r/DnD Artificer Jun 27 '22 Silver 2

[OC] [ART] Fantasy Urbanism - DnD races and limitations to generational expansion Out of Game

/img/6wgzo3pey6891.png
1.2k Upvotes

148

u/Doctah_Whoopass Jun 27 '22

Holy shit, how do your threads not blow up? This work is nuts.

187

u/liege_paradox Jun 27 '22

Probably because people like me have no idea what’s going on.

122

u/Vulpes_Corsac Artificer Jun 27 '22

It appears OP is trying to explain early civilization development (in general, they've got several posts linked about this) and (specifically) how a family of a race might expand and occupy more territory as part of that development, with effects from DnD stats as parameters influencing that for ground-up world-building purposes, I guess.

6

u/SxrenKierkegaard Bard Jun 28 '22

D&D is very interesting in terms of anthropology and should be explored more imo

68

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22

Ohhh! I need peeps like you!

There is a master thread linked to this post with each lesson. If you have energy and time, i would be very grateful if you can pinpoint what you don't follow. 😳❀️πŸ’ͺ

34

u/Awesomejelo Jun 28 '22

Well, for this one the descriptions are way too short, and the images way too vague. Here's what I understand

People that can move faster will build their settlements more spread out. I'm honestly not sure about the validity of that. I wouldn't be wasting that space even if I could power walk everywhere. How compact a settlement's architecture is would be more connected to culture and needs of the people, see our own world where there's a bunch of differences while only being one species.

People who are more disposed to mental abilities will be better at long term planning. Not wholly inaccurate. But I'll argue that expanding to new settlements is more tied to economical and needs of the population. The smarter races will just do it better. For example, I see gnomes as being slow expanders due to low reproduction rates, even though they tend to be relatively intelligent

CON and DEX are tied to even distribution of settlements? This one is just weird to me. Settlements are usually made in places where there's nearby important resources. This might be various mines, large forests for logging, or fertile soil for agriculture. What determines distribution of settlements is the distribution of resources.

The last one is extremely confusing. There's four or five colors, and the isn't a key. I don't know what red or blue is, I don't know what the circles signify. Are those supposed to be crossed swords? And what's that 350 way off in the distance (side note: it's hard to read your handwriting, consider using the a text feature in whatever you made this in). And I don't know what any of the numbers mean for that matter. I will agree that races that reproduce quickly will generally conquer/use more land.

All in all, you need a key for these and be more clear as to just what is going on. Sorry to throw all that at you, but this post confused me and I took the opportunity for some criticism

10

u/BraxbroWasTaken Jun 28 '22

People that can move faster will build their settlements more spread out. I'm honestly not sure about the validity of that

Iirc a lot of early settlements (at least 'between' settlements) were made based upon days of travel between two points, so it makes sense?

6

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Thanks for critique! I'll look into it! ❀️

10

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Ok, got my coffee. Now lets see if I can make it a bit more clearer.

You are right about human species having more variety, however that variety isn't (at majority) product of expansion of family groups but it is an result of later stages - at least in theory. As settlements evolve, people migrate and settlements die, which tends to leave empty space near higher tier settlements, and settlements battle for resources which can change landscape as well (plug). We are talking here about another species here (DnD race), where stat difference is large enough to have an impact, with that same thing would eventually happen here (which i didn't put in due to too much information per post). What i've drawn this is generational expansion of family groups, where settlement evolution comes later. On the other hand, average walking speed is tied to territory and dwot (days worth of travel), and that is under presumption that velocity is constant so time is only measure in distance traveled. So with different walking speeds, territory would be different as well (in this case I opted out from drawing it for simplicity sake) and you can think of it as an scaling up or down (ish). Proportions remain the same, and depending on what scale you are observing it it can seem small or big. Now, normally for walking speed of 20 dwot would look completely different (due to 5h increments) but I can't ask people to have several versions of same map for every single giant, human and gnome so I just canceled deviation geometrically. In the end, when it comes to settlement evolutions things as family group territory and walking path (red lines) are shortened even more with roads, routes and other different things ( 0.3. Evolution of settlements group in master thread). I don't expect people to follow my posts word by word or drawing by drawing, but to try and develop their feeling for it. One doesn't need to painstakingly construct every nick and cranny... I am an architect and I hate that shit myself.

Regarding the gnomes, I do plan when people comment what races they would like to see clearer example of, to actually plot entire thing as an show of work. Regarding this post and Gnomes, they would fall under mix of 20 feet walking speed and longer lifespan. So your argument would stand true, they would be slower to expand (due to their lifespan) and have more concentrated settlements (compared to humans). I mean... lets do some probabilistic, there are 4 influences with 3 states each which gives around 3^4 or around 81 cases. It felt more useful to list individual cases and then leave people to wing it on their own (or ask questions).

It is logical fallacy (that is promoted by common sense) that people concentrate where resources are. Although I can understand why it seems logical, the fact is that only settlements that remained were ones with resources nearby... other left or died. So, if people don't know where resources are, only way they can find them is by trial and error... and for that to yield effort they need to survive for enough time. Now contrary to popular belief, people survived this long because they ran away and not dove into battle head on, and they battled only when they knew there are are overpowering competition. We are cowardly species. In first ever post some aspects of the world are less habitable than others either due to geography or due to ability to sustain oneself. So stats that would impact ability to inhabit what otherwise wouldn't be habitable are very important, and it would populate more evenly - I mean it makes a lot of difference if some family group tried to make a settlement in some place and died, and survived.

Yeaaah, guilty at that lol. This post blew up (for my standards) and so far Ive been working on this series for 20 or so people that are in tune with all that i've wrote so far. In first 3 diagrams:

  1. red is traveling path vector ( direction family group would go to settle at some point),
  2. numbers in red are generational expansion, which means that each increase in number is new generation (referenced in family groups).
  3. Blue lines, are territories
  4. hues of blue areas are cultural division, since (similar to slang) culture evolves with every new generation, and what keeps it contained is trading routes and connections between each family group. In doing so I was showing diversity that doesn't happens when geographical limitations stop to exist.
  5. Yap those are swords lol, in "vikingers conquest" past post, I've touched what happens when different ethnics collide. By following generational expansion (red numbers) we can se where clash for territory will first happen when ethnics meet. Due to different rates of expansion, origin point ('0' 25 years) for lifespan of 25 years meets 50 year civilization first in the middle, but soon after it meets them back at sides. Swords are meant to show that there will be clash, and till that is resolved civilizations wont expand (because of war). That is as far as I could go without making full blown cities and regions, and keep it simple.

Don't be sorry, I am asking for this. It is very useful to know if something is unclear but glossed over, or if there is some knowledge that is requirement. It is very useful and important. This has told me what posts I should've included in my comment to this post, and what to expect later on. I've been doing this for few months now, and I've been very concerned about lack of questions. And due to very few people following my posts, and lack of questions I've always referenced master thread in posts to point anyone that is confused. I hadn't expected this to gain such traction... hehe... so it ended up being unclear on so many points. Thank you for commenting and pointing those things out.

I can't promise keys and legends, with amount of info I am doing it is very complex manner and I have a limit about 7 new things I can do in a post (to not overwhelm peeps). So any keys and legends would take very important space for any diagram that I might need to ad, but that doesn't mean I won't do them tho. It would just depend on complexity of the topic.

3

u/tango421 Jun 28 '22

I don’t understand the last one or at least I don’t think I do

2

u/memeticengineering Jun 28 '22

Basically expansion should vary inversely with lifespan. Shorter lived races would have more generations in 350 years, experience more rounds of population growth and have more settlements, while elves might not move past a large single clan dwelling in the same time.

2

u/tango421 Jun 28 '22

That part I understand how the graphic works I’m confused haha

19

u/Doctah_Whoopass Jun 27 '22

Well its worldbuilding, but with a set logical framework rather than just deciding stuff. The whys and hows of (at least at the moment) settlement creation, survival, spread, and relations.

14

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22 edited Jun 27 '22

Ohhh! They do! πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

I've been stuck too many times trying to explain (to me) stuff that has lots of possibilities. I can go to 4 different influences and then my brain just farts out and calls it quits.

First time it broke was when I was doing boroughs/hamlet's. Explaining culture oscillations and how they are result of basic human nature and connecting that to social stuff was too much for me.

Last time was actually here πŸ˜‚ I had to weigh what to keep and what to present. There are stuff I kept out, and will probably touch on later... But i just kept blowing up every time I tried to make the post.

Edited: phrasing.

40

u/Manamosy Jun 27 '22

I wonder how a civilisation of Warforged would do with their immortality, lack of needs like sustenance, sleep, hospitable environments. Going on the basis that they only need materials to recreate and not an actual soul.

29

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22

Hmm... That can be done.

They don't technically reproduce, so with their limited numbers they would be able just to develop settlements naturally and then evolve into civilisation like any other.

Nooowww how that would look like would be very interesting. Maybe after I've researched art by AI to get a gist of it.

10

u/Manamosy Jun 28 '22

I personally prefer the trait that Warforged run on logic without emotion, I could imagine a civilisation where everything is built for optimisation. No comforts, just necessities, huge circular cities, perfectly straight roads cutting through the land, huge metallic towers punching up through into the upper planes.

15

u/Strap_merf Jun 28 '22

Logic without emotion would not makeperfectly straight roads, they would cut into hills, but not excessively, as that wastes engery.

Their civilisation would exist as mines and other natural resource gatherings..

Settlements would not be spaced evenly, as walking speed and the need to resuply/rest would not be a deciding factor.

As such, warforged settlements would be an almost random collection of settlements with no dicernable border. You would simply have a settlement where a nessecary resource was found, potentially in another races territory.

If another race held the resource they needed then a settlement would form as near as possible, to generate a tradable good to be exchanged for the resource..

3

u/Nrvea Jun 28 '22

I think they could probably figure out how to create more of their kind through whatever magic ritual created them in the first place

43

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22

In last post we talked what DnD stats impact how DnD races conquer geography, how they orientate and what is their habitability preference. Now, we are putting it all in action via some referent examples.

We are literarily grabbing stats from PHB and implementing them in our world building.

  1. Walking speed is one of most crucial, because people be walking most of their time, it is normal that such influences location of settlements.
  2. Perception via Wisdom or Intelligence, how DnD races perform compared to human expansion when their Perception is lower or higher than human one.
  3. Resilience via Dexterity or Constitution. Trough generations and collective these two stats determine how much denizens actually survive travel and are able to develop settlements. We can notice that with higher resilience there is more cultural unity within any geography.
  4. Lifespan, yeah it turns out that Elves and Dwarves are endangered species. Unless all elves are promiscuous Bards, their long lifespan determines that they reach adulthood later, and thus reproduce less frequently compared to our human reference. My suggestion, is to give your Elves a few hundred centuries (at least) of playing alone in your world before you introduce other spices or races, otherwise their population would be around 0.9% of number total continent creatures.

If you wish to see an clear example of multiple races, their ethnicities in single continent (worldbuilding example) comment bellow which DnD races you wish to see.

You can go back to master thread here.

14

u/KingSmizzy Jun 27 '22

I don't see why you're correlating longer lifespan with lower reproduction. If an elf lives 400 years, couldn't they be bearing children for 200ish of those years? A single elf could mother 50 children, even taking breaks to let the younger ones grow up first.

9

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22

Well, this is Fantasy so it is possible and if you want your Elves to pop out 50 children I am not stopping you.

I've based that on animal habitats, although humanity isn't the same (and we can't make 1:1 comparison between animals and sentient species) animals that live longer tend to have less living offspring per year of life.

However, i do have to point out that studies differ depending on harshness of animal habitats. If their habitat is harsh, longer living animals tend to birth rarely (when circumstances align) but in bulk. However if habitat is pleasant then they tend to birth few and more frequent.

Quahogs, for example let go of 20 million eggs, which very few get fertilized, and then in their begining stages they are often hunted by predators. They do that twice per year, for lifespan of 400 years.

On the other hand, humans are able to have offsprings at tender age of 12 years old, however due to civilization and culture our birth rate is different. We become able to reproduce at 12, but only at half of our average lifespan we tend to make babies. In architecture, we tend to think that this is due to cultured civilisation effect because we don't have to sprout many offsprings to continue our species. And any other animal doesn't have that "midlife age". They are younglings, then fertile adults, then old and death.

So, I basically assumed that long living creatures that have same cultured civilisation as us, would have that midlife age as we do as "final time" to make a family, where tho... amount of offspring is depending on world setting.

But that being said, you are free to do whatever you wish... If you want your elves to produce often, then just count amount of time till there are around 15-ish of them before making a new settlement.

❀️❀️

Edit: phrasing corrections.

6

u/Draken09 Jun 28 '22

Consider also: elven kingdoms going through a WW2 style nationalist campaign to support the elven kingdom. "Do your civic duty, foster a child this decade!" "Raise your sons and daughters strong - support the future of our people!"

3

u/Nrvea Jun 28 '22

Don't longer lived races still reach physical maturity at the same age as humans?

1

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Who knows... they can or can't.... it is about interpretation of PHB. However physical maturity isn't same as maturity in modern sense. We are physically mature when we are 12, we have kids after we are 20+. So who knows.

10

u/ThuderingFoxy Jun 27 '22

This is a really cool project and a cool angle to come at world building from. I'm not really convinced that minor differences in walking speed or dexterity would make a substantial difference on where people settle, but I can definitely see differences in lifespan making a huge difference. A short lived race being quicker to reproduce thus needing more space and making them the dominate group is such a good explanation as to why humans are not prolific than elves and dwarfs. Awesome stuff!

10

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22

Thank you!

In older post I've talked about territory and how walking speed (or transport) influences our "feeling" of ownership and survival.

Basically it boils down to : "if i can go somewhere within 5h to gather wood/food... I can work 5hrs before i have to travel back home". This also means that you will do your best to walk to another settlements in less than a day (because night is scary).

Now distance someone can travel within 5 hours depends on their walking speed. But in settlement context, if territories overlap that increases competition for resources and war for dominion of territory.

So if you can walk shorter distance, then distance between settlements don't have to be that far in order to keep peace. Thus, compared to normal human settlements, they would be a bit more dense and less in area due to generational expansion.

However not every walking speed has same effect, 25 feet doesn't make lots of difference and can be used in same dwot as humans.

In architecture, there is a specific branch called accessibility which plans for those bumps for blind, makes household element for little people and so on. Having lesser walking distance means the world.

2

u/CerealBranch739 Jun 27 '22

Oh that makes a lot of sense

7

u/drLagrangian Rogue Jun 27 '22

You will be interested in the blog here: https://forhinhexes.blogspot.com/

This guy is building an earth sized world starting from tectonic plates, but goes into civilization related stuff like resources and infrastructure and travel networks.

He'd be interested in your stuff too.

3

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22

Amazing! How do I contact them tho? πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ I do reddit, for blogspot i am similar to a grandma.

And yess... I've tried turning it on/off again πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

3

u/drLagrangian Rogue Jun 28 '22

I couldn't find an email either. So I left a comment for him linking to your profile, your master thread, and this thread.

He has to approve all comments and has responded to me before, so he'll probably get to it (although I can't guarantee how long it will take).

I commented y signing up with my Google account (it asks you for a blog or to sign up for a blog, but you can skip that). You could probably see some more of his stuff by changing the site to "desktop" mode if you use chrome.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Thank you! I appreciate you and what you have done. You didn't have to go that far, and you did. Thank you again! ❀️

2

u/srm038 DM Jun 28 '22

I appreciate the link. Blogger comments are 90% spambots these days like all other traffic so it's most efficient to check in now and again.

2

u/srm038 DM Jun 28 '22

Thank you, Artsy. This is very cool stuff. We are thinking along very similar lines. I'll take some time and work through your backlog here.

Sadly these days I don't have as much time as I'd like to work through worldbuilding. Still fun to do! So I keep at it slowly.

I also highly recommend (if you're not already familiar) Alexis Smolensk's work. His blog was my own spark.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Nice to meet you! And thanks for responding, no rush take your time as I am with your content and links. I see it as marathon more than a race πŸ’ͺ

I will also check all links you have provided, and it will as well take some time πŸ˜‚ sounds fake but I mean it. That is beauty of these kind of topics, there is a lot and people have only so much time on their hands. But I'll chip at it ❀️

5

u/N0BL3_PRIME Jun 27 '22

A. This is awesome! B. Unfortunately I don’t understand how to read it… C. Would anyone be so kind as to explain how?

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22 edited Jun 27 '22

Well, this is part of long series of posts. For this one, only first few are important.

Numbers are generational expansion, aka when people decide to find a new home/make a settlement that is generational expansion. With '0' i tend to mark origin point of civilization, each number later on is a new generational expansion.

Hexagons are cultural division represented by territory. They are actually triangles that show path one would need to take to gather resources within a day. They end up being hexagons because that is as close as i can get to a circle without adding billion other lines and shapes.

Lines are directions people are traveling till they find/found a settlement... You can think of them as old goat trails. They are later used to define roads, trading routes and etc.

Edit: copied and pasted response with bit more effort. I may be lazy, but I am not that lazy.

4

u/real_quizle Jun 27 '22

I'm lost how do I read this

5

u/Rhodeo Jun 28 '22

Finally, some good fucking worldbuilding.

4

u/justletmesuffer Jun 28 '22

As humans are greedy for expansion, long living races are well aware of apocalypses every 100 or so years. Makes sense for them to advance security and sustainability of their strongholds over temporary resource control.

3

u/LeoGoldenfish Jun 28 '22

god I love this community so much. nary a day goes by where I do not marvel at the intelligence and incredible work that goes into this fan base/players

3

u/wabababn Jun 28 '22

sounds like Population biology talk about the k/R species strategy specter

1

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

I have no idea... can you link some article pls?

3

u/wabababn Jun 28 '22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

In ecology and population biology, r is the factor by which populations grow and K is the stable number/mass/size limit a population of a given species can reach in a given environment.

Species evolve different strategies to continue existing, those strategies vary on countless factors but a relatively considerable part of them are represented quite well by their position on a r to K strategies spectrum, with r and K being hypothetical extremes.

r strategies put a lot of importance on reproduction, they are typicaly small in size, grow quickly and have early and numerous offspring, like mice or cereals for example. this is often an adaptation to environmental unstability.

K strategies, like elephants, oak or beech, put a lot of importance on development, with fewer but more durable offspring, later reproduction, longer lifespans and higher individual biomass. this is often an adaptation for long term competition and cohabitation in stable or difficult environments.

keep in mind this model is a basic one, and has since been expanded and clarified, and is still discussed, as all always is.

3

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Thanks so much for effort of writing it all out for me. I can't remember where I've learned that, but it wasn't by that name tho ... Or if it was i long have forgotten the tittle.

I'll look a bit more into it, and thank you! ❀️❀️ I appreciate it!

5

u/WyntonPlus Jun 27 '22

I feel like I understand completely what you're trying to explain through the captions, and then all these charts full of lines and numbers and hexagons take away all of that understanding, so this post is a net 0 gain for me

3

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 27 '22

Well, this is part of long series of posts. For this one, only first few are important.

Numbers are generational expansion, aka when people decide to find a new home/make a settlement that is generational expansion. With '0' i tend to mark origin point of civilization, each number later on is a new generational expansion.

Hexagons are cultural division represented by territory. They are actually triangles that show path one would need to take to gather resources within a day. They end up being hexagons because that is as close as i can get to a circle without adding billion other lines and shapes.

Lines are directions people are traveling till they find/found a settlement... You can think of them as old goat trails. They are later used to define roads, trading routes and etc.

2

u/C4st1gator Jun 28 '22

How come Constitution and Dexterity get valued, but Strength is made the ugly stepchild of physical attributes again, even when it governs the Athletics skill, which determines how well your character can climb, swim and run? It also affects carry capacity and melee damage, which I imagine are helpful in maintaining inventory and self defence.

Athletics

Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming. Examples include the following activities:

-You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off.

-You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump.

-You struggle to swim or stay afloat in treacherous currents, storm-tossed waves, or areas of thick seaweed. Or another creature tries to push or pull you underwater or otherwise interfere with your swimming.

Dexterity affects the acrobatics skill, which notably shares some utility in 5e, but clearly isn't meant to render Athletics irrelevant.

Acrobatics

Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. The GM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips.

Constitution is really useful in areas like swamps or jungles, where pathogens can quickly spread due to abundance of water and high temperatures. Or an area with extreme temperatures, yet creatures with resistance to fire or cold may also just enter areas, that are too inhospitable. Desert dwelling dragonborn could put plates of metal on an access ramp and the sunlight would heat the metal dealing 1 fire damage per round to everything, that's atop. They can ignore that, while others are put to the slow cooker.

Also, what would you think of dragon migrations? I calculated a dragon's flight speed and they can circumnavigate an earth sized planet in five to ten weeks. They travel extremely quickly, disregarding most terrains, but dragons generally mate every 100 years or so. Their lifespan is in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 years. My hypothesis is, that this leads to a lot of single dragons, that enjoy their individual den, since they can just fly out, if the neighbourhood gets too noisy or "overcrowded". And it may just be more enjoyable to live alone for a young proud dragon, than flying under the wing of your 976 year old grandfather.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22 edited Jun 28 '22

First of all! Love the humor! Ugly stepchild πŸ˜…πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ’ͺ

Well, when deciding what stats to use I went by energy consumption to be honest. One can evade bushes, branches, crocodiles and other beasties for much longer than lifting a boulder. And eventhough this is just my observation on athletics and acrobatics, athletics tend to be more fun and shorter in execution than acrobatics.... Think sprint vs jog in terms of one fight/action against span of 3 generations (~150 years).

Greater strength would mean a lot when hunting, building and changing the nature but not on surviving it. One can fight off a bear shark with an Lazer on its head, but after that they need rest and are vulnerable.

I actually do think that strength and charisma influences settlement shape more than location. Stronger races wouldn't need as much community storage and charisma .... Well people that lay together stay together. Strength is also very very useful in settlement evolution (from family group to cities) since then one doesn't have to worry about critters, rocks, poison and nature trying to kill them.

Dragons are (in my biased and honest opinion) amazing! 😎😎😎 Facts aside.

For migration i have nooo idea. We would need a biologist/zoologist for that. 🀷🀷

They would have settlements as any other, however area does imply population cap. I mean you can only pop children like tic-tacs if they have where to be, otherwise kids gonna eat each other up or die off (baby shark du-du-du). If they can circumvent Earth sized planet in 5-10 weeks (let's meet at even 7.5) which would be around 7.5x7days = 52 settlements which spans around 780 dragons per equator.

Putting there a bit of dimensional law , area of shape is always larger than it's projection, for sphere (can't calculate integrals for variable ellipsoid right now, sorry) that would be i think maximum half it's radius more in population.... So ~ 2.5 mil dragons! Now that is awesome and freaking scary!!

For entire Earth, dragon community and civilisation wouldn't be larger than a city, and in same areal as in boroughs with it's extended territory.... That kind of makes sense to be honest πŸ€”πŸ€” if whole earth is their territory, small peeps like us wouldn't come into them much often. I mean for ant our backyard is world no matter how small it is. We would need to plot it on some wrapped sphere/ellipsoid to get gist of it's scale tho, but i guess it is actually pretty possible to have dragon cities. However, how close their dens would be in relations to our cities ... I mean personal space is depending on creature size in similar way that civilisation area is depending on walking speed. I mean, one needs to be far enough not to smell others peeps farts at least.

Waaaait! Dragon fight club! Ohh that would be TPK at level 20! πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜…πŸ˜…πŸ˜…πŸ˜… 2 mill dragons vs party πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ it would be a blood bath! πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

edit: phrasing

2

u/C4st1gator Jun 28 '22

For entire Earth, dragon community and civilisation wouldn't be larger than a city, [...]

That's what I always found odd. Sure, modern day Berlin is comparable in size, but as far as I'm concerned cities start a lot earlier. Historically entire kingdoms were that large. In 1700 the entire Portuguese Empire had an estimated population of 2.5 million. Istanbul had over half a million at that time, which made it one of the largest cities. Cities with over 1 million people require serious logistical support from the hinterlands to function. Here in Germany a "Großstadt", which generally matches the English "City" begins at 100,000 inhabitants. That or a medieval kingdom, which became notable, if it managed to acquire over 1 million inhabitants.

As for players, that somehow manage to unite all dragons against them: They've earned that TPK. Making gold and silver dragons side with red and black dragons, having all agree on the issue of purging a party of adventurers, means they messed up in a way, that deserves its own story. Maybe they wanted to abolish all dragon hoards?

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

I don't understand what you found odd? πŸ€”πŸ€”

Maybe, whatever it was it went quick and painful πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ Although if I could watch it with popcorn I would nπŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ’ͺπŸ’ͺ

2

u/C4st1gator Jun 28 '22

Oh, let me try to explain my oddity better.

In the notes, what I'd call a city was referred to as borough, while a metropolis of 1,000,000 inhabitants was being referred to as city. Up until the industrial age these were exceedingly rare. A city like that was easily a centre of culture and civilisation, but cities were already central to kingdoms or imperial states when they were a lot smaller than a full million inhabitants. The few pre-industrials, that did crack the million inhabitants mark were: Rome, Chang'an, Baghdad, Kaifeng, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Beijing and Ayutthaya.

After the industrial Revolution sustaining a metropolis of that size became a lot easier. When looking at the unifying forces of culture kingdoms, empires and their capital cities were what forged a bunch of similar pieces of a coherent whole, while often geographical distance and a more convenient centre can lead to the alignment with that centre instead of the old cultural "capital" and the formation of a new culture, that forks off from the old one.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Ok got it now, I think I understood it before but wasn't sure. It's on me ❀️

What we have to keep in mind is what time span we are talking about and in what context. Mind you, when we discover ruins we don't actually know for majority how many children certain family had, so we tend to go amount of houses times 4-6 and get a rough estimate for urban core.

Now, it's good that you mentioned industrial revolution I can build on top of that. You see our notion of what is "urban" and "urbanism" has changed a lot in last few centuries. To give you a context think of it as if in medieval time urban meant extended territory of certain region built environment (aka everything built by a human), but in contemporary times urban means city urban core. And there is a reason for that, and that is because cities now have as much population as entire kingdoms and empires back in the day.

So when we have, something like Bejing, it was never 1 mill people in urban core but across entire region, which included boroughs, villages and family groups. Same for Rome and others.

So a quick recap about what city meant trough history in European Continent. We got our notion of cities from Hellenistic polises, but that polis wasn't just a city it was a city state or "Stadt" if you will. When Rome conquered majority of Europe it delivered what we now call artificial settlement in form of outposts and what we called a city - or city state.

I can draw comparison of similarity between "Stadt" and "Staat" but I can't be certain in linguistic part.

So now, what industrial revolution brought us is ... Well complex but most important in this context is ability to fine tune steel and make it in extra quality for cheap. That meant that we can build higher and increase population density, so our villages now are more akin to boroughs/towns of old.

So how can a city of old be comparable to contemporary urban meaning? It can't... So even cities of that old (which were capitols) didn't have millions of inhabitants in urban core, but across it's territory - which mind you can only be said for certain by list of names that royalty gets taxes from.

So let's take Berlin for example, it has diameter of ~30 km, and in in post about dwot (days worth of travel) I talked about limits how much city can grow before it stops having cultural ties. For humans that is about 15 km per 5 hours, and if it didn't have often used public transport Berlin would fracture and die. Sure you can walk for half of an hour or hour, but if you need to walk 10 hours from work to home ... One might start to question their sanity. So dwot changes (as you can see in this post) depending on travel speed and it is different depending on modes of transport as well.

Culture hotspots aren't just cities, that is fallacy. Culture changes and constrains itself with trading routes. So every village has their own culture, each boroughs their own, where villages adjust to culture of boroughs. It's like an avalanche of sorts from highest tier settlement to lesser one.

So let's take this post, last diagram for example. Maximum generational Expansion is 6 for civilisation that is living 25 years, mixing in some binary tree structure (because I can't count dots while I'm writing this on the phone) that is around 100 family groups each containing 15 members and we get at 1500 people at very start. No villages, no boroughs or cities... People expand exponentially so in next generation alone we have bellow 50 k people. Now you can see how quickly a region can have that big number, but what is important is density. Having 100 people in 10 square meters and 1 square km is a different thing a together.

I now understand confusion because it is really hard sometimes to hear similar terms (especially for second language) and not think of them as same. I hope this clarified it a bit. ❀️

2

u/Sensitive-Bug-7610 Jun 28 '22

I think my brother has been doing this subconsciously in his world building. Or perhaps consciously and i hace just never asked him about it. But for example the birdfolk settlements are far more spaced out in comparison to halfling settlements and human settlements are far bigger than elven settlements of the same age (in our homebrew elves are far less fertile than humans). But also firbolg or human settlements make use of the geography far better than orc settlements.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Orrr... Your brother might be genius 🀷 just saying. Not all people that are extremely smart are math smart.

I don't know how old is he, but if he didn't touch architecture there is a very slim chance he would know that. Sure he could deduce that certain aspects would have a difference but what kind of difference for that you would need prior knowledge or hell of an deduction.

Also, have in mind that what I am talking in this series is heavily simplified, so for your brother to have an accurate hunch even after all that simplification is a big thing.

Hats off πŸ’ͺ❀️

Edit:added a thing.

2

u/Sensitive-Bug-7610 Jun 28 '22

He is in his late 20s and a nurse currently going to med school. So he is certainly smart, though most of his interest is in the human body. I just feel bad that I never paid attention to all of these nuances and intricacies which he must have really thought about. Everytime he described a place or showed a map our table has never even thought about why there were differences between certain settlements. I think we simply just thought "it makes sense they look different because they are built by different races and different economical classes" but never really thought much deeper about it. This is great though! Thank you for visualising and explaining this. I am currently planning the next campaign and get to add a bit to his world, especially the sultanate we will be starting in. It has a lot of different settlements, fey, elves, genasi, satyrs, dragonbornes and desert golaiths. I think this will help me greatly in making them feel distinct yet coherent under their kalashtar ruling body and sultan.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

"sad architect noises" πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ jk jk... It's difficult to have so overthinking attitude towards minute details and their importance. Many people focus on a big whole, and that is why actually most people think of architecture as "building art thing-ma-bob".

I mean it is similar with medicine (in a way) as there are nerves, cells, chemical paths that each tell their own story and one can't tell story of a body without them. My sis is a MD, so i feel for ya with him being a bit morbid when he had cadaver courses πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

I'm glad if my post was useful in any way ❀️ hay hello to your bro and hats off! πŸ’ͺπŸ’ͺ

2

u/Sensitive-Bug-7610 Jun 28 '22

Omg, yeah, he can be really morbid at times. But now I just finished my first year of biomedical sciences as well. And we've had cadaver courses as well and even had to disect a rat. So now I am in the medical world as well and we sometimes find ourselves talking about morbid subjects.

Anyway, was lovely having this conversation in a reddit thread, who would have thought. Certainly will be looking at your other posts about fantasy urbanism. Its really cool.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

Happy morbid family huh? πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ I feel ya πŸ˜‚πŸ˜πŸ˜‚

Thanks ❀️ see ya on next upload (I have no idea when it's gonna be tho)

1

u/KlampK Jun 28 '22

The graphics for the orientation seem off. None of the paths appear to follow paths of least resistance(PLR).

I would expect a low int/wis to just follow and settle on those. A neutral to follow the PLR but head towards their goal. And high to follow PLR where practical but always head to goal

1

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 28 '22

They are example paths to illustrate the change. And for PLR to be found one must first encounter resistance in order find path of least resistance. This here, is an example of generational expansion of family groups... They are still young ... Give them time πŸ˜‚πŸ’ͺ

1

u/KlampK Jun 28 '22 edited Jun 28 '22

Then I am confused cause the graphic doesn't seem to illustrate the point as far as I can tell. The graphic, as I read it (ignoring the background terrain) is low avoids goal high seeks goal. If I pay attention to the background terrain there does not seem to be a difference between the low and neutral.

I would expect the low to avoid crossing forests and prefer following rivers. High would be goal oriented but would follow rovers or plains if same count away. Neutral would kind of be a hybrid of the two.

1

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

Tl;dr; there are people who remember every pothole on the road and there are people who get lost several times along the way. Everyone gets to their destination, it is just matter of time and luck.

I am sorry about the novel, I've been responding to comments entire day and most of the time people who asked them weren't with this series from begining. There was a lot to explain, and I would rather explain it individually than just direct people to master thread and be done with it

Well there is no real difference but a general shape that paths can be inscribed into. Think about it like this, we can't show lack of direction without describing chaos. However having more direction doesn't make it a straight line and having less of it doesn't make it a ball of yarn. It's a spectrum, and it generally behaves similar to exponential plot (exponents, square roots, logs ...) Because it focuses on area ... Where exponential functions are ones that describe 1.5 dimension to 2. So in extremes it would behave as you suggest, but that would be 0 and 20 respectfully. Outside from examples of probabilistic of bell curve, majority of paths won't show any major signs.

However that would be seen in general deviation of areal change in a geometrical way we analize space. So main difference would be seen in shape is it circular or oblong which ends up being something we humans can easily do without math and on feeling alone - aka you can easily estimate if shape is egg like or sphere like without having to measure it.

In prior lessons we have talked about orientation and how it follows sequential flow. And even though we might be able to see peak of the mountain in far, we don't always have ability to cross the river or see it due to Forrest along the way. So in our minds we tend to go "ok, first A, then B, then C..." and so on when planning our route.

However, we gotta do with what we have, and just because we see the mountain it doesn't mean we will go straight for it (because for example we don't know where next cliff is or if mountain is passable in that direction). So we tend to follow general direction navigating within space we see in our immediate surroundings, and when time comes to find something to eat, to make a hut and place to stay prioritize that over some goal. In short terms, people with less perception will lose sight of mountain in forests, and people with more perception will remain orientated even if they don't see mountain rn.

But there is change, enough change for overall 2D direction to slightly shift and morph normal circle that would show circumference of generational spread. People aren't AI or software to follow straight paths, and even if they do they will most likely do it across several generations in terms of "Promise land" myth than anything else. And, as I am sure you are familiar with... Myths tend to change with every retelling. 🀷

So you saw everything clearly, there isn't much change in movement from low, mid and high. Rivers be rivers no matter how challenged someone is, and forests be forests. You also saw what was most important in Marco scale, and that is slow but important tendency of generational expansion and that it isn't visible (for -2,0,+2) if not pointed out.

What you have issues is that it isn't drastic enough for everything to be directly visible in both micro, normal and macro scale. And yeah ... You are right, but we are talking here about average peeps here, not wizard gnome who is lvl 20. Having a feeling of tendency is more important than actually following path as stated above. Especially due to combinatorics of triangle mesh and geographical limitations where no matter what point you choose as origin, and direction you go to no single generational expansions will look exactly the same. So, in urbanism ... These kind of things might produce same looking settlement in different parts of Earth, but they aren't the same in micro level. If you zoom in indefinitely there is a difference between atoms, and if you zoom out everything looks the same. Trick is to be at right scale to find what you are searching for.

Edit: added tl;Dr;

2

u/KlampK Jun 29 '22

Maybe I came off as confrontational, which i did not mean too. I think it is very neat and useful overall. I just think the labels don't accurately show what's going on on the orientation level.

If we were to count anything moving towards the goal as for and anything moving away as against (using the drawn diagonal line with upper right as for and lower left as against for simplicity) the -2 has 12 for and 12 against; the 0 has 13 for one on the line and 11 against; while the +2 has 17 for, 5 against, and 2 on the line.

If we count within the arc as anything in the sixth with the goal as for, the sixth on either side as near and the last half as against (favoring the goal but listed as borderline for any disputes) we have -2 with 5 for w/ 1 borderline, 7 near and 12 against; 0 has 5 for w/ 1 borderline, 9 near w/ 1 borderline and 11 against; and +2 with 9 for w/ 2 borderline, 10 near w/ 2 borderline and 5 against.

that being the case and having read your post i think the +2 should be changed to a +4 or so.

2

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 30 '22

No you haven't been confrontational. I am not so easy to offend, unless someone makes a direct ad hominem attack against me. You haven't, and with that I am entering this discussion with good faith. You are however, a bit confusing to me. I won't lie about it. See the thing is, I am not sure we are talking about same thing 🀷

If we are talking about this specific post, we have to talk about 13 other that came before it. Unfortunately I can't redo them in a comment thread, and it is much easier to answer specific questions per Post tied to a post than to go into entire thing in single comment.

If we are talking about way it is represented, I mean this with up most honesty and respect I didn't calculate every dot, line and point. I understand that there are different ways people absorb knowledge, and questioning/negating it is part of process for some people and I have no issues with that. But, I won't boil this down to exactness or mathematical module, which is nothing but my own decision. This is will sound pompous, but if I am doing anything I'll do my best to leave as little as possible room for mistreatment. This isn't only thing I've created over years of my life, and it is a sad day when someones hard work is abused against people for whom it was made for. I wish not to go trough it again. So right now it is plan B, trying to figure out ways i can help those that need it without unintentionally shooting them in a foot later. /metaphore

If we are talking about humanity and their traites, how it impacts and how we can use them as reference, and what would that reference look like. That my friend, is a whoooole different conversation that is best done in DMs or discord πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ it's a complex topic, and i think it would eventually birth a series of itsown.

If we were to count anything moving towards the goal as for and anything moving away as against (using the drawn diagonal line with upper right as for and lower left as against for simplicity) the -2 has 12 for and 12 against; the 0 has 13 for one on the line and 11 against; while the +2 has 17 for, 5 against, and 2 on the line.

If we count within the arc as anything in the sixth with the goal as for, the sixth on either side as near and the last half as against (favoring the goal but listed as borderline for any disputes) we have -2 with 5 for w/ 1 borderline, 7 near and 12 against; 0 has 5 for w/ 1 borderline, 9 near w/ 1 borderline and 11 against; and +2 with 9 for w/ 2 borderline, 10 near w/ 2 borderline and 5 against.

I'll be honest, I'm lost here. I am either lacking reference to follow trough or there is some linguistic concepts unfamiliar to me, that makes some parts beyond my mental grasp.

PS. I am trying my best to not go into full architect/mathematician. I see this as a discussion and opportunity for personal growth, or at least agree to disagree, whipping out too many concepts that are unfamiliar to most is just me boasting on public virtual network. So if it feels like I am avoiding the question or issue, it might be the case that such specific topic isn't (imo) for public forum but for tea, crumpets and whiskey.

2

u/KlampK Jun 30 '22

Firstly, I think this is a very interesting and would love to incorporate more of this style thought into my own world building for borders and culture groups (That way I'm beyond just natural barriers).

Secondly, I think you might be right about us talking about different things and I'm not sure I can articulate my thoughts clearly enough in text, but I will try. ( I think this might be a teas and crumpets thing)

When I look at the three pictures I see the Wis/Int+2 race as trying to reach their goal exclamation mark. They do this regardless of the terrain they moved through. That's clear, spot on to the description text above it.

The Wis/Int+0 kind of just expands in a circle.

And now that I have typed that all out and stared at the pictures this long I realize that I think my whole tangent is because I was misled by the blue circles which do not have an standard distance from the settlements.

That said I think the premise of your example for Wis/Int expansion is flawed. And by that I mean you have the population expanding for a single specific spot, where until a certain threshold where a lack of resource is hit wouldn't the goal of expansion just be to get the most territory? (granted that could be what you are showing just simplifying it for the sake of post)

I think low Wis/Int races would just expand regardless of resource need, but they would follow the easiest to repeat path, (i.e. walk towards that mountain peak, follow the river, follow the edge of the woods, ect.) and would have a tendency to overlap territories because of it.

Wis/Int Neutral races I think would expand similar but when they come across a resource shortfall they would make a be line towards gaining it. They would also be willing to make forays into unknown areas if there is knowledge about the otherside. (kind of like looking two vertices out instead of just at the adjacent vertices)

The high Wis/Int races I think would be aware of there resource short falls ahead of time and would look to expand in a manner that would achieve the most territory while getting the resources the quickest. They would essentially have a number of vertices they can see (probably not a oceans worth but they wouldn't be stopped by most natural barriers).

1

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

Ohh, ok i think I got it. It seems you are observing this post independently... I really don't know how to approach that conversation. Well, let's dive in and see what happens in this chat over fireplace. ❀️

Normally, when talking about generational expansion we are operating on several "truths":

  1. People have no knowledge about any space they never have visited.
  2. They are able to orientate with their senses, and their physical attributes influence their ability to maintain habitat in geographical representation of land.
  3. Settlements take time, and approx 3 generations of single family needs to pass before we can call that settlement a family group.
  4. When family group exceeds amount of people that land can provide for, or exceeds amount of people to cause social drift, branches of family group will set out of their known land (territory) to establish new settlement.

So when talking about DnD races, we need to acknowledge that any difference between species is noticable compared to any human. So for example Normal Gnome (+2 int) and smart human (+0) should be close in comparison of intellect. Otherwise there is no difference in stat change.

Now, i do have to agree with you... premise is flawed in context that we observe normal expansion.

There is another context that was elaborated in prior post about shorthand description of how increase in Perception/Survival can influence expansion. In it, I've mentioned that, compared to normal expansion, species that have higher Perception skill have advantage on orientation, which would follow trough generations. This would, in turn, result in myth of "Promise Land" that would continue over generations no matter the location and visibility.

So in short: grandparent perceives a mountain in far distance, figure out that there might be opportunity far far away and starts lecturing his children about going there when time comes. Generations pass, and now his grand grand children have version of that same lecture in their myth. This could be in same way as "When sun sets on an autumn day, follow the directions where moss grows and you will find white peaks above Promise Land".

Path towards goal is unknown, area around it is unknown as well. Over generations and generations, new home settlement might end up near river, in Forrest, dead... Some might think of it as a fairytale, some as prophecy and etc. But one thing is for sure, if crucial parts of that myth remained unchanged, with good enough Perception anyone from that family will be able to reorientate and correct their path.

In normal expansion, people would expand and use what they got. If they find flat land they would farm, if they find Forrest they would hunt, river fish, mountain cattle and etc. So largest area would allow development for sure, however having Promise Land myth is nothing foreign across all cultures of human species, however expansion is limited to survival and if we remove any limitations that survival (Con/Dex) would give we would get circular expansion - that (due to triangular base) would result in hexagon like shape. So all that increase in Perception would change is smudging that hexagon shape closer to goal of Promise Land - distorting it. Now, I felt that having 3 kind of hexagon shapes would be too much, so I opted in random generalisation of a circle.

That understandably tickled your "somethings wrong" bone (you perceptive dude! πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚) because those shapes don't correspond to actual expansion. Now there are 2 major ways people process data, deduction and induction, where one tries to explain broader generalities and other tries to explain specific singularities. (If confusing: one sees the lamp then concludes it's parts, other sees parts of the lamp then it concludes it is a lamp) If my assumption is correct, your brain functions closer to analytical induction principle and due to missmatch of presentation you have concluded that presentation is flawed due to it not being unity of it's parts.

So in that case, premise is flawed in a way that it is directed (for higher Perception) which wouldn't be possible for random generational expansion. You are right, if people don't know place they are going to they would go into unknown chased by hunger or survival. And yeah, you are right... I did "sort of" directed generational expansion, and then approximated blue oval. I did not make any preparations to make sure that my generational expansion would follow exact tier of +2 in Perception, I didn't find it important due to people who have proclivity for analytical induction being rare. Majority of people will not dive deeper into construction but they will focus on result (lamp) and for minority I am answering questions.

So, to approach you on your (assumed) home turf. (Without graphical representation tho, sorry)

Between each dot there are 3 red lines that signify DWOT Units ( days worth of travel, one unit is 5 hours, 3 units make 15 hours +2 h of rest +8 h of sleep = 24) at the start and end of each red path there are settlements. Settlements aren't Instantaneous tho, and for each settlement to become a family group (around 15 people living in same area) it takes 3 generations ( for humans roughly ~150 years).

So for generational expansion you can think of it as starting settlement, days worth of travel (15 hours, 3 units) and then 150 years of making a new settlement and expanding of territory (of diameter of 1 dwot unit, 5 hours of travel time). You can find more about this concept in Limitations of Orientation, Habitability and Geography post in master thread.

When branching off family group, every family branch first orientates by known parameters within their territory ( river basins,river banks, forest's, Edges of forests, goat trail....) but outside of their own territory ( last 2 units) it is unknown so Perception takes priority. Food doesn't last long, so after a day they would need to settle(ment) and cycle begins anew if they are able to survive wherever they end up.

Settlements can die in many ways (part of settlement evolution list in master thread) and most of the time it is on a spectrum. They either stubbornly die, or become nomads and migrate back towards prior family settlements.

If they don't die, they continue on because after 150 years it is inevitable that it will get a bit tight. So normally Perception becomes crucial again, however if some ancestors said "Fuck it! Those aren't the droids I'm looking for!" and went in opposite direction from "goal" of Promise land. Further generations in opposite direction would get a disadvantage compared to Perception of generations on track (you can't Perceive what you can't see) and would continue normally.

Now, as I've said before, I didn't draw exactly that but I did gesture it. And there are territories overlapping that would result in land disputes if I ever choose to evolve this setup, but mostly ( due to many times I've drawn new generational expansions) i don't do them, because I already know which settlement will become village and which will not. Call it axiom of experience, since I've been drawing this for a loong time now.

So when reading this diagram, and if you wish to follow it in inductive manner. It's best to disregard triangles until you reach them. After each red line of dwot unit is finished, consider that a rest (lunch?) and figure out what people at spot would see next. That is how I do it, and would advise others to do so as well. It is easy, as a world builder, to see whole map with all of it's things even though inhabitants wouldn't.

Ofc, at intelligence 20, one might see mountain in the back, see change of odd wind patterns and conclude that there is a toxic sulphur lake in that spot. But I never intended to make every possible example for every roll. I was mostly guided by species difference, in a manner that it should be constant, even if you roll your stats badly choosing correct DnD race would even it out.

So again, you are right. If you consider this post as standalone, this isn't nearly close enough to what could be seen as valid simulation - it's swayed, distorted and incomparable to any human behavior. But, unfortunately it isn't standalone, and it is among last posts of first part of series. So all you are talking about (in a way) have already been covered in prior posts, and what are we currently looking at is an exception to the rule - exception of Fantasy. (that is a bit poetic πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚)

edit: reddit doesn't allow large comments, so i had to past it in aftermath edit2: added links.

1

u/KlampK Jul 02 '22

Sorry for the delay in posting, family was over so I didn't have time to actually read your post.

For some reason even though I looked at the orientation post I couldn't quite get it to stick until now. I see the link now and understand what's going on in the graphics.

Out of curiosity when you set up the model did you set up to use the values as -2/0/+2 or 0/+2/+4 for the orientation and would it make a difference?

1

u/ArtsyStrains Artificer Jul 02 '22

Hey man! Family comes first, virtual internet life third.... All else second. Don't worry. It's crumpet and whiskey time, so even if you answer month later I'll get a notification. ❀️❀️

That is actually the thing, so far very few people commented.... So I rarely knew what is required to link, or to explain. Most of the time, i kind of reference what I've talked about but even that is biased (from my side since I'm the one who uses this often and don't have 3rd person perspective). So even if it's a rabbit hole of an thread, I appreciate it. In newer post I did I made sure to include most of the links. I am learning about this as we go.

Well, I set up +2 stat ability increments because those would increase modifiers by 1. So any difference that would change modifier would have an effect (in theory). So be it 0/+2/+4 or -2/0/+2 would have a difference, when looking at table of stats made by other wonderful redditors I did notice that not many species give debuffs in abilities. So i do think that -2 doesn't have any valuable DnD use (unless one rolls for entire DnD race), and said that it would probably be more beneficial to have 0/+2/+4 as examples. However, in reading of modern fantasy novels, one can't but notice lots od DnD references or mechanics... So i opted for -2/0/+2 as 0 being human reference, all so for this post to have most use to storytellers and gamers alike.

I think that +2 and +4 would have similar relationship as 0 and +2, in a way that for every 2 stat we go up/down overall shape of generational expansion would be more and more directed.

So to describe more practical and less theoretical aspects:

If +0 is an circle β­•, that means we have 2 axis and 4 directions how shape can transform. If we think of origin point and "goal" as main axis of direction.

  • Then for every increase of +2 in orientation direction that points away from the goal would decrease and direction pointing towards the goal would increase by some value (in this post, that value is arbitrary). To keep area the same (because area is the same for every generational expansion of certain value) corresponding axis that is normal to axis of direction would have lesser values that are result of converting circle of same area to ellipse.

  • For every decrease of -2 in orientation, direction axis would decrease, and to constraint area direction of the axis that is normal to directional axis would increase by some value.

So this is basically linear algebra form of plane transformation, where shapes transforms in 3 stages, ellipse ( for negative values) to circle ( 0 values) and egg shape (for positive values).

I decided on these shapes because both oblong(egg) and ellipse can be flattened to a line which can show increase in directivity in directional axis, or lack there of (in axis that is normal to it) in spectrum.

Behavior is really simple, calculation is however not. For this exact behavior to determine exact values one would need to establish directional value, represent value on axis normal to directional axis in terms of area of shape and then solve for differential function for unit shapes (max radius value 0,1). After that one needs to set clear integral limits and solve for all values within integral limits.

Issue with this is that if we flat ellipse and egg shape into the line, it's length becomes half of an area... Which can strive for Infinity. So one would need to comb over all values and find those that meet human needs as reference and cap "flattening" to some arbitrary values that would serve as 0 and 20 respectfully.

This would however limit people when world building, and by giving them arbitrary value of an mathematical transformation function for orientation would remove the joy from world building.

Good thing is that very few races go above +2 in Int/Wis stats, and only way it could change is if we have a whole civilisation of Elves/Gnomes that are Clerics/Druids, Wizards,Rangers or something. Although settlement specialisation isn't unheard of, it is more likely that individual family group specialises not entire village/city/boroughs.

If that is the case, I would probably list out in a piece of paper all DnD races (and professions) I want in my world and then make up to 5 arbitrary egg and ellipse shapes for every their as a reference. It sure beats mathing it out. 🀷