|
Hi Slank,
I've modeled the city population of a country as roughly 1/5th of the total population to put it closer inline with middle ages (although with magic, meh, who knows what it should be), so influx in cities comes from the countryside (which reasonably would be already occupied if there was arable land and some semblance of safety).
You could form a system where unrest increases with too much of one kind of development without another to support it, so if economy outpaces stability, the labor pool gets exploited, but if stability outpaces loyalty, people become disaffected.
Something like that?
-Oli
|
|
If I understand you correctly, and I might not, I just got home from a long day and my brain is a little foggy, that would model how the populace might react if the government pushed too hard in a particular direction, but it doesn't really reflect having a limited available population.
I see more of what you are saying that if there were a more inelastic labor pool, that would mean a cap to what could be built per turn, or at least a rising production cost for each additional building.
You could manage this by ranking building slots per turn, giving some (say 3 out of 5) at no additional cost, then adding a flat or scaling cost for building more than the labor pool normally allows (so building 4 has an increased cost and building 5 has a higher increased cost than building 4).
This could represent the cost of recruiting people from further and further away or of paying higher wages / paying people to keep working when they are already fatigued.
For regional labor pools, you could have repeated use of the highest ranked building slots result in a decrease along the diplomacy track or even turn it around and have neighbors recruiting from your lands which would impose the increased cost on buildings that are otherwise free from the additional cost.
Ex: we build a house, a tavern, and a stable at the listed BP price, but we also want a barracks and a watchtower. the barracks then costs its listed BP price +2 extra BP for it being beyond the normal labor supply. building the watch tower then costs +5 additional BP because we are stretching the labor pool even tighter.
Let's say we can afford this, so we repeat it for four turns in a row, and our comparatively higher wages draws so many workers from a nearby kingdom that they issue an edict banning our kingdom's people from the upcoming fair, lowering them from friendly to indifferent.
A few turns later, they take petty revenge and save all of their BP to spend in one large burst, driving up costs in your kingdom such that our second and third buildings now have the added +2 or +5 BP, and the fourth and fifth building now have a +10 added cost.
I'm looking at something similar. Expeditious Retreat's Magical Medieval Society has some good reference material. The line I am taking is that a labourer can produce 1sp per day and is divided across various activities, such as crop maintenance, general maintenance, building, military and watch duties etc. It still uses the build it and they will come model but by using the Rooms system to determine building costs instead of BP it limits the building speed to the available building force.
In my experience, the concept of a laborer producing 1 silver piece per day, divided across different activities, seems a bit optimistic. But yep, the approach you mentioned, using the Rooms system to determine building costs instead of BP (Building Points), can indeed help in controlling the building speed based on the available workforce.
I just wanna say it's important to strike a balance between realism and gameplay mechanics and it is so crucial to ensure that the game doesn't become too bogged down in complex calculations.
Ultimately, it's your call on how you want to handle the building and labor mechanics in your game. Just keep in mind the overall balance :)
If you use the Starfinder ship system, you build the frame(Outer walls, roof, foundation, cellar, and load bearing walls) and build in the rooms. Kind of like filling bays in a spaceship. Repairing costs half in time and money. This is why building with magic is so popular.
Population growth is greater in the countryside because they have more children, because they need the cheep labor, and they may lose some to monsters and disease.
Uhmm, I got you, thanks. Anyway, it's not smth like illegal immigration?
Some kids will go to seek their fortune. That's where most adventurers come from. Also, caravan guards, sailors, ect. Goblins and other hostile humanoids, are more restricted. If Sandpoint was part of a kingdom, Knights and armies would have been sent out to deal with the goblins.
Like in Mulan, every family is supposed to send one soldier. In an army a character might make the transition from warrior to first level character. In Medieval/Renaissance times, Immagration laws might be hard to enforce or just low priority.
I think this is a three-part problem/opportunity.
First, the GM has to establish what the existing population of the barony/county/duchy/kingdom is. That will give a foundation for the player characters to build from: they'll have an idea of how many people they can draw from for a labor pool, a military force, a population for the communities they're building, etc.
Second, the GM needs to have a plan for expansion. Is it a case of expanding the realm's borders? In that case, there needs to be an understanding of the population and resources the expansion will bring to the realm. Is it a case of inviting outsiders to help grow the realm? There are historical examples of rulers inviting foreign tribes to populate their frontiers, receiving land in exchange for military obligation. Both the western and eastern Roman emperors did this for centuries, to name one example.
Third, what story angles do either of the above generate? Something as simple as establishing a quarry can lead to conflict.
First, I don't think the GM needs to start by figuring out the existing population of the realm. It can add some flavor, sure, but leaving it vague can actually make things more interesting. Gives room for mystery and surprises when the players meet NPCs along the way. Next up, let's talk illegal immigration. While it's a hot topic in the real world, it might fit the fantasy vibe. You gotta click now and consider the setting and lore. Bringing in real-world issues could mess with the immersion. To wrap it up, RPGs are all about freedom and creativity. Your ideas have merit, no doubt, but remember, there's no right or wrong way to do it. And we forget that it's up to the GM and players to decide what makes the game fun and exciting.
Knowing what the rough population of a place isn't just about flavor. Yes, by knowing about how many people live in, say, a frontier barony, you can describe the place accordingly and sensibly. That doesn't mean the GM has to present a census to the PCs. It's just a good idea for the GM to know what things really are behind the scenes.
More than that, though, having a grasp on a place's population means the GM doesn't have to make ad-hoc, arbitrary decisions when someone decides to build X. If the GM knows that the population of that barony is just 5,000 people, for example, then that informs what they can communicate to the heroes should they decide to establish, e.g., a major city. As part of the exploratory process, the GM can show them it's a case of either having to wait decades before the population grows... or they invite people to settle their barony (see two paragraphs down).
Beyond that, with respect, illegal immigration is a modern buzzword/concept to describe population movements of civilians looking to avoid hostile conditions and/or find opportunity within another nation. In the centuries preceding the modern era, which most fantasy RPGs tend to emulate, we're talking about fundamentally different concepts and dynamics. In a feudal system, the peasants of a manor often don't even have the freedom to simply leave their lord. Rural yeomen and residents of cities can't count on other realms being accepting of foreigners. They certainly can't assume they'll be safe to travel long distances without a military force, and medieval logistics make a large traveling population a threat to available resources.
And so, in practice, large population movements generally follow invasions whose purpose was to conquer and colonize a given place. In earlier periods, this can also take the form of nomadic movements by tribes seeking to seize lands and resources--or to gain an "invitation" by the local magnate to settle. We see this with various Germanic peoples in the late western Roman era or Turkic people throughout the eastern Roman era (to name two broad examples).
Anyways, in my humble opinion, this isn't about which way is "right" or "wrong." It's simply about the GM knowing what is happening in their campaign setting and being prepared to brief PCs accordingly.
I am ok, I just want to show my position. Yes, the population of a place adds flavor don't need an exact headcount for every nook and cranny. No census presentations for the players.
What I want to conclude on illegal immigration - yeah, there were population movements, but they came with invasions or by invitation. That's how it rolled(
So, it's not about being right or wrong. The GM just needs to know their setting and fill in the players accordingly.
I think that the population come to play based in the geography, production, laws and security of the land.
Most people want a place where they feel save, whit no discrimination, whit chance of live well for they, they family and future generations.
The first thing to do is to see what the land can give and secure the place whit good laws, law enforcement (marshall work)
The second thing to do to attract population for me is to attract traveler merchant and bards so they can do the propaganda of the land