"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"

[Faolyn]

Except, as I noted, I saw plenty of this with OD&D 40 years ago without automatically breaking games. Your statement I responded to was simply an overgeneralization.

Fair enough. But my response to Lanefan was that he seems to think this is the default, that most or all tables are like this.

 

[Faolyn]

No, those are mundane skills not parts of a class. But if all magic casters must be Wizard class then why would not all castle owners be name-level fighters?

Well, in AD&D at least, the only way to become an arcane caster is to be a wizard (or illusionist, maybe). But there's multiple ways of owning a castle other than building it yourself. For instance: inheritance. Maybe your parent or grandparent was a name-level fighter, but then they died and the title passed on. While the monarch may insist that their children be warriors in their own right, that doesn't mean they die only after their kids reach name level--and that ignores those monarchs who decide to train their children to be diplomats. Or, a powerful wizard could claim the castle after turning the name-level fighter into a frog. Or, you could hire an assassin or mercenary army to kill or overthrow the ruler so you can claim the throne for yourself, even if you've never lifted a sword on your own. And then there's the old chestnut of winning a castle in a high-stakes poker game...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, those are mundane skills not parts of a class. But if all magic casters must be Wizard class then why would not all castle owners be name-level fighters?

Because being able to do magic is an intrinsic part of the character that rules measure, and owning a castle is a fictional positioning that is not covered by the character rules. To me this seems pretty obvious.

 

[Baron Opal II]

No, those are mundane skills not parts of a class. But if all magic casters must be Wizard class then why would not all castle owners be name-level fighters?

If I'm parsing you correctly, whoever builds a castle... is a castle owner? Right? For certain classes there are further benefits, but if you want a castle you win enough coin and build your own.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, those are mundane skills not parts of a class. But if all magic casters must be Wizard class then why would not all castle owners be name-level fighters?

I realize you're just being a wiseguy, but I have to point out that the fact that was a route for advancement at one time does not mean it was the only way someone could be a castle owner. The arrow doesn't have to point both ways.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough. But my response to Lanefan was that he seems to think this is the default, that most or all tables are like this.

Yeah, that's far from right. But then, he tends to be living in a game culture that wasn't even that common 40 years ago, far as I can tell.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because being able to do magic is an intrinsic part of the character that rules measure, and owning a castle is a fictional positioning that is not covered by the character rules. To me this seems pretty obvious.

At one time it sort-of was.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, in AD&D at least, the only way to become an arcane caster is to be a wizard (or illusionist, maybe). But there's multiple ways of owning a castle other than building it yourself. For instance: inheritance. Maybe your parent or grandparent was a name-level fighter, but then they died and the title passed on. While the monarch may insist that their children be warriors in their own right, that doesn't mean they die only after their kids reach name level--and that ignores those monarchs who decide to train their children to be diplomats. Or, a powerful wizard could claim the castle after turning the name-level fighter into a frog. Or, you could hire an assassin or mercenary army to kill or overthrow the ruler so you can claim the throne for yourself, even if you've never lifted a sword on your own. And then there's the old chestnut of winning a castle in a high-stakes poker game...

I agree, but now the GM cannot deploy consistency as an argument against the possibility of PCs having castles as, say, an inheritance. The only possible argument is a gamist one! Which is fundamentally my position, that the attributes of PCs are restricted to certain things, and lumped into classes, etc. for game reasons, though I am sure in some cases we could argue about tone or genre as well.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree, but now the GM cannot deploy consistency as an argument against the possibility of PCs having castles as, say, an inheritance. The only possible argument is a gamist one! Which is fundamentally my position, that the attributes of PCs are restricted to certain things, and lumped into classes, etc. for game reasons, though I am sure in some cases we could argue about tone or genre as well.

Based on observation, I think our sim-oriented brethren prefer to see documented character attributes (i.e., what's on the character sheet) focused on "desert island" attributes. That is, the abilities the character would still possess if they were teleported naked onto an isolated desert island halfway across the planet.

Social privilege and status would be something more like a magic item, something that can be taken away depending on the narrative. The ability to automatically gain a castle and followers in AD&D works against that, but I don't think a lot of sim-oriented players think those are well-designed abilities, anyway.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I realize you're just being a wiseguy, but I have to point out that the fact that was a route for advancement at one time does not mean it was the only way someone could be a castle owner. The arrow doesn't have to point both ways.

Then why does it have to point only one way for, casting spells such that a pirate can't learn to caste spells at a proficiency level similar to an 8th level magic user?