I was wondering why this article had not sparked more comments. After all, on GreyChat, it repeatedly resulted in some heated debates... then I realized that I had never created a Readers Workshop Tag. Here is the original work:
I don't see how the mere presence of these other races can keep the population of humans down. A low population is explained by matters of attrition, in every culture.
And I think you over-estimate former population levels of the real world. I can get you the sources, if you like, but it has been estimated that only 21 billion people have ever lived upon the earth and approximately 1/3 of them are alive right now.
(I don't follow the "faith" of evolution, but even prominent evolutionist agree with this figure, as it pertains to what are considered "humans" by today's standards)
Also, the Black Plague of the Middle Ages is estimated to have killed off approximately half of Europe's population at that time. Estimated deaths for the rest of the world are unknown.
From 1918 until 1920 (after World War I) 20 million people died of the Spanish Influenza. Only the island of St. Helena remained untouched by this plague.
Shall we discuss war, sickness, hunger and other pestilences?
I shall reiterate; I don't see how the mere presence of nonhuman races can account for a "low" human population.
I should like to offer something more, but I just don't see the explaination of a low human population just because some other intelligent species happens to live on the same planet with them.
Well, it is not simply their "mere," presence solely, but also their knives, fangs, claws and similar acutrements. SImply put, they compete for land, and do so effectively. They make communication and trade difficult. They damage harvests and kill flocks. It is not so much that they contain the humans (though I would assume there are some elements of this, such as in the Dim Forest), as their actions pre-empt the expansion.
It is this later that fits very well with my vision of GH. It is how I see GH being a "Human-Centric" world without the humans dominating every nook and cranny. The civilized areas are well kept and orderly... the hinterlands and wild areas in between not so much. It is not that the Humans cannot dislodge the band of gnolls; the humans do not have enough manpower to farm the areas they have, and cannot expand effectively. So why challenge the gnolls, unless they become a nuisance. Then you call on the local adventurers.
I think it works within it's framework, and is an effective way of viewing the overall population. I think what I also realized from this is just how big GH is (our planet is much bigger on horseback) and how many people it can contain comfortably.
The following was posted in a Comment section attached to the article, that I cannot always access. THerefore I have reposted it here:
Re: A Magical Census of the Gran March (Score: 1)
by A-Baneful-Backfire on Sun, August 31, 2008
(User Info | Send a Message)
Thank you for providing such a breakdown. I entirely agree with your premise that every square mile or hex has a significant population, and only a portion is within the census numbers for humans and observed demi-humans and humanoids. I have been struggling to develop some basic principles to estimate the populations (particularly those with intelligence) not covered in the materials (centaurs, giant eagles, etc.).
How did you arrive at your "Ratio to Human" and "Eco Factor" values. Not that there is anything wrong with them, I'm just wondering what factors you thought were relevant.
In my attempts to develop populations, I have utilized the CR of the creatures as a basis. I considered there to be half as many creatures of the next higher CR. Example: In a human population of 100, there would be 50 of CR 1/2 (commoner 1 or expert 1, etc.), 25 of CR 1 (1st level PC classes, or NPC level 2), 14 or so CR 3, etc., until the population reached 100. I borrowed this idea from the 2nd edition High Level Campaign Players Option book. When carried further, this means a CR 10 creature is about a one in a thousand creature, and a CR 20 is about a 1 in a million creature.
Your Ratio to Humans factor apparently takes some of this into account. What other factors did you take into account?
Another question is, how many population equivalents did you assign to each square mile, or 30-mile hex of the Gran March? What did you consider to be an appropriate population density of the equivalents? (Also, how many hexes, or square miles did you include in your consideration?) What was your reason for assigning that many population equivalents (or did you just let the relation to humans lead you forward?)
Again, thank you for your breakdown. Any responses to my questions would be appreciated, and I know they are a bit ponderous.
I was wondering why this article had not sparked more comments. After all, on GreyChat, it repeatedly resulted in some heated debates... then I realized that I had never created a Readers Workshop Tag. Here is the original work:
It is an excellent article, but I thought we talked it all out in GM forum I was glad to see it made in to a final article. _________________ Plar of Poofy Pants
I think a version of the Flanaess where there are more orcs and goblins than humans would be very different from the one presented by Gygax - who wrote, "The various races of humanoids have generally been driven into the least favorable areas." [Guide, page 12], but the notes about how large monsters like dragons and giants would consume far more resources than a single human are well taken.
Over all, it was a very good article. I do think that the presence of monsters and humanoids could drastically reduce the human and demihuman populations. Gygax presented a human-dominated world, but he also presented a world where much was uncultivated, hostile wilderness where random monster encounters were distressingly common. Not that one need care overly much what Gygax intended in one's own game.
Well, it is not simply their "mere," presence solely, but also their knives, fangs, claws and similar acutrements. SImply put, they compete for land, and do so effectively. They make communication and trade difficult. They damage harvests and kill flocks. It is not so much that they contain the humans (though I would assume there are some elements of this, such as in the Dim Forest), as their actions pre-empt the expansion.
It is this later that fits very well with my vision of GH. It is how I see GH being a "Human-Centric" world without the humans dominating every nook and cranny.
I truly enjoyed the article as well. I believe that I miss understood your premise. You are calculating attrition into the equation.
Then I must certainly agree. Under such circumstances, human population growth and expansion would certainly be curtailed considerably. In addition, besides consuming more resources, sharing a neighborhood with a large monster (Dragon or Giants) as "lesser" monsters do, simply isn't feasible for humans.
And though Oerth is "human-centric," I wouldn't want humans in "every nook and cranny" either. Where would the excitement be?
In structuring this chart, I devised two arbitrary factors: Ratio to Human and Eco Factor. The ratio to human is designed to show how many creatures there are in relation to a human. This is then multipled by the Eco Factor. The eco factor is to show how much "space," the creatures take up in the eco system in relation to an average person.
Then, I attempted to balance the population as a whole with a the square milage of Gran March (75,600) and the arable Land area. I used site Medieval Demographics http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm to determine this number. I was targeting 902,000 +/-.
Yabusama actually did a human population density map, though he has not released it for posting.
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
A low population is explained by matters of attrition, in every culture.
I was glad to see it made in to a final article.
You 
Looking forward to seeing Yabusama's density map. Keep us informed.