[note=Deja Vu?]I thought I made this thread before, but I cannot find it, so I will remake it. While I will be working primarily upon my own races, I hope that insights garnered from this thread will be helpful for other races and settings. The races of my world cover a wide variety of environment and niches, so they should be widely applicable. Like many aspects of my setting, I hope to approach this from as believable/realistic an approach as possible; none of my races have magical metabolisms, though some have a handful of magical abilities, so reality should dictate their demographics.
Thanks all for putting up with me over the years. Things are coming together, and I hope to start putting my Wiki together soon.[/note]To understand this thread, one should familiarize themselves with Medieval Demographics made Easy (http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm). It is a very useful resource for campaign designers looking for strong realism in their settings.
But the system created by S. John Ross linked above seems like it will only be accurate for a planes dwelling, largely agriculturally based race and society. Hunter-gatherers will be far different, as will races who live in far different terrains.
MDmE uses a number of simple equations, and the variables here are what we need to look at in order to change things for other races. Here are the variable points from the system:
[list=type]Population Density: 30 to 150 per square mile, 6d4x5, average 75.*Size of largest city (square root of population x 2d4x10) and determination of smaller cities and towns.*Agriculture: One square mile of land supports 180 humans by late medieval standards.[/list]
I am going to set aside placeholder threads for the major races of my world, and I will file away discussion about each into their posts. What will follow will be:
Elf: A wild people who live in the forests of the world. They do not cut down trees, but they do hunt animals. They are semi-nomadic, traveling far and wide in search of food. While they could expand further if they took to agriculture and animal husbandry, their spiritual connection to the world does not allow it.
*Dwarf: A hardy people who live in the foothills and under the mountains of the world. They are largely carnivorous, eating livestock they raise, growing grain simply to feed their livestock. Since they live in largely subterranean settlements, they are able to build vertically.
*Halfling: Originally a nomadic people living as gatherers, now halflings also live amongst many of the other races, primarily humans. Naturally, they are herders, but only for wool, milk, and eggs (they heard something like sheep and something like emu); aside from milk and eggs, they are plant eaters. Since they are half the height of humans, they will end up eating less, but how much less I do not know. Their restricted diet might make up for this.
*Ifrit: A reptilian people who live either in deep jungles or in desert badlands. Because their environments are poor for agriculture, they'll be largely carnivorous, but their semi-exothermic nature means they'll have a slower metabolism and thus will need to eat less.
*Triton: An amphibious people who live on ship towns in the deep sea or on islands, sticking to the coast. They create artificial reefs to cultivate the fish and shellfish that make up their diet.
*Valkyrie: An avian people, originally they were migratory and to this day a full third of the race still moves across the continent twice a year. They are fruit and meat eaters, tending to orchards and herds.
Thanks in advance everyone.
[note]I'm starting here, alphabetically, and am taking suggestions for information that will be necessary for discussion.[/note]Dwarf
Size: 4.5 to 5 ft. tall, 115 to 160 lb.
Environment: Foothills, Mountains, Subterranean.
Diet: Meat, farmed, fed with farmed grain.
Settlements: Permanent.
Evolutionary Ancestor: Badgers.
Lifespan: 80 years average, 120 years maximum; adolescent at 10, adult at 20.
Childbearing: Fertile once per year, eight month gestation, 1 to 2 per birth (40% chance of fraternal twins).
I would prefer for Dwarfs to have the capability of being entirely subterranean, but getting food while closed off from the surface would be difficult. There are cave biomes, but something always moves in and out (bat guano supports mini-ecosystems).
Elf
Size: 5.5 ft tall, 90 to 120 lbs.
Environment: Forests, all climate.
Diet: Omnivorous, they hunt their meat and plant orchards for their fruit. Everything is sustainable.
Settlements: Semi-permanent; they stay near their orchards, but many orchards have existed for hundreds of years and are scattered amongst the woods.
Evolutionary Ancestor: Semi-mortal Spirits who became acclimated to this world; their ancestor, the Sidhe, are echos of humans, but from the spirit world.
Lifespan: 500 average, 1000+ maximum; adolescent at 20, adult at 100.
Childbearing: Fertile once every 7 or 13 years, year long gestation.
I foresee elves having far lower population density due to their lack of fine tuned agriculture or animal husbandry. A square mile of forest will also support far fewer elves, but within the forest no area is considered "wilderness". They are lighter than humans, and thus could get by eating far little.
A curious thought is this: I have long described elven hair as starting out green and fading to autumn colors as they grow older. What if they're capable of some amount of photosynthesis? They would then need to trim the trees in their settlements to let more light in, but it would let them get by eating far less. It is a change I am willing to make, but then one would need to ask why they do not expand out of the forest; their spiritual connection to the woods would have to be what keeps them there in that case.
Halfling
Size: 3 to 4 ft tall, 30 to 60 lbs.
Environment: Planes and light forest.
Diet: Herbivorous, plus milk and eggs from their herds of wooly mounts and large birds.
Settlements: Nomadic
Evolutionary Ancestor: Spider Monkey.
Lifespan: Average 50 year, Maximum 70; adolescent at 7, adult at 12.
Child Bearing: Fertile every month, five month gestation.
In the wild, halflings are nomadic because their home island is home to large predatory drakes that made the creation of permanent settlements difficult if not impossible.
Now that they have come to the main continent, they have taken to living amongst human settlements. Some tribes still live semi-nomadic as traveling merchants.
Ifrit
Size: 6 to 6.5 ft tall, 200 to 300 lbs.
Environment: Tropical Forests, Tropical and Temperate Deserts.
Diet: Carnivorous.
Settlements: Permanent.
Evolutionary Ancestor: Large venomous lizard.
Lifespan: Average 120 years, maximum 180+; adolescent at 15 years, adult at 30 years.
Childbearing: Fertile once a year, 1 to 2 eggs laid a month after fertilization, egg hatches in four months.
Triton
Size: 4.5 to 5.5 ft tall, 90 to 120 lbs (higher body-fat percentage for buoyancy)
Environment: Aquatic.
Diet: Fish and Shellfish, farmed from artificial reefs or fished with nets in the wild.
Settlements: Permanent or Mobile.
Evolutionary Ancestor: Something akin to a salamander.
Lifespan: Average 60 years, maximum 85 years; adolescent at 10 years, adult at 15 years; aquatic larva for 5 years.
Childbearing: Lay eggs and sperm once a year (done in a communal pool); 2 to 4 eggs laid at a time, but only 60% viability. Eggs must be separated because larva are cannibalistic.
Most Tritons live in permanent settlements, on islands, along the coast, or even around inland lakes. Their artificial reefs are netted off, allowing the movement of young fish but not adults, and keeping predators out. They tend to kelp and other plants for their fish, and practice seasonal rotation of fish crops (certain fish are eaten at certain times of the year to sustain the farms).
Some Tritons live on large ships, and eat what they trade and net themselves.
Valkyrie
Size: 6.5 to 7.5 ft tall, 110 to 150 lbs (small frame, hollow bones, bulk from feathers)
Environment: Mountain Plateau.
Diet: Meat, fruit, nuts; farm raised (hunt and gather while migrating)
Settlements: Permanent (third of population migrate twice a year between two permanent settlements)
Evolutionary Ancestor: Griffins.
Longevity: Average 40 years, Maximum 80 years; adolescent at 3 months*, adult at 2 years (not sexually mature until 5 years).
Childbearing: Fertile twice per year (spring and fall), one egg laid at a time. Devout Valkyries voluntarily only lay an egg during the spring so that the egg can hatch on holy ground after migration in the summer. Children are developed enough to make the flight home by the beginning of autumn.
Valkyries are large but light. They are largely gliders (like albatross), so long distant flight does not take obscene amounts of energy. Their home terrain isn't too great for food production.
*This might sound very odd, but apparently almost all bird species are ready to fly/leave the nest at 3 months, no matter the size (or so we were told at the San Diego zoo). I decided to keep this for Valkyries and other Drakes, as it is kind of interesting.
Griffon Ancestry? Now, that is novel.
Love the diet info. Boy, I don't read about that too often. Think you could come up with avg caloric consumptions? Think I will work on that...
I'm sorry if I have already discussed this with you in earlier threads, but a couple of questions pop right into mind.
The first deals with this.
Quote from: XevEarth Magic: Earth includes protection spells, creation magic (making or altering objects), magic that wards and binds, and magic related to stone, soil, plants, and metal.[/blockquote]
Secondly, by the lack of intermingling (it is mentioned with halflings only) I am getting a much more primitive feel from 3 worlds than I seem to remember. Food is one of the first things bartered or traderd for (let alone actually bought), but that is not mentioned. And it would normally be a huge cultural diet modifier.
Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipGriffon Ancestry? Now, that is novel.
As talked about in the FAQ, Drakes are a group of birds that evolved a third pair of limbs, so that they have four legs and two wings. Griffins, Hippogriffs, Drakes, Wyverns, and Valkyries are all in the same family. I found it easier to make a race with wings on their back than wings for hands (I already have a wild race like that, the anthropomorphic bats). I thought it was cool.
Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipLove the diet info. Boy, I don't read about that too often. Think you could come up with avg caloric consumptions? Think I will work on that...
It is something really important when considering the world.
Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipThis is fine and makes some sense, but magic is a survival tool. No magic to increase crop production, no photosynthetic boosters, no "destroy lesser parasite" spells, no 'growth hormone multriplier' cantrips?
Magic. It's not just for combat anymore. (especially when logic intercedes).
There is very much magic to aid crops. As the MDmE article suggests, this ups both the population density of a kingdom as well as the amount of people that can be sustained on a square mile of farmland. But I would like the kingdoms to function nominally without huge magical interventions; the magic helps push things closer to modern production, but not entirely so. Magic is a part of the world, and simple spells can be performed by anyone (I equate it to making Macaroni and Cheese from the box; anyone can do it, some better than others), so pest control spells and rain inducing spells and the like will be common; but since magic is very much a part of the ecosystem of the world, I'm under the assumption that insects will be able to deal with it, as will germs and such. The whole arms race and all that.
Quote from: Vreeg's CoachwhipSecondly, by the lack of intermingling (it is mentioned with halflings only) I am getting a much more primitive feel from 3 worlds than I seem to remember. Food is one of the first things bartered or traderd for (let alone actually bought), but that is not mentioned. And it would normally be a huge cultural diet modifier.
Again, I'd like the kingdoms to be able to function largely independently. Many of the kingdoms have quite a bit of distance between them. Some are in very close proximity (The Human Holylands region is very close allies with the Hill Dwarfs region, so a food trade will exist there). Having a society that operates entirely on imported food would be dangers, so I'd rather deal with that merely on a supplemental level; if it exists, it is probably temporary in the grand scheme of things.
I'm going to add lifespan information to the entires. That might be important too.
Just giving a bump here.
For races that eat similarly to humans, I can probably get away with just adjusting the number of people a square mile can sustain by the difference in body mass (all things being equal, caloric needs are largely determined by body mass, though a really active or sedentary race would need more or less).
I do also have information on how many pounds of grain it takes to produce a pound of different kinds of meat. This will be helpful for determining the amount of animals a square mile of farm land could support and thus determine a rough poundage conversion (grain to pork or sheep has a 4:1 conversion; four pounds of grain net you a pound of pork or sheep meat; it's 9:1 for cows, and 2ish:1 for fish, if I remember my nutrition class).
Any new thoughts on this topic?
I got the okay from the writer of the MDME article to make an "e-supplement" for non-human races, as long as I refer to the original article and as long as it still requires the original article for use. So if I can get some interested input here, and get the supplement written up, he'll put a link to it on his site and we can get the CBG some more exposure.
Awesome hu?
I'm going to put some more thought into this. I'd love to hear more input. For the base article, I'll focus on the traditional fantasy races and simple archetypes, and then have a section on adjusting the numbers for more unique races.
I need help searching for real world demographics on more tribal societies of hunter gatherers and such.
I found some demographics on hunter-gatherer societies:
A concise history of world population; by Massimo Livi Bacci
0.1 to 1 person per square km (more near water)
Arctic: 0.0086 person/km2
Subtropical savanna: 0.43 person/km2
Grassland: 0.17 person/km2
Semidesert: 0.035 person/km2
I'm going to do some research on Amazonian and Congo tribes, it could help with Elves.
Alright, I do need to collect a general consensus on what the standard and typical fantasy races are: If I am going to be making an article appealing to the majority of setting designers, I'm going to want to cover the typical bases. But this also means I'm going to have to look at the way most races are described, rather than the way I describe them in my world.
Of course, for the true homebrewer, I will break down the variables so people can create formulas for their own races or variations of races.
Right now, I would really like to discuss the big 3: Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings. Additionally, Goblins and Orcs would be interesting to discuss, typical baddie types that probably live off a mixture of hunter-gathering and raiding.
Is anyone interested in helping still?
I would say that the typical fantasy stock is: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling (also covers gnome), and Goblin (also covers orc).
Human can be left out as we obviously already have a reference for that. So then that just leaves it up to you to decide which one you would like to discuss first.
some input on the elves that could explain how they can maintain a hunter/gather society, while still having a relatively highly develioped socieity:
must settines seems to agree that elves have a rather low population density, how ever it could be higher then for must other hunter/gatherer society, simple because they keep other carnivors out of thier forest such as orcs and trolls. this means there's a larger amounth of prey species in any forest under the elves controll, compared to a unclaimed one that have monsters living in it.
also depending on how willing elves are to guide animals, then they might try to ensure that plants edieble for the elves are mustly left alone by the animals so long there's something else for the animals to eat, in exchange for the protection that the elves provide.
generally, a more efficient hunter-gather society, from what I've understood in the various campaign worlds.
and quik note on the dwarfes: the dwarfen fortitude could allow them to also survive on diet that would make the other races sick, essentially giving them more option and possible more efficient food sources not avaliable to the other races.
Well in traditional fantasy elves are masters of magic as well as lovers of plant based foods. I would see them being able to maintain a higher population because they are able to magically control plant growth.
Excess control of plant growth might go too much against the achetype of not messing up nature too much though, but yes. I can see them using magic to get the must out of foraging as possible, while doing as little damage as possible to the forest, depending on the magic they have avaliable.
They could simply have miraculous trees that bear extremely nutritious fruit & nuts. Easiest way to explain the popular high fantasy magical treehugger elfs IMO.
Quote from: TillumniExcess control of plant growth might go too much against the achetype of not messing up nature too much though, but yes. I can see them using magic to get the must out of foraging as possible, while doing as little damage as possible to the forest, depending on the magic they have avaliable.
Typical fantasy elves tend to do things like shape trees, cause flowers to grow instantly, all that sort of extreme nature control. I wouldn't consider it tampering with nature since for their part they tend to be fey and thus a part of the world they are shaping (if that makes sense).
In some of what I am working on at the moment, I have Orcs as carnivores that hunt rather than gather, but will hunt and eat things Humans would not. This is not enough to support large populations so when this happends "WAARG" they go raiding any nearby sentiant race. Take their stored meats, grains and SLAVES. Meat they eat, the grain goes to the slaves. When food runs out, they eat slaves. Yes they eat other sentient races maybe even other Orcs. That is what makes the "Bad", they are not just green mean warmongers, They are cannibals. Not raging zombie cannibals, raiding viking cannibals.
For a savanna I say maybe 0.5/km2
For Woodlands maybe 1.5/km2
Thanks for the input Lath. I've found a few more numbers, and I've converted all the other numbers into people per square mile (since that is the measurement used for the original article).
Hunter-Gatherers
Arctic: 0.0033 person/square mile
Subtropical savanna: 0.166 person/square mile
Grassland: 0.066 person/square mile
Semidesert: 0.014 person/square mile
Nomadic Herders
Sahel: 8 people per square km (3.09 per square mile)
As you can see, jumping from hunter-gathering to herding nets a huge population jump, but still no where near the 30 people per square mile that marks the lowest end of medieval agricultural standards. Then again, I'm not sure if those population densities are tracked by only the "settled" or "traveled" land, or if it's an entire providence: Average Medieval population densities range from 30 to 120, but a square mile of farmland supports 180 people; this leaves extra space for wildernesses like unfarmable hills, mountains, and forests.
Here's some points gathered from my thoughts on the races, and from those posted here so far (and I'm going with Nomadic's suggestion: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, and Goblin):
Dwarf: Live mostly underground.
Elf (Wild/Wood): Live in the forest. Farm-style agriculture does not feel right, nor does domestication, but I could justify elves planting fruit trees after trees fall or after a fire. I could also see elves hunting predators and prey alike. Being as they seek a balance with nature, I could see them either practicing population control (only X children per elf pair) or perhaps their typical longevity and low birth rates are their control (which is why they suffer badly from war and habitat destruction). Using magic to heighten the output of their trees is very possible.
Halflings: "Traditional" leads me to look at Tolkien, but I think Tolkien Hobbits are just going to end up being small humans (who ate about as much as humans volume wise). It might be best to explore the more recent notions of nomadic gypsy style halflings.
Goblins: Lath's orc suggestion works best. Fast breeding, carnivorous, warlike. They will outgrow the land's capabilities, and thus expand outward and fight. The constant fighting would keep their populations low.
I cannot find numbers for population densities of forest dwelling communities, but I do have numbers on food production of different biomes, so maybe I can check my density maps against that and see if there's a correlation.
Also, do you think magical influence of something would double the food output and population supporting capability?
Quote from: Kapn XeviatAlso, do you think magical influence of something would double the food output and population supporting capability?
That would depend on how effective the magic is.
How much more production does Miracle Grow claim to get? Heh ... I'll check ...
I can't find any statistics on it, but my google-fu is notoriously weak.
Geography/Climate pays a big part in the people per square mile equation. One square mile of crop land in France/Ukraine produces much more than a square mile of crop land in Scotland/Poland. Fishing is solely dependent on Geography too.
Maybe the Races that live longer have slower metabolisms?
Dwarves are good at preserves? Jams, Smoked meats, canning? I still haven't figured out where the Dwarfs get their food. Maybe they eat a lot of bugs?
Traditional Raiding isnt the best when it comes to Food.
just some random musings...
Quote from: LathGeography/Climate pays a big part in the people per square mile equation. One square mile of crop land in France/Ukraine produces much more than a square mile of crop land in Scotland/Poland. Fishing is solely dependent on Geography too.
Maybe the Races that live longer have slower metabolisms?
I could see elves as masters of integrated vineyards and orchards. And magical augmentation as a must. Producing more food for less effort is what makes Elves a "master/elder race". 90% of Elves dont have to devote their time to growing food, magic does most of the work. If elves are known as magicians, scholars, craftsmen, and artisans they cant all be farmers.
Dwarves are good at preserves? Jams, Smoked meats, canning? I still haven't figured out where the Dwarfs get their food. Maybe they eat a lot of bugs?
Traditional Raiding isnt the best when it comes to Food. Need portable food with a decent shelf life.
just some random musings...
I meant to edit the last post and accidentally Quoted it... :censored:
You can edit your last one to not include anything.
Quote from: LathMaybe the Races that live longer have slower metabolisms?
Traditional Raiding isnt the best when it comes to Food.[/quote]
I wouldn't think Raiding would be their main source of food. But, raiding does two things: you get a nice supply of food, spoils, and slaves, but it also reduces your competitors; if a goblin/orc region once supported 2,000 goblins/orcs, and war kills off a thousand of them, then the area supports them better. Goblins, being the size they are, would be able to do this better because they would grow and breed faster: larger goblinoids would be a bit less chaotic and wild in order to survive.
The graph I have of plant-life based on biomes is not helpful; it's total mass of plant life, not edible plant-life. People don't eat wood.
I'm searching for archeological findings on population density. If I could find numbers in, lets say Mesopotamia both before and after the advent of agriculture, I might be able to come up with a reasonable number for how cultivation could improve advanced hunter-gatherers. Elves are one of the big issues here, but I'm growing to like the idea of wild elven orchards. Also, giving Elves a very fragile existence makes a lot of sense.
Ka-bump!
Since I just posted my dwarf thread, I'd like to discuss them a bit here. My dwarves are legitimate carnivores; they physically cannot digest plant fibers. I checked and true carnivorous animals get a bit of plant fiber in their diet, eaten to settle their stomach, but apparently carnivores tend to have shorter digestive systems and thus lack as large of a need for fiber to aid digestion. What little they need they will get from herbs used for seasoning and grains used in certain recipes (originated from cooks realizing that adding grains to things like sausages made them less likely to get upset stomachs).
Animals eat plants, or they eat animals that eat plants. It takes more pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat than it does to produce a pound of grain ... (that sounded worse than it did in my head) but the exact numbers seem to be in disagreement (I learned 9 pounds of grain for a pound of beef, and four pounds of grain for a pound of pork in my nutrition class, but websites are in disagreement, especially the website from the beef industry, as if I'd trust that). But, herbivorous animals can eat lower quality grain than people prefer to.
Either way, my dwarfs will raise animals for food. They will have learned agriculture from humans eventually, which allows them to grow more productive plants for their livestock. They probably won't have full fledged farms, as they live in mountains and hills, but they could seed pastoral land or cut steps into hill sides to grow a grain that requires little water.
Since they need to grow grain (either through agriculture or simply through grazing land) to feed their livestock, their population density will probably be less than humans. Assuming they raise something like pigs and sheep (which require less food than cows), I'm still looking at a 1 to 4 or 6 ratio. But, since animals can eat grass, and grass grows faster than wheat and corn (most animals don't eat the root), perhaps the number could be larger than 1/4th to 1/6th the human number?
Now, this is only for self sufficient dwarven settlements. I figure that the larger citadels will have enough production from their mines to buy grain from humans. But on the surface, I am now imagining dwarf herders moving their flocks from one side of the mountain to the other, with some farmers who produce grain to feed the flocks during the winter (or perhaps they cull the flock except for those needed for breeding and preserve the meat for the winter, and then restock the flock in the spring?).
I have numbers on population densities of herding societies (about 3 per square mile), but I think I would like something larger for my dwarfs. This makes me really wonder how dwarf cities work in other settings ... do they eat rocks?
Yes, I'm aware I'm thinking into this a lot. But deciding on evolutionary histories for my races helped me to come up with details I might have not otherwise, so I figure this level of realism will bring about ideas that could prove useful (if only to make my setting feel more organic).
Some bumps here. I know this is a long lost thread, but I'm revisiting it so I can actually get this project off the ground. I'm going to start with some rather simplistic assumptions to get some numbers and see if they work nicely.
Some thoughts first. I don't like the idea of excessive trade for food because a settlement that trades food out has to be producing surplus food. A city has a required amount of farmland surrounding it in order to support that city. If the city has excess food, the city is likely to grow (probably more because people will move into the city if food is affordable, as it will be when there is a surplus). Farms can sell their food since they grow more food than needed to feed their family, but the city that the farm is near would likely be the source for those farms.
So, for baseline assumptions:
Dwarf: Dwarves will eat the same amount of food as humans. I was originally going to say that they wouldn't need to eat as much meat as humans eat combined meat and plant, since meat is generally higher in fat and fat has more than twice the calories of protein and carbs, but plant fats are high as well (especially in nuts). Dwarf population density will be 1/3 that of humans; the human population density assumes some crops are used to feed livestock, so while dwarfs use all crops to feed livestock it shouldn't be as bad as the original 1/4th assumption (which would only work if humans ate nothing but grain).
Elf: I'm going to go with the orchard elves. In areas they have controlled for a long time, they have slowly replaced all of the trees with trees that produce fruits and nuts that they eat. My estimation will be that "enhanced gathering" could be 10 times better than traditional gathering, as the example herders were 3 people per square mile and medieval farmers are 30 people. Wikipedia says that the population density in the amazon rainforest was 0.2/square km through hunting alone. 2 elves per square km would be awfully small.
Halfling: Nomadic gypsie trader halflings won't work, since they don't live off the land and would more technically be a part of the population spread of whatever nation they were in. They could be an example of small people, and they'd at least be an exercise in a different village/town/city spread (I'd expect halfling nations to have fewer large settlements and more sprawl).
Goblin: They'll most definitely use the hunter-gatherer numbers I've found, modified for mass (half height means 1/8th the mass). The trick will be to make an estimation on population growth and how much time it will take for there to be X excess goblins so they raid.
In the end, I'm not sure how much faster or slower aging would affect population density, or if it would just affect population recovery after wars or disasters.
Thoughts?
Quote from: XeviatIn the end, I'm not sure how much faster or slower aging would affect population density, or if it would just affect population recovery after wars or disasters.
The pace of aging alone can't answer this question, you also have to factor in fertility and mortality rates. Figure out how long it takes for a member of each race to be able to bear children, how likely one is to actually reach that age, and how many children they can be expected to bear throughout the rest of their lifespans.
Thought for dwarves: Fungal farming. Mines provide vertical space and darkness. Livestock provide ample fertilizer. The mushrooms could be a supplemental source of protein, or could be used to feed livestock.
Other thoughts: Magic for fatter cows (mud to flesh on livestock), exotic livestock, underground fishing for blind crustaceans, etc.
Fungal farming could work. Like you pointed out, you need something from the surface to feed the fungi, unless you want to get real strange and have chemosynthesizing bacteria as the base of a food chain (and I doubt that would get robust enough to support a city). I do want to avoid magic being the only way a city could work. For my own setting, though, I will definitely have exotic livestock.
Ghostman, if I gave you general numbers for lifespans, what type of input could you give? Or were there some generalities you could say? My own elves are going to be nearly a century till sexual maturity, and from that they have a child every ten years; on the surface, this looks like it would create a race that would have a very difficult time bouncing back from wars and disease; would probably need much smaller numbers.
Is the one child per ten years an average or is it the upper limit? In any case, a hundred years is a pretty long time that probably could cause serious problems for the race.
Perhaps I'll just cook up a quick example with some arbitrary numbers...
Generic race:
* Assume 50% of children die before reaching sexual maturity.
* Assume it takes 30 years to reach.
* Assume that those who did, will on average live up to 90 years old.
* Assume that there is no maximum age for fertility, so each couple has on average 60 years of breeding to contribute to population growth.
* Assume that the average couple will have 6 children through their lives.
* Of the 6 children per couple, only 6 x 50% = 3 will live long enough to reach sexual maturity. These will not contribute to permanent population growth.
* Assume a total adult population of 100,000. For sake of simplicity, we'll assume that there are no loners; that's 50,000 breeding couples.
* Those couples will, over a timespan of 60 years, produce 6 x 50,000 = 300,000 children. Only 150,000 of these will live long enough to reach sexual maturity.
* By the end of the 60-year cycle, the original 100,000 breeders will be dead.
* This gives us a net effect of 150,000 - 100,000 = 50,000 to the adult population. That is the growth over 60 years.
* The increase per one year will be approximately 50,000/60 = 833. Divide that by the starting population of 100,000 and multiply by 100%, you get +0.833% growth per year.
Of course, this is an extremely simplified model. It doesn't take into account the children being born and the grown-ups dying at different times within the 60-year cycle. The population growth is also not actually linear; it should prolly start lower then +0.833% and grow bigger each year. But it's much easier to calculate things in this manner, and the result might still be a fair approximation. Naturally you can get more accurate results by using a better (probably more complicated) model.
In my simple model, a loss of a portion of the adult population (eg. due to war) within the 60 year cycle could be represented by lowering the average post-maturity life span, and lowering the average number of children in the same proportion. (ALL the adults from the beginning of the cycle will be dead at it's end regardless; but those who died prematurely due to the war had less time to breed, hence less children were born to be accounted for at the end of the cycle.)
Interesting. I'm dealing with my wedding stuff, but as soon as I get back I will be hitting the books hard on this. I also need to find a web designer to help me with my site; my friend can't do what I need.