> Roger McCarthy's Gloranthan demographics was a very interesting approach
> to Glorantha. I much prefer it to what seems to be the the standard
> approach...
In case it interests Kevin, I'll attach my ancient post from 21 November 94: maybe its time has come around again...?
Paul Snow defends "real world" infant mortality rates in Glorantha.
I used to do this, too, until I studied the UN's model life tables. I'll
reprint
one as an appendix to this posting. Essentially, using genuine rates for
infant
mortality makes life depressing for players and referees alike. I agree with
Sandy: as there is no fun and no benefit in using the historically accurate
rates, stuff them.
Gloranthan populations are "suppressed" by the increased vim and vigour with
which magically-backed disasters afflict them, and by the need to support
the
children you might otherwise produce like rabbits. Exposure of unwanted
infants
happened in ancient Greece (and probably elsewhere): population *doesn't*
just
go exponential in the absence of controls. If it did, after all, we'd all be
broos. Glorantha ain't Malthusian.
Those proposals:
> Glorathans are habitually more continent than Terrans.
Unlikely, as this would be No Fun.
> Contraception, probably magical, is widely practiced.
Probably "is widely available" would be truer, IMHO. What do you mean by
"probably magical"? Herbal recepies are magical, aren't they? Or do you want
an
Abortion rune spell, as lambasted by Greg in Tales #7...
> Nature, unlike some manisfestations of human justice, has no
> proscription against cruel and unusual punishments. Wouldn't
> another view be to say that by facing these forms of tragedy
> in the game we can better cope with them in life?
Here are the stats for the *degree* (not form) of tragedy real-world life
models
would impose on Glorantha:
______________ ____________________________ Male survivors Expectation of life at birth to exact age 20 25 30 35 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 668 710 744 775 10 445 524 589 646 20 392 472 541 603 40 242 318 392 464 60 79 132 194 263 ______________ ___________________________
Source: "Methods of Population Projection by Sex and Age," UN Population
Studies
25 (New York, 1956).
Pre-industrial societies before the modern demographic revolution tended to
have
an e0 (expectation of life at birth) of 20-40 years; an e0 of 30 is a
reasonable
assumption for the senatorial classes of the Roman Empire (source: Keith
Hopkins, "Death and Renewal," Cambridge 1983).
Interpretation: if life expectancy at birth is 25 years, then for every 1000
children born, 290 will die before their first birthday; just about half
will
reach their tenth; less than half will survive to RQ's average player
character
age. There's a *very* steep initial fall, followed by a gradual decline.
Sandy
and I would cut out the steep start but presumably keep the rest of the
population age-distribution intact. If you like to draw graphs, you can make
a
good stab at one from this info.
(One less moralising objection to infant mortality is that, if a referee has
to
think up twice as many childrens' names for every clan or family, he will
swiftly become pissed off... and an irritated referee is nobody's friend.
Pendragon-esque family campaigns are far easier to enjoy if an "unrealistic"
number of kids survive to initiation age).
Nick
:::: web: <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Nick_Brooke>
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #157
Powered by hypermail