Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 713334" data-attributes="member: 151">Fair enough, but that's not what I was saying.  What I was trying to say was that ultimately, this sort of thing becomes so complex, that effectivley modeling it can become so time-consuming as to have nothing to do with the actual game, any longer.  Just like the famed 'magical street lamps'  and  'D&D Economy' threads of days gone by, it results usually in point-counter point arguments, and answering every possibility only opens further questions.I originally thought that Ace's entire line of thinking was solely based that a feudal could never occur under the standard D&D system.  In the realms, perhaps this may apply, but not under every implementation of D&D.  But I didn't want to spend hours debating every single point, and degenerating into the point-counterpoint debates we've already seen beaten to death.IMHO, Ace's basic argument ignores a variety of factors, not the least of which are emotions and human nature.  Unless every single adventurer is a dispassionate robot, some of them will end up loving or marrying some of those poor 1st-level commoners.  Unless they all come from a line of powerful adventurers, are raised only by powerful adventurers and associate purely with powerful adventurers...they are vulnerable, and they will care for people who need protecting.  Sure, the King is a 16th-level mage and the mayor is 10th level fighter: but what about the queen, the mayor's son and his father?  No one exists in a vacuum...and if the peasants aren't harvesting food, then eventually the PCs starve, unless they spend valuable time and spells generating food and water, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum.  Add to this the fact that certain classes are disposed towards certain behaviors, and you have all sorts of arguments that can't really be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.For my part, I follow Glen Cook's line of reasoning, for the greater extent; spellcasters tend to cancel out spellcasters and gods tend to cancel out gods.  In a huge battle, spellcasters tend to spend their time dealing with enemy spellcasters, not the grunts.  On a macro level, the followers of God A may or may not directly oppose God B.  Powerful beings become concerned with the actions of other powerful beings, and tend to move into the shadows to deal with each other.  Everyone has to sleep sometime, and everyone eventually fails a save.  All it takes to ruin a 20th level wizard's day is a 1st level rogue and a lucky roll.  A game world where spellcasters or adventurers rose to prominence would see some interesting dynamics take place, as people rose to oppose them in unexpected ways.Ultimately, D&D makes concessions between being a completely logical setting and a good game.  When in doubt, the creators erred on the side of game balance, not logic.  I think they made the right choice, but YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification