Yrth's history and MAGIC - does it make sense

[hal]

Originally Posted by raven_walker

Hal, what exactly is your goal here? (I'm not being snide - I'm genuinely curious where you're going with this...) Okay, Fantasy 1st edition has a lot of holes... So...?

Ultimately, the goal is to spark discussion about those very holes present in the world environment - so as to find ways and solutions for when those holes might cause problems down the line. It is also intended to examine things from a simulationist point of view instead of a person who says "reality can take a back seat, the drama and the action is all I care about".

Truth be told? Non-simulationists don't give a fig about the holes. They want the cool hack-n-slash type games or the "over the top" cinematic type games where the audience isn't intended to care about the history of what happened before the start of the game, nor cares what might happen 20 years down the road in the game world. When you drop a quarter into a video game that has you shooting at zombies and undead - do you really care if the history of the world leading up to when zombies start walking the land is hoaky and really lame? Or do you just wade in, and take aim at the zombies for pure unadulterated mayhem fun?

Me? I'd like for the world to make sense instead of having a lot of gaping holes ;)

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by hal

:evil grin:

You make your own arguement against yourself. Assuming that like the mageborn, roughly 2% of the 16 million population are of the upper crust of society (ie the Nobles and very rich merchants), you will find that even if you break the numbers of nobles down to an average of 1 family averaging five people (as was the case in medieval times), that works out to roughly 64,000 noble families. Contrast this with the number of mageborn available who are "professional mages". By my count, there are all of roughly 50,000 professional mages for the 16 million Megalans. This means then, that by sheer numbers, there aren't enough mageborn around to fill the demand of the numerous houses of nobility.

And in what way does that invalidate what I said?

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by hal

Truth be told? Non-simulationists don't give a fig about the holes. They want the cool hack-n-slash type games or the "over the top" cinematic type games where the audience isn't intended to care about the history of what happened before the start of the game, nor cares what might happen 20 years down the road in the game world. When you drop a quarter into a video game that has you shooting at zombies and undead - do you really care if the history of the world leading up to when zombies start walking the land is hoaky and really lame? Or do you just wade in, and take aim at the zombies for pure unadulterated mayhem fun?

Me? I'd like for the world to make sense instead of having a lot of gaping holes ;)

Wow...that is pretty judgemental...and as a simulationist I think that you are not only unfairly harsh on the other types, but you also artificially narrow simulationism.

Mostly not cool is your making simulationism about realism and non-simulation about non-realism.

To equate non-simulationism with hack'n'slash, over the top and no history is pretty unfair and inaccurate. I know lots of method actors or narrativists who are very invested in gritty, history filled, cerebral games with no combat and lots of angst. And I know hack'n'slashers who like to hack'n'slash in realistic worlds.

Similarly, one can be simulationist in a completely unrealistic world.

As a simulationist GM, I have no problem running simulationist games in Banestorm...or the space opera-y Traveller...or any number of fantastical settings. Somethings work in some ways in some worlds...then where you go from there is the simulationism at work.

ETA: There is more than one way to look at simulationism. It can be just like plugging a Civ video game where the emphasis is on simulating macro structural systems, it can also be (my version of simulationism) simulating reactions to behavior...simulating realistic people.

On the Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist tripartite scheme, as a GM, I am almost completely a Simulationist...but not all simulationists are interested in simulating the same things.

[hal]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

And in what way does that invalidate what I said?

Perhaps I misunderstood you? I was given to understand that you believed that just about all of the mageborn could be mobilized for war regardless of how that would affect the private sector. If most of the mageborn are already firmly employed in the private sector, that leaves LESS mages for the legions, not more. I went with a conservitive estimate of 1% being available for the military, with the remainder in the civilian sector. It could easily go up to 2 or 3, but if historically only 1% of the mundanes were able to engage in warfare without it impacting on the general economy, then likely, the same ratio would hold true for the mageborn.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by hal

Magery of any kind: 160,000
Professional Mage: 32,000 (ie one in 500)
Professional mage with magery 2: 16,000 (1 in 1,000)
Professional mage with magery 3: 1,600 (1 in 10,000)

If no more than about 1% of the civilian population enter the military without adverse effects to the civilian sector itself, we have the following numbers of mageborn in the Military:

Magery 1: 320
Magery 2: 160
Magery 3: 16

By that reasoning, if in all Megalos there were 1600 Professional Swordsmen with Broadsword-17, only 16 could serve in the army? I bet many of them would be soldiers.
1% of the peasants are in the military, but if the Megalan army is supposed to be "magical", then Megalan officers aggressively find and recruit potential mages.
I'd say that up to 20% of Megalan professional mages could reasonably be employed in the army, with plenty of other, "civilian" mages. Or may be most of the mages serve in and are trained by the army.
I'd say the limit is not how many mages are available, but how much soldiers Megalos can afford, and how much "militaristic" you want wizards to feel in your campaign.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by hal

If historically only 1% of the mundanes were able to engage in warfare without it impacting on the general economy, then likely, the same ratio would hold true for the mageborn.

Not really. It might have only been 1% of the population, but it's a much higher segment of the skilled labor. I would generally assume the number of mages available roughly corresponds to the percentage of GDP spent on the military; given that Yrth societies seem to be moderately militaristic, probably 5-10% of the total mage population. Note, however, that that number includes people working in military industries and other support roles, not just field soldiers.

[PhoenixPaw]

Hal,
I'm sorry.
I really am sorry.
You seem to have gotten it all backwards from my point of view (silly, stupid or just plain wrong as it might be).

ANY one with a magical aptitude is far to valuable to be allowed in the ranks of the fighting men. They would serve an army way way better waiting in the background.

Try running a new simulation, and skip -ALL- damaging spells you have.
Take into account the effect of "Preserve Food", "Purify Water" and various healing spells, including but not limited to "Minor Healing", "Cure Disease" and "Neutralize Poison". With the prerequisites for those five spells.
Make the Megalan army -used- to having those guys around.

Because, I can see the Megalan army being spoiled with always having perfectly preserved food and clean water, and nobody being sick or poisoned, or having to worry long about recovering from injuries.

What happens if you start your simulation there and remove those spells (which were all present in GURPS Fantasy (1st ed. first printing (I checked my copy)).

Are you still finding the Megalan army, without the comforts it's always enjoyed, being able to reconquer a far off province that's employ guerilla tactics?

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by hal

Truth be told? Non-simulationists don't give a fig about the holes. They want the cool hack-n-slash type games or the "over the top" cinematic type games where the audience isn't intended to care about the history of what happened before the start of the game, nor cares what might happen 20 years down the road in the game world.

This is simply false, many non-simulationists are what Robin Laws calls "method actors" or "storytellers" and they care deeply about character development and the history and "feeling" of the campaign setting.

Moreover, many simulationist like the cool hack-n-slash type games (and there's nothing wrong with it).

So I really see little correlation between simulationism and care for the setting's details.

[David Johnston2]

[QUOTE=hal]

Perhaps I misunderstood you? I was given to understand that you believed that just about all of the mageborn could be mobilized for war regardless of how that would affect the private sector.

Mages attached to the nobility aren't IN the private sector. The nobles are a feudal military aristocracy after all. They're the ruling class and the officer corps of the military.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by hal

It could easily go up to 2 or 3, but if historically only 1% of the mundanes were able to engage in warfare without it impacting on the general economy, then likely, the same ratio would hold true for the mageborn.

What use are battle-mages to the general economy? They could use Fireballs for mining, sure, but I always imagined mage-soldiers as specialized, well-trained war professionals. Not as town wizards, apt at Healing or Plant spells, who occasionally gathered and went to war...