14
\$\begingroup\$

I don't have many of the White Wolf books so this is a mystery to me. In the 'standard' World of Darkness (revised edition if it matters) how many supernatural creatures are there likely to be per hundred thousand/million ordinary humans in a modern European city?

e.g. Edinburgh has a population of roughly half a million, how many Garou, Changing Breeds, Vampires, and other creatures, live in the city? Whereas London has a population of over ten million so how many creatures live there in comparison?

I'd love to quote the oft touted thing about how predator-prey populations in the Savannah exactly match missing persons cases but I'll be damned if I can find a good reference for it.

There's some information on Vampires in this question but what about everything else?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Exactly which "other creatures" do you want to know about? Just Garou & Changing Breeds? What about Changelings, Mages, and Imbued Hunters? Wraiths? "Secondary" types like Kinfolk and Revenants? \$\endgroup\$ – Jessa Dec 16 '14 at 22:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think that the primary ones would be sufficient: Vamps, Garou, Mages, and Changing Breeds. Ghouls too if anyone knows anything about them. \$\endgroup\$ – Robin Dec 21 '14 at 16:11
11
\$\begingroup\$

By canon, any metro area can support 1 vampire per 100,000 mortals. This is the only population limitation in the old world of darkness. That said, vampires are supposed to be the most common supernatural creature (excluding the allies; ghouls, kinfolk, etc. which are just mortals).

For example, the Edinburgh metropolitan area has a population of about 780,000, which means it can support 7-8 kindred, which means there will be less than 7 Mages, Werewolves, and setting permitting, Changelings. As a Kindred can typically support at most 4 ghouls, there are likely no more than 32 ghouls. Many of the other splats would be unknowable.

It should also be pointed out that the 1:100,000 ratio is an in-character artificial limitation; Page 29 of Revised Edition VtM states:

A rough ratio of vampires to mortals has evolved in the last century. Many vampire princes enforce a limit of one vampire per 100,000 mortals, in the interests of keeping the existence of the Kindred a secret. Nonetheless -and particularly in the last few years -some cities exceed this ratio, and the ever-growing population of Kindred is becoming a very dire concern. In cities that do not slavishly heed the Masquerade, such as those under Sabbat control, the ratio may soar to two or three times the acceptable level. Overpopulation is not an easy problem to address; arbitrarily deciding which vampires may stay and which must suffer the Final Death is a matter of policy no prince wishes to decide, except in the most critical of circumstances.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

For other lines, the answer isn't going to be a simple one.

Numbers wise, especially in North America and Europe, the general rule is Vampires>Werewolves>Mages>Everything else. It isn't a very firm rule though. Werewolves tend to avoid the city, so a rural community might have a sizable Werewolf (or other changer depending on the location) population and few (if any) vampires. A city with a very high murder rate could probably support a larger Vampire population.

For 'others', creating a Ghoul is a fairly sizable investment in Blood for a Vampire. Only the oldest/most powerful/best hunters could afford more than one. (Though they might enthrall more via Dominate, Presence, or just plain money and power.) Kinfolk, on the other hand, swing in the other direction. For every Garou that's born, nearly 10 Kin are born. They don't always 'know' about what's going on, but even until the Dark Ages, there were entire villages of Kinfolk.

Other Breeds are going to vary by location. Someplace with a huge influx of immigration might see more than usual numbers of 'foreign' Shifters. Spiders and rats are everywhere, Corax (Ravens) work well with the Garou, but have to sacrifice permanent Gnosis to create new Corax, so their numbers have dwindled hard.

\$\endgroup\$

protected by Oblivious Sage Nov 6 '17 at 14:28

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.