are not difficult to create. The reason I put together the micro settings I have been putting out there is to show that in 600 words you can outline a setting that seems to have a logical basis, is rational, consistent and is playable. You can create such a setting in 20 minutes. The DMG needs to put far more effort into that, into telling DMS that the PHB contains a lot of classes and races but the DM needs to pick the ones that work for their setting. If everywhere is the kitchen sink then everywhere feels the same.

Now as I have noted many times I love to ad lib, but when I do that I always start with the setting basics in my head. Playing for 35 years and the fact that my academic choices largely followed my RPG interests means that I can imagine a world whole cloth in moments. It will be cliched to a degree but real. A desert land made up of city states and nomad raiders, an archipilago of islands populated by warrior poets, a mountainous kingdom locked in a 100 year war between different castes of dwarves. These ideas spring unbidded to all out minds and create almost instant settings all you need to give them the touch of authenticity is some grounding in Geography, Anthropology and History and a good memory.

My thoughts are that when I want to emulate medieval Europe I'll play Ars Magica (and that's not just snark - I do play Ars Magica).

When I play a game like D&D or Runequest, I like the fantasy elements to be front and centre and and to affect the setting.

So I want cities that are supported by a small circle of what looks like far too little farmland because druids increase crop production, not one with miles and miles of boring arable.

I want a society where magic is commonly used by people, not one where superstitious peasants are shocked when they see even the smallest spell being cast.

I want cities ruled by vampires or dragons.

I want flying ships and maybe even flying cities.

I want huge tracts of dangerous wilderness that people have been unable to tame despite their best efforts.

I want Magical Universities, and streets full of temples.

I want castles and fortresses made from single pieces of stone, magically grown.

I want fantasy Vikings and fantasy Mongol Hordes and fantasy Bedouin and who cares if they end up next to each other on the map.

Basically, real-world history is there to be plundered for the cool imagery, and real-world demographics can go take a running jump.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788644My thoughts are that when I want to emulate medieval Europe I'll play Ars Magica (and that's not just snark - I do play Ars Magica).

When I play a game like D&D or Runequest, I like the fantasy elements to be front and centre and and to affect the setting.

So I want cities that are supported by a small circle of what looks like far too little farmland because druids increase crop production, not one with miles and miles of boring arable.

I want a society where magic is commonly used by people, not one where superstitious peasants are shocked when they see even the smallest spell being cast.

I want cities ruled by vampires or dragons.

I want flying ships and maybe even flying cities.

I want huge tracts of dangerous wilderness that people have been unable to tame despite their best efforts.

I want Magical Universities, and streets full of temples.

I want castles and fortresses made from single pieces of stone, magically grown.

I want fantasy Vikings and fantasy Mongol Hordes and fantasy Bedouin and who cares if they end up next to each other on the map.

Basically, real-world history is there to be plundered for the cool imagery, and real-world demographics can go take a running jump.

But your descriptions cover real world logic. You have small areas of farmland but you have a logical reason - druids that make the crops grow kill the druids and one presumes the city will starve. Magicaly grown cities are fine all that stuff is fine, even the bedouin and vikings are fine provided you have thought about it and have an answer and if that answer is they were pulled through a magical rift then fine. All the magic stuff is fine and people are blase about magic so expect magic to held with regular healing, childbirth, maybe enven birthing cattle and lighting streets. Problmes only come when everyone is blase about magic and accepts it as the norm but there is no impact on the setting.

Quote from: jibbajibba;788642Building the Setting is the most important thing. My bette noir is that people spend hours carefully mapping their dungeon or whatever and no time planning their setting so you end up with a complex well thought our adventure and a party made up of a Viking, a Samurai, a Rennaisance Smurf, a half demon and a living plant. The background can explain none of these things. There is no idea of how the world hangs together and no idea about economy, history etc. Just a very nicely drawn map of an underground dungeon complex.

The worst of it is that settings are not difficult to create. The reason I put together the micro settings I have been putting out there is to show that in 600 words you can outline a setting that seems to have a logical basis, is rational, consistent and is playable. You can create such a setting in 20 minutes. The DMG needs to put far more effort into that, into telling DMS that the PHB contains a lot of classes and races but the DM needs to pick the ones that work for their setting. If everywhere is the kitchen sink then everywhere feels the same.

I share the same bugaboo about the Impossibly Diverse Party. It is a huge flag that I'm about to ride the shit train into contextless land, where backgrounds & continuity are made of paper, & every act from special snowflakes comes with its own applause. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, watched it stain, fade, & fray, gave it away to charity, refuse to pick up new ones freely offered — even from the t-shirt cannon. I'm so done with that circle jerk.

I also took the liberty of singling out that last line, because it is so true. These options: class, race, backgrounds, equipment, etc., are all tools to flesh setting. But if they are all always on, what sort of flavor do you have when it all ends up the same big mess?

Someone really needs to reinforce that every god damn thing is optional, down to the existence of ball bearings & lanterns. They also need to explain that, yes, world building is easy, fun, and sets the tone & flavor of the game. Making it into an approachable 20 min. exercise explaining that decisions about limitations have consequences — and those consequences can be healthy & fun! — should be integral to every DMG.

There's only so much 'heroic!' gonzo mixed salad one can eat before vomiting.

Quote from: jibbajibba;788653But your descriptions cover real world logic. You have small areas of farmland but you have a logical reason - druids that make the crops grow kill the druids and one presumes the city will starve. Magicaly grown cities are fine all that stuff is fine, even the bedouin and vikings are fine provided you have thought about it and have an answer and if that answer is they were pulled through a magical rift then fine. All the magic stuff is fine and people are blase about magic so expect magic to held with regular healing, childbirth, maybe enven birthing cattle and lighting streets. Problmes only come when everyone is blase about magic and accepts it as the norm but there is no impact on the setting.

Oh absolutely.

I might prefer a more fantasy feel than a historical one, but I do make sure that the fantasy world logically fits together and there are reasons for things. I don't just throw stuff in "because it's cool" without a thought to how the logistics of it will work.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788644Basically, real-world history is there to be plundered for the cool imagery, and real-world demographics can go take a running jump.

When the fantastic is common it is no longer fantastic but commonplace.

Don't get me wrong I get what you are saying. I found what works the best is a a core consisting mundane medieval setting that is about 20% "better" in terms of living conditions and prosperity than historical due to the presence of magic, etc.  Then wrapped around this is the Otherworld of the fantastic. The mundane exists because that is the compromise between the varying forces and factions that exist in the Otherworld.

Having a mundane core gives novices to my campaign an easy frame of reference to orient themselve as they learn the specifics. Basing the mundane core on real world demographics, as far as what can be gleaned, allows for a rich presentation of those who inhabit it. Which is ultimately more interesting.

In short the not the numbers themselves that are important. The number are just the means to figure out who lives there and why. That the final destination of any use of demographics. To make an interesting and diverse cast of NPCs for the PCs to interact with. And to a lesser extent to define the geography of the setting when it comes to land inhabited by people.

Also having a mundane core means less need to be explain by the referee. The players can make valid assumption and the referee's time can be spend on other details of interest to the PCs. The more fantastic a setting is the more that has to be explained. Basically the old Tekemul vs Greyhawk issue. Both are great setting but Tekemul does take more work to get off the ground for a group of players

Then when you add in the Otherworld it shine all the more brighter as the difference from the mundane are highlighted.

Settings that are run over multiple campaigns with multiple groups need both.

Quote from: Jibbajibba"a party made up of a Viking, a Samurai, a Rennaisance Smurf, a half demon and a living plant."

SOMEBODY's been watching Guardians of the Galaxy!

-clash

I learned back in college that one of the worst mistakes a DM can do is say 'oh, make anything, I'll make it work.'

It comes from a boundless optimism in creativity and player freedom. While it doesn't invariably lead to a train wreck, it makes it veeeery likely (and it's also a good sign the DM is probably newish)

One of the things I really like are the increasing prevalence of games suggesting parties be made collaboratively, where players actually talk to one another and try to build starting relationships.

It's not a new idea (I mean, I'm pretty sure Ars Magica at least brushed on the idea back in the 90s, just off the top of my head), but it seems to have more visibility nowadays.