World Building using the 80-20 Rule

[liquidformat]

Hi All,

I have started an excel sheet of world building based around the 80-20 Rule for populations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xs1869nC5pQt1sibxvMpu-iRFz-DJZfO8eLHZkTS_oU/edit?usp=sharing). I think it is kind of fun and who knows someone might find it handy. Here are the rules I am using in what I have made so far:

Population in this document refers to population of a city, state/region, or country not the world itself
80% of the pop is level 1 with 80% of the remainder being the subsequent level, repeat to max level.
80% of the population is NPCs
80% of NPCs are Commoners
80% of Commoners are level 1
Max Commoner level is 3
80% of the remaining 20% of commoners are level 2
Of the remaining 20% of NPCs 80% are Experts or warriors
Of those experts and Warriors 80% are level 1
Max Aristocrats, Expert and Warrior level is 5
Distribution of Experts compared to Warriors and distribution of Adepts to Magewrights is left undetermined/can be determined by location
Adepts, Magewrights, and Aristocrats make up the remainder of NPCs
20% of Adepts, Magewrights, and Aristocrats are Aristocrats
80% of Adepts, Magewrights, and Aristocrats are level 1 with 80% of the remainder being the subsequent level and so on.


Let me know what you think I am still debating on how to breakup stats for player classes.

[NigelWalmsley]

I'm not sure I get the point of this. Are you just trying to find out what this world looks like (at a first pass: ruled by whatever kind of spellcasting monster you allow)? Do you think this would make an interesting campaign setting for some reason?

[liquidformat]

I thought it would be interesting as a design reference tool to figure out populations of cities and countries rather than just using the numbers from the DMG

[NigelWalmsley]

Sure. But what problem did you have with those numbers? Are they too complicated? Do you think the level distribution they produce is too high/low/uneven? Do you think they're unrealisitic? Do they not fit your campaign? Do you just want to try something different? Too many people jump directly to the answer without considering what question they're actually asking.

[liquidformat]

Honestly I found the DMG population metrics a bit complicated to use and to give you erroneous numbers. For example it is quite reasonable (~60% chance) to have commoner between level 7 and 13 in a Thorp, goofiness like that. On the other hand using 80-20 rule and some simple logic statements can allow me to quickly make random towns/cities/countries and to adjust them for specialties and what not.

[InvisibleBison]

For example it is quite reasonable (~60% chance) to have commoner between level 7 and 13 in a Thorp, goofiness like that.

What's goofy about that?

[Nousos]

If an old man has been commonering his entire life and has been working hard at whatever he does, why can't he live in a thorp?

[liquidformat]

What's goofy about that?

For starters why/how anyone would take 7-13 levels of commoner...

The DMG rules don't really give you enough information to really flesh out anything, they give you a general population range and max level for each class, I think there is a chart some where that also gives a distribution of classes as well but can't find it currently. I am simply creating an interesting tool to help with creating towns/cities/countries with some logic behind it.


If an old man has been commonering his entire life and has been working hard at whatever he does, why can't he live in a thorp?

Outside of 'adulthood' and dragons there is no coloration between age and level in d&d. Being at maximum age and still being level 1 is perfectly reasonable. Also given 'expected commoner challenges' and exp rewards there seems to me that there would be a hard ceiling on level for commoners much the same way most monsters have a cap on rhd.

[Nousos]

Some people (notably non PCs) lack the talent or inclination to do much with their life. The normal npcs with brawn and a knack for, desire to, or reason to fight become warriors. Most npcs don't fight though. Those that have the money and/or talent to learn a trade become experts after an apprenticeship (assuming a setting similar to earth), aristocrats have similar obvious paths. The rest, the average human, just become unskilled laborers of some sort (commoners).

If someone is a commoner for years and is very good at it, they might gain a few levels. Hell, they might even pick up some fighting based feats in order to protect their community, and might even protect it a lot, but could remain a commoner because laboring for a living is where their focus lies. Due to the multitude of ways a high level commoner (or any class) might come about, at most you could call it a soft cap.

I mean people tend to have no problem visualizing a mid-high level wizard who has lived in an academy setting his whole life, with very few combat encounters. At the end of the day its all subjective.

[liquidformat]

Some people (notably non PCs) lack the talent or inclination to do much with their life. The normal npcs with brawn and a knack for, desire to, or reason to fight become warriors. Most npcs don't fight though. Those that have the money and/or talent to learn a trade become experts after an apprenticeship (assuming a setting similar to earth), aristocrats have similar obvious paths. The rest, the average human, just become unskilled laborers of some sort (commoners).

If someone is a commoner for years and is very good at it, they might gain a few levels. Hell, they might even pick up some fighting based feats in order to protect their community, and might even protect it a lot, but could remain a commoner because laboring for a living is where their focus lies. Due to the multitude of ways a high level commoner (or any class) might come about, at most you could call it a soft cap.

I mean people tend to have no problem visualizing a mid-high level wizard who has lived in an academy setting his whole life, with very few combat encounters. At the end of the day its all subjective.

I find it hard to see any commoner making it past level 3~ (at least humans things get really screwy once you go into longer lived races). Lets say the total challenges a commoner faces per year are equivalent to 1/2 CR challenge excluding combat that seems reasonable and maybe a bit generous for a mud farmer. So a commoner could expect to gain 150 exp per year. So it would take ~7 years to get to level 2, 20 years to level 3, 40 years for level 4; that means the average human commoner could expect to hit level 4 around 80 years old. I also don't care much for the premise that a commoner levels up by combat as they have little chance against the average 1/4 cat... Even being level 3 or 4 a commoner would die in a round or two against your average CR 1 critter.

On the other hand a wizard has the magical backup to take on level appropriate challenges even if they have nothing to do with combat.

[Biggus]

Population in this document refers to population of a city, state/region, or country not the world itself


I'm not sure what distinction you're making here? If each country/state follows the 80-20 rule, wouldn't that mean the world does too?


80% of the pop is level 1 with 80% of the remainder being the subsequent level, repeat to max level.

Is this intentionally a low-level world? The highest-level character in a country with the population of medieval England (between 2 and 5 million) would only be about level 10 for example.

[liquidformat]

I'm not sure what distinction you're making here? If each country/state follows the 80-20 rule, wouldn't that mean the world does too?



Is this intentionally a low-level world? The highest-level character in a country with the population of medieval England (between 2 and 5 million) would only be about level 10 for example.

For right now I was just playing around with the premise that 80% of the population was level 1 to see what the numbers would flesh out to be. But it would be pretty easy to adjust the power level however you wanted. IE having a Theocratic country with a power level around CR 10 could be as easily designed as a medieval fiefdom, it is just a matter of adjusting the logic statements I start with.

[Biggus]

For right now I was just playing around with the premise that 80% of the population was level 1 to see what the numbers would flesh out to be. But it would be pretty easy to adjust the power level however you wanted. IE having a Theocratic country with a power level around CR 10 could be as easily designed as a medieval fiefdom, it is just a matter of adjusting the logic statements I start with.

Fair enough, from what I can tell most published D&D campaign settings have somewhere between a 70-30 rule (Eberron) and a 50-50 rule (Forgotten Realms).

[lylsyly]

For starters why/how anyone would take 7-13 levels of commoner....

They are NPCs, they don't neccessarily take levels, rather gain levels by the life they led.... no reason why that 60 year old farmer cant's have that many levels.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

On the one hand, characters don't realize they're taking levels (unless they're in a fourth-wall-breaking world like OotS). Levels are abstractions. On the other hand, what's the actual point of modelling some grizzled commoner as a high level commoner instead of, say, a warrior with fewer levels? Having "commoner" in the class name isn't a good reason.

[Gnaeus]

On the one hand, characters don't realize they're taking levels (unless they're in a fourth-wall-breaking world like OotS). Levels are abstractions. On the other hand, what's the actual point of modelling some grizzled commoner as a high level commoner instead of, say, a warrior with fewer levels? Having "commoner" in the class name isn't a good reason.

Because maybe the guy who cranks out the epic woodcarvings from his porch never felt a need to learn how to wear armor that costs more than his village. Or because having more feats is better optimized for him than more bab. Maybe his grandma was a Fey and now that he’s level 12 he has Fey heritage feats for some DR cold iron and a bunch of spell-likes.


I find it hard to see any commoner making it past level 3~ (at least humans things get really screwy once you go into longer lived races). Lets say the total challenges a commoner faces per year are equivalent to 1/2 CR challenge excluding combat that seems reasonable and maybe a bit generous for a mud farmer. So a commoner could expect to gain 150 exp per year. So it would take ~7 years to get to level 2, 20 years to level 3, 40 years for level 4; that means the average human commoner could expect to hit level 4 around 80 years old. I also don't care much for the premise that a commoner levels up by combat as they have little chance against the average 1/4 cat... Even being level 3 or 4 a commoner would die in a round or two against your average CR 1 critter..

What if he’s the captain of the village militia and shouts orders at a dozen teammates while shooting a sling from the back?

Also, Challenges don’t necessarily have to be life threatening to give exp. He got 200 exp negotiating the boundary between 2 farms. Then a quest reward when he went to the capitol long ago to sell a carving to a noble. He was part of the search party for some lost kids. And he helped to put out a fire one time. And then there was the time he sold him a horse but delivered a mule.

[Biggus]

For starters why/how anyone would take 7-13 levels of commoner... [snip]

Also given 'expected commoner challenges' and exp rewards there seems to me that there would be a hard ceiling on level for commoners much the same way most monsters have a cap on rhd.

I think a level 3 ceiling is a bit low, but I agree that level 13+ commoners don't make any sense (personally I cap commoners at 10th level). Likewise I can see the logic of capping warriors and maybe aristocrats at before level 20, although again level 5 seems too low to me (there will be veteran warriors who've fought in many campaigns but never had the specialised training of a Fighter for example).

I think part of it comes down to how you envisage XP working. It clearly can't be only combat which gives it or noncombatants would never level up at all, but the DMG is pretty vague about it. The best suggestion I've seen is that XP represents "aha" moments when you gain new insight into a skill or ability, which as fighting for your life concentrates the mind really well tend to come quicker for people involved in combat regularly, but also makes it possible for people who obsessively study something to gain a lot of levels over time. This would explain where old wizards who stay home making magic items get their XP from, and also why there are high-level experts.

[InvisibleBison]

I think part of it comes down to how you envisage XP working. It clearly can't be only combat which gives it or noncombatants would never level up at all, but the DMG is pretty vague about it. The best suggestion I've seen is that XP represents "aha" moments when you gain new insight into a skill or ability, which as fighting for your life concentrates the mind really well tend to come quicker for people involved in combat regularly, but also makes it possible for people who obsessively study something to gain a lot of levels over time. This would explain where old wizards who stay home making magic items get their XP from, and also why there are high-level experts.

I'm pretty sure the rules only provide ways for PCs and cohorts to earn experience. Everyone else doesn't have experience and just is whatever level the DM wants them to be.

[Biggus]

I'm pretty sure the rules only provide ways for PCs and cohorts to earn experience. Everyone else doesn't have experience and just is whatever level the DM wants them to be.

Well, the rules don't provide ways for NPCs other than cohorts to earn XP, because that's not needed to play the game. But as making magic items and casting certain spells require XP, NPCs must have it.

[liquidformat]

Because maybe the guy who cranks out the epic woodcarvings from his porch never felt a need to learn how to wear armor that costs more than his village. Or because having more feats is better optimized for him than more bab. Maybe his grandma was a Fey and now that he’s level 12 he has Fey heritage feats for some DR cold iron and a bunch of spell-likes.

There are enough templates and what not out there to do this kind of stuff without hd bloat no reason. Also epic woodcarver would be an expert not a commoner.


What if he’s the captain of the village militia and shouts orders at a dozen teammates while shooting a sling from the back?

Commoners literally do not have the skills to do this, again that would be a expert or maybe aristocrat or noble...


Also, Challenges don’t necessarily have to be life threatening to give exp. He got 200 exp negotiating the boundary between 2 farms. Then a quest reward when he went to the capitol long ago to sell a carving to a noble. He was part of the search party for some lost kids. And he helped to put out a fire one time. And then there was the time he sold him a horse but delivered a mule.

This was why I gave the example of 150 exp per year it is a decent way to extrapolate those random events that might not happen even once a year but over time add up to gaining new understanding of the world and more power (leveling).


I think a level 3 ceiling is a bit low, but I agree that level 13+ commoners don't make any sense (personally I cap commoners at 10th level). Likewise I can see the logic of capping warriors and maybe aristocrats at before level 20, although again level 5 seems too low to me (there will be veteran warriors who've fought in many campaigns but never had the specialised training of a Fighter for example).

It comes down to how often you think that a non-combatant comes across events that grant exp, also probably race. By all rights even if elves have a low birth rate they should have a higher average level than humans and if they are less likely to give birth to children then they would also have more resources focused on each of them hence I would think with elves and other long lived races you would see less npc classes and specifically less commoners.

This logic should be especially true in settings like Eberron where they explicitly have explained that elves mature just as quickly as humans but focus so much more on perfection of their craft.

[Biggus]

It comes down to how often you think that a non-combatant comes across events that grant exp, also probably race. By all rights even if elves have a low birth rate they should have a higher average level than humans and if they are less likely to give birth to children then they would also have more resources focused on each of them hence I would think with elves and other long lived races you would see less npc classes and specifically less commoners.

This logic should be especially true in settings like Eberron where they explicitly have explained that elves mature just as quickly as humans but focus so much more on perfection of their craft.

Yeah, it's always struck me as one of the harder things to explain in D&D how elves (and other very long-lived races) don't all end up high level, or at least mid-level. The nearest I can come to an explanation is that they generally don't have the same sense of urgency that shorter-lived races do and will happily spend decades doing nothing much if life doesn't force them to do otherwise.

[JNAProductions]

Commoners literally do not have the skills to do this, again that would be a expert or maybe aristocrat or noble...

Commoners have (or can have) Sling Proficiency.

And they have exactly as many class features suited to helping others in a fight as an Expert or Aristocrat. Namely, none.

[Lans]

I would say breaking in and training a horse or elephant would count as defeating it


There are enough templates and what not out there to do this kind of stuff without hd bloat no reason. Also epic woodcarver would be an expert not a commoner.




Not necessarily, the epic woodcarver could be the starving artist type. Tjey are good at their craft but don't have the skills to run a business, negotiate a higher price for there art or to sus out somebody taking advantage of them.

[Esprit15]

Re: Challenges - People do hunt for food, and sometimes run into more than they bargained for while doing that. PF puts a deer at CR 1/4, and something bigger like a moose might have stats like a heavy warhorse and a CR of 2. With some friends, a commoner might try to get rid of the wolf pack that is attacking their sheep, or kill the bear that has killed kids that wandered too deep into the woods. Not to mention simple bar fights that break out between drunks. A level 5, or 7, or even 13 commoner is someone who has seen a lot of those things and nevertheless is still at the end of the day just a farmer with Skill Focus (Profession: Farmer), and maybe unarmed strike if they have a penchant for bar fights, or Weapon Proficiency (Shortbow) if they routinely go hunting.

Remember that classes are what a character applies their self towards

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'd say we are the 99%, but I guess I'm fine with being the 80*.2*.2*.5*.8 (those last two being estimates on my part) = 1.28%.

[johnbragg]

I've thought along similar lines, but based on the logic of the XP tables, not so much on the 80-20 rule. If you follow the logic, you get an E6-ish world. That doesn't mean the PCs have to be E6 capped--your exceptionals are, well, exceptional.

The 3.5 XP table is build on the idea that 13 1/3 level-appropriate encounters gets you the XP for the next level. I simplify that in two ways--instead of tracking XP point-by-point, I track Encounters, and I round off 13 1/3 to 10. (Easy encounters count x1/2 and Hard encounters count x2).

Encounters are about learning. So for a lot of mundane tasks, the first time might be an Easy or an Average Encounter. The young village priest is probably nervous the first time he officiates a wedding or funeral. That's XP. How much? Maybe Easy, maybe Average, depends. Later weddings are just part of his routine job, so no XP.

Adventurers have a faster learning curve than normies. An Average Encounter for a PC usually contains a meaningful risk of a swift and unpleasant death. So most people are basically never facing challenges above CR1.

Now I have to handwave, and I've chosen to handwave a 50% curve.
50% of people have had <10 (Level 1, 0-999 XP)
75% of people have had <20 (Level 2, 1000-1999 XP
87.5% of people have had <30 (Level 2, 2000-2999 XP)

So half of the people walking through the streets of the town are level 1. And most of the other half are level 2. 12.5% are level 3 and up. If you follow the progression, 1.56% of your population are level 4, and about 1 in 1000 are level 5. (If you wish, you can declare that Commoners retrain as Warriors or Experts at level 2. I do so declare).

Which breaks your general population down more-or-less into Apprentices (just starting out, not very experienced), Journeymen (qualified citizens / guildmembers etc) and Veterans (top 10%.)

This curve assumes only CR 1 encounters. If you assume that your top 1% is facing top 1% challenges, then you can fatten up your level 4+ tails some. But it indicates that your level 4+ NPCs are special features of the setting, and not just generically replaceable.

[Asmotherion]

On the one hand, characters don't realize they're taking levels (unless they're in a fourth-wall-breaking world like OotS). Levels are abstractions. On the other hand, what's the actual point of modelling some grizzled commoner as a high level commoner instead of, say, a warrior with fewer levels? Having "commoner" in the class name isn't a good reason.

I don't really agree with this premise, since a level is a mesurable variable in most cases. They may not call it that, or have a different more abstract understanding of it, but a Wizard can tell the difference between being able to cast only 1st and latter 2nd level spells. Even a Barbarian can probably figure "hey, now I can take more punshes and rage more often".

Then there is prestige classes, witch in many cases have levels of initiation.

Thus to end up with an NPC class it probably means you lack the skill or aspiration to specialise in something else. I figure a mixture of cases:
A) -I always wanted to be a Wizard, but never really had it in me. The moment I saw those weird symbols I knew I'd never make it
B) -I mean, I want to protect my hometown, but I'm not into a fully militaristic way of life. I'll pick up a stick if trouble comes and follow Captain's orders.
C) -What do you mean I'm not a Cleric? When the Elder is out of town dealing with undead, all rituals are handled by me. I'm just not courageous enough to be dealing with those abomination.

etc...

[TotallyNotEvil]

Honestly, modeling the world as a soft-E6 kind of thing seems to fit better in my view, putting your average adult at level 3 or so.

1st level children/teens, 2nd level for the young adult journeyman, 3rd level for your 30-something 'professional', and essentially go up a level a decade if they keep at it. Lv 6 is a master in their field, and soft-capped.

Then add a lv 10 cap for the somehow special folks, be it talent of incredible dedication or unlikely encounters, which should be relatively plentiful at a large scale.

And then people who break that second ceiling are the incredible figures, revolutionary thinkers, world leaders, epic heroes. The people who fight dragons, demons and Devils. Who run countries and churches, who reach the farthest peaks of magic and generally break what's considered common sense.

You can tune that to taste, of course. But at the end of the day, levels are an abstraction. It seems absurd to ask "why would anyone keep taking Commoner levels?" when being a commoner is all they have ever known all their life, and all they expect to know.

Of course, this kind of thing varies depending on how high level you want your world. But I find that E6 has that "6" for a bunch of good reasons.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

If 80% of your world is level 1 commoners, PCs are unstoppable gods and dragons/liches/mind flayers rule the world until these 3-6 freak of nature humanoids come along

[Luccan]

If 80% of your world is level 1 commoners, PCs are unstoppable gods and dragons/liches/mind flayers rule the world until these 3-6 freak of nature humanoids come along

So then what would make sense as a demographic? If we're assuming your standard D&D pseudo-medieval setting, of course, and not a magical industrial revolution or beyond like in Eberron.

[Yahzi Coyote]

I thought it would be interesting as a design reference tool to figure out populations of cities and countries rather than just using the numbers from the DMG
Then you might be interested in my Lords of Prime (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/217953/Lords-of-Prime), and the program Sandbox World Generator which implements it.

I wanted to generate realistic populations that also matched what game worlds usually look like and yet didn't have enough high levels/magic to destroy the pseudo-medieval setting.

To that end I model XP as a resource, just like the food supply.

[johnbragg]

If 80% of your world is level 1 commoners, PCs are unstoppable gods and dragons/liches/mind flayers rule the world until these 3-6 freak of nature humanoids come along

My favorite answer to that is that there are forms of magic that rely on mass participation.

Think of all your pulp fiction cults (modern and pseudoancient) with a bunch of cultists chanting. In a magical world, that's a power source. Have you ever (before coronavirus of course) been in a stadium full of sports fans or music fans, chanting and cheering--together? That's a power source. In a magical world, a royal coronation is in fact a magical ceremony with crunch results.

While such magic deals in sizable quantities of arcane energy in the aggregate, the effects are spread out, not localized. You might be able to use it to power a pimped out carriage for the king, but it's more efficient to use it to give +5 to all movement rates on the Royal Roads.

On the other hand, such magic relies on belief, and knowing that the king has a pimped out royal carriage made of zephyr bones pulled by awakened scrolls of haste might make it easier to believe that the royal roads go faster than regular roads.

EDIT: But generally, I'd say that this sort of magic is prone to instability if concentrated in a single locality rather than spread out broadly. So that royal carriage has to be created by "mundane" 3X RAW, and can then be used as a focus for this sort of social or civic or national magic.

[Biggus]

If 80% of your world is level 1 commoners, PCs are unstoppable gods and dragons/liches/mind flayers rule the world until these 3-6 freak of nature humanoids come along

Er...80%+ of the world being level 1 commoners is the default D&D demographic. Have a look at p.138-139 of the DMG; the example community they give is 83% 1st-level commoners.

[Blue Jay]

Hi All,

I have started an excel sheet of world building based around the 80-20 Rule for populations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xs1869nC5pQt1sibxvMpu-iRFz-DJZfO8eLHZkTS_oU/edit?usp=sharing). I think it is kind of fun and who knows someone might find it handy. Here are the rules I am using in what I have made so far:

Population in this document refers to population of a city, state/region, or country not the world itself
80% of the pop is level 1 with 80% of the remainder being the subsequent level, repeat to max level.
80% of the population is NPCs
80% of NPCs are Commoners
80% of Commoners are level 1
Max Commoner level is 3
80% of the remaining 20% of commoners are level 2
Of the remaining 20% of NPCs 80% are Experts or warriors
Of those experts and Warriors 80% are level 1
Max Aristocrats, Expert and Warrior level is 5
Distribution of Experts compared to Warriors and distribution of Adepts to Magewrights is left undetermined/can be determined by location
Adepts, Magewrights, and Aristocrats make up the remainder of NPCs
20% of Adepts, Magewrights, and Aristocrats are Aristocrats
80% of Adepts, Magewrights, and Aristocrats are level 1 with 80% of the remainder being the subsequent level and so on.


Let me know what you think I am still debating on how to breakup stats for player classes.

I like the idea, and I'm going to spend some time tinkering a bit with it. A couple initial thoughts and questions that came to my mind:

First, I wonder how it would affect things if you went explicitly by class "power" (i.e., tier rankings): 80% of population is tier-6, 80% of the rest are tier-5, etc. Maybe this would just be for the 20% that are PC classes, or maybe just for the entire pool of players. Inevitably, it would make for some weirdness: I don't think most worlds would expect that many samurai or truenamers, and one might reasonably expect clerics to be more common than you would get from this.

Second, the smoothness of the distribution feels too "clean" to me. Statistical distributions tend to hold well for large populations, but smaller populations tend to be more affected by random and extraneous factors. So, as you start to consider smaller and smaller populations, you should see more and more irregularity in the distribution. Maybe that's something you deal with when you manually design a village, but I wonder if there is some way address this with random die rolls. Maybe a simple solution would be to just add a number of "extra" people whose class and level is decided purely randomly. For example, maybe for a population of 10,000, you add an extra 10d100 people, and determine their level by rolling 1d20. Or for a more conservative approach, maybe you pull out a random sample of the population and either add or subtract 1d6 levels, or something like that.

[Lans]

So then what would make sense as a demographic? If we're assuming your standard D&D pseudo-medieval setting, of course, and not a magical industrial revolution or beyond like in Eberron.

Ancient Greece, where every where there's a monster laying siege till some 1/X god comes a long and slays it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I figure in practice, especially in more murder-hobo'y games, the general population tends to "grow up" with the PC's. If the PC's are planning to flip off the king and walk away with his crown jewels, the guards should at least be able to put up a fight, so now there are level 8 royal guards. If the PC's are then in the next town over going to murder people who look at them funny the town guards should at least be able to put up a fight, so now there are 10th level town guards. And if they never pay for any of their gear, well, the blacksmith should at least be able to put up a fight, so now there's an expert 1/fighter 3/wizard 9 blacksmith. Wait, did they just kidnap the guy so they can force him to make magical weapons, since as a wizard blacksmith he should clearly be able to do that? Better have the guild storm up and free him. Let's see, stats for the guild master...

The world's primary function is interacting with the PC's, and that's often a lot easier if the PC's and the world are of similar level.



Now of course there are monsters and stuff in d&d you can use to challenge players. That's kind of their point. If you're keeping this problem in mind and your players are reasonable people the world that the game assumes as a standard setting where almost nobody is higher than 5th level can still work, absolutely. But it's typically easier, and often funnier, to throw 10th level town guards at people.

[liquidformat]

I like the idea, and I'm going to spend some time tinkering a bit with it. A couple initial thoughts and questions that came to my mind:

First, I wonder how it would affect things if you went explicitly by class "power" (i.e., tier rankings): 80% of population is tier-6, 80% of the rest are tier-5, etc. Maybe this would just be for the 20% that are PC classes, or maybe just for the entire pool of players. Inevitably, it would make for some weirdness: I don't think most worlds would expect that many samurai or truenamers, and one might reasonably expect clerics to be more common than you would get from this.

I was actually thinking about doing just this at some point, maybe calling it tiered society distribution. To an extent it would go with the assumption that the higher the tier the more resources are required for the class. The best example of this is the wizard class. In reality if the system didn't hand wave in bonus spells in your spell book a first level wizard would take an initial investment of ~2400gp assuming a 14 int score, no specialty, and not taking feats like Collegiate Wizard feat.


Second, the smoothness of the distribution feels too "clean" to me. Statistical distributions tend to hold well for large populations, but smaller populations tend to be more affected by random and extraneous factors. So, as you start to consider smaller and smaller populations, you should see more and more irregularity in the distribution. Maybe that's something you deal with when you manually design a village, but I wonder if there is some way address this with random die rolls. Maybe a simple solution would be to just add a number of "extra" people whose class and level is decided purely randomly. For example, maybe for a population of 10,000, you add an extra 10d100 people, and determine their level by rolling 1d20. Or for a more conservative approach, maybe you pull out a random sample of the population and either add or subtract 1d6 levels, or something like that.

One way this could be handled is just taking the 80-20 rule level distribution and then rolling a die that covers the level range given for a population of that size. That would give you a normal distribution for that level range, assuming the level range matches a die. Otherwise just setting up a normal distribution algorithm in excel to cover the level range.

One thing I will have to play around with is age distribution and how level should be effected by age distribution. This probably wont't make much of a difference for say humans, orcs, goblins, halflings, and half orcs but for elves gnome, and dwarves, they should have a higher average level just based around how much longer they live, unless I make an assumption that they don't learn things as well as humans which does make much sense given int and wis bonuses of these races are normally the same or above that of humans...

[Doctor Despair]

One thing I will have to play around with is age distribution and how level should be effected by age distribution. This probably wont't make much of a difference for say humans, orcs, goblins, halflings, and half orcs but for elves gnome, and dwarves, they should have a higher average level just based around how much longer they live, unless I make an assumption that they don't learn things as well as humans which does make much sense given int and wis bonuses of these races are normally the same or above that of humans...

It wouldn't be unreasonable to have age correlate or not correlate with level, IMO. Some folks just don't go into experience-granting encounters their whole lives, and that's OK; on the other hand, you might have your world work that there's a raw % chance of having an encounter on any given day, so the older you are, statistically, the higher the chance you've had enough encounters to be a higher level. Either world-gen seems like it could make sense.

[johnbragg]

I figure in practice, especially in more murder-hobo'y games, the general population tends to "grow up" with the PC's. If the PC's are planning to flip off the king of Ironhaven and walk away with his crown jewels, the guards should at least be able to put up a fight, so now there are level 8 royal guards.

Another way to handle this is, let the PCs be big bad swaggering mofos. But there are consequences. From the PCs perspective, the murderhobo lifestyle implicitly assumes a large degree of anonymity, and a highly functioning and highly liquid secondary market for questionably-obtained goods "no questions asked." Attack those assumptions.

In a D&Dverse, another way of saying "big bad swaggering mofos" is "target". The level 8 PCs who beat up the king and take his crown and scepter? OK, they do that.

Now, where exactly do you go to fence the Crown of Ironhaven? That's a very valuable piece, but it's "hot" and everyone knows it. It's not some ancient relic that you liberated from a tomb full of mummies--the Kingdom of Ironhaven is going to want that back. And I doubt that the murderhobo PCs were at all subtle about who they were and what they were doing.

Every adventuring party in Ironhaven and the half-dozen adjacent kingdoms now sees the PCs as an opportunity--legitimate targets for the paladins and do-gooders, big fat bags of loot and XP for the shadier types. It's now kinda sorta okay for anyone with the CR to pull it off to murder the PCs in broad daylight. Maybe it's technically illegal, but I think the king will show mercy.


If the PC's are then in the next town over going to murder people who look at them funny the town guards should at least be able to put up a fight, so now there are 10th level town guards.

Or--don't level the town guards. Generally, in a D&Dverse we have a term for creatures who go around murdering sentients for little to no reason--we call them monsters. (The dungeondwellers probably call the adventurers monsters, but that's beside the point.) So the word spreads that a band of psychopaths is wandering around in Bradford.

If the PCs stay on this road, it's like an 80s videogame. You play until you lose.


Now of course there are monsters and stuff in d&d you can use to challenge players. That's kind of their point. If you're keeping this problem in mind and your players are reasonable people the world that the game assumes as a standard setting where almost nobody is higher than 5th level can still work, absolutely. But it's typically easier, and often funnier, to throw 10th level town guards at people.

Or, if the PCs want to act like monsters in the civilized area, the game world will react to them the way it reacts to monsters in the civilized area--hire and questgive up some adventurers to go murder the problem.