The answer to most of the questions you're asking is:
You have invented problems for yourself, setting up parameters that you alone know about, and you alone find important.
These parameters are now causing you small headaches because they prevent the game running in the way that you want it to (e.g. wizard academies)
The answer is simple: change anything about those parameters that improves the gameplay
It's a bit like saying the following:
I have to move a small pile of sand from A to B.
I have chosen to use some tweezers to move it all, but I only have 30 minutes
This is a problem because I can't move it fast enough
The solution is: stop using the tweezers and use your hands and you'll be done in 3 minutes.
Essentially you're creating your own problems. Want there to be samurai? On the original continent, there were samurai, and some of them came with the immigrants. If a player wants to be a samurai, add in a samurai area. Want there to be wizard colleges? There are wizard colleges on the original continent, and if a player wants to come from one, then maybe they came from a group of eight wizards on a field expedition. You can dismantle your own roadblocks very easily by simply changing what you've already designed.
Most of what you've designed isn't going to impact the gameplay of the characters for many, many levels of gameplay. Focus your energy on designing adventures for them, not on logistical, political and economic systems that are unlikely to be relevant through the course of a campaign.
Yep, he asks for help, then says why that doesn't help. It's certainly something.
"It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it pays off for him."
I'm not trying to argue here, nor am I trying to sound snarky when I say this, I'm really not; but regardless of what some of you seem to think I'm actually getting more information than you seem to gather from this discussion and I'm using it appropriately, as insulting as your tongue-in-cheek mockery is.
Case in point: I had not thought to use Teleportation Circles as a story device or a world building device prior to this conversation, nor had I really understood the relative early history of our races connection to mineral mining and coins, many of the class ideas coined by Scarloc and definitely worth taking note of, which I am doing.
That being said, I'm not going to stop anyone from further belittling or insulting me, even in minor slight, because it's not productive to do so. Several of the view points in the discussion have given me room to think and I'm grateful for that.
Paladin orders, classes that require order, organization and significant time to develop would be at a disadvantage here (this was not intentional). A wizard would likely have learned from a mentor (Gandalf style as opposed to the school of magic story). Similarly bannerets typically (in my understanding) are noble orders of fighters beholden to a kingdom, I would find it hard to imagine such a class present in such a meager world thus far.
I think you might find it hard to imagine that because you don't live in that world--you live and experience the world that doesn't have magic (so far as we know ;).
But even super-duper ancient civils have had class systems and caste systems (or some semblance of them). India's caste system started in something like 2000 BC. Archeologists have found evidence of a class system as far back as 7000 years ago. Neolithic era had shown signs of inheritable property. The idea of a system such as an order of knights is an attachment to the very human idea of "haves" and "haves not" -- and the more sinister "haves" and the "don't want YOU to haves".
So in a world beset by magic of all types, there would def be a group of people who would want to control that magic -- and its distribution -- as much as possible.
Maybe the earliest civilizations in your world was able to keep the magic restricted outside of royalty or nobility or whatever. As the civilizations grew and expanded, the ability to keep magic reigned in simply . . . atrophied.
At some point in world building, you have to just say, "Hey, this is the world as it is now" and be done with it. How they got there is irrelevant (unless it's relevant, if you catch my meaning). In fact, I urge you to use the loose world building as a way to draw your players into the world more by involving them in its creation.
GM: The merchant hands you obsidian coins . . .
Player #1: Oh, wow. I wonder how they started using this as currency? Hey, GM, how did obsidian become the hot commodity of this land?
GM: That's a good question. Player #2, why do you think obsidian become this world's currency?
Player #2: Oh, I bet it was because . . . .
GM: *takes some notes in case a delicious plot-hook gets handed to you on a silver (or obsidian) platter*
For a player, THAT world just became infinitely more interesting than a world riddled with layer upon layer of meticulously thought-out historical events conveniently wrapped in a (probably not very easily) digestible timeline that leads the characters to the point in time they're in right now.
(Also. we probably have a 0.5% chance for a conversation like that to ever happen at your table. More than likely, a merchant handing your player any amount of currency will result in: a) a too long haggle scene; b) an attempt to pickpocket the merchant; or 3) a roll for intimidation; or (most likely), D) all of the above + followed by a roll for initiative. If you call it gold, your players will call it gold. If you call it waxed monkey shit, your players will call it waxed monkey shit. How waxed monkey shit became currency is only irrelevant to a player if it's relevant to the player's character or the plot/arc of the adventure. Although you might have a couple players wonder how monkeys are treated in a world where their shit is taken, waxed and redistributed. Are they treated well? Is the world's overlord an Awakened Monkey and it's all the Overlord Monkey's shit??? What happens, then, to the world economy when the monkey is constipated?? What's the waxed monkey shit counterfeit underworld like? Did they find feed the counterfeit-shitting monkeys the same diet as the Overlord Monkey to replicate the color and consistency perfectly? And since the word "counterfeit" is the combining of contra- and facere (to make), should we actually call fake monkey shit money "counterfece"??
. . . I digress. (How about that for OCD by the way?) But it illustrates the point a lot of people have already made. There come a point where world-building needs to stop, if only to let the creator move on to other more relevant tasks. Language is intrinsic to the world that gave birth to it and nurtured it. But we "handwave" it away when it comes to worldbuilding for games, because it's mostly (mostly) irrelevant. Plus, it may lead to insanity. So feel free to handwave away anything that's not 100% locked down. And the rest? Let your players help you with -- at the table, during an actual session. And that means leaving the world open enough -- and full of holes -- so that they can fill it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it. You're OCD. But this is notyour story. It's your AND your players' story. Let them have a hand in creating it. They might feel more invested into that world, too, which is an added bonus. Plus, it takes some of the burden off of your shoulders for finding ways for a player to have an emotional investment in the world their characters are in. It's one thing to manufacture "emotional investment" of a character:
"The villain has your beloved mother and younger brother and is threatening to kill them unless you rescue them! Follow the clues!!!'"
It's another thing to get the player of the character to actually care. And one trick you can use is make sure they are involved in the world building as much as possible.
And I have to point out that, the more I read this thread, the more I echo DM_from_1975's sentiment too:
Bro, it don’t seem like you actually want any help building your world since you veto anything anyone else mentions, so what is it you actually want from this dialogue?
I've read at least four or five replies that seem to have covered a lot of your requirements with your style of world-building (namely, the based on realism necessity) and you seem to have a counter for every one of them. And a lot of your counters are based on your own self-described ignorance on a topic (e.g., the mining thing). It seems like someone telling you that "hey there are great examples of real-world, super-early civilizations that mined precious metals" would send your OCD into overdrive with tabs upon tabs of wiki-articles,
Since you want to base your game world in part of the historical trajectory of the real world, maybe some books/audiobooks on development of civilizations and societies and world history could give you that spark that you think you need to fill in these details that very few players will care to ask about. Or . . you can simply hand-wave it away, rely on the D&D 5e archetypes (and your players' desire to play in a D&D world) to prop up your world, and turn your attention to other more pressing world-building matters.
(And this advice is coming from a person who has a spreadsheet full of in-world words (including their origins, cognates and borrowings), common sayings and their source, and tons of other language-related stuff that will probably never be asked about and will likely won't be used because it will be too distracting from the story . . . )
but for the ease of explaining how a class functions in the world
But . . . why? And to whom? Why do you need to explain this? What purpose does this serve the story? Is knowing this info vital for the player so they can run their character? And what player in their right mind would want to play a paladin and then demand to know how such a thing as a paladin is even possible? Hell, they don't even need to call it "paladin." It can be whatever.
Literally anything:
GM: Okay, they're not called paladins in this world. They're called Shit-Stains.
Player: Hrmm . . . provocative. Can I still smite starting a level 2?
GM: Yes.
Player: Can I refer to my smites as shites?
GM: Good sir, I would be devastated if you didn't call your smites shites.
Player: Then I'm gonna expend a 4th level spell slot to shite on this Beholder, please. And that's a crit-shite, too!
I'd rather not change to much and risk confusing players who, in my experience, do not read setting material if given to them.
You run just as much risk — if not more — by overexplaining as you do underexplaining. When you leave out details (especially ones that don't matter much) the player will likely fill in the holes. And it won't be campaign-ending. If they over-reach with the fillings, you can course-correct.
Cliff notes for the "Water Cooler Pitch": The Continent of Varzia on the World of Marithor is mostly unexplored wilderness. Until roughly 400 year ago, when it was discovered by a fleet of immortal undead pirates called "the Cursed", no one even knew it existed. That is except for the native tribes of catfolk (Tabaxi, Leonin, Eluran, etc.). Actual settlement of the continent did not "begin" until 250 years ago (from present day) when a series of wars against the cursed waged by immigrants from lands across the Iron Sea to the east dispatched a number of the more maleficent Pirate Lords, repurposing the captured shanty towns as make-shift fishing villages, and with a little time, defensible walled forts.
This is about where I run into some issues. I ran a lot of numbers and by my calculations (based on the size of the ships the immigrants came over on, the likelihood of surviving raids or wars, additional hazards, procreation rate, etc.) after 250 years the number of individuals living on the continent of Varzia who are descended from the waves of immigrants would be roughly 100,000. I find this number remarkably low.
On that note, I don't believe any cohesive governmental system would successfully arise to rule scattered shanty towns inhabited by various races from different regions and cultures. Here I assume that even given the amount of time passed that there are no "cities" on Varzia per se, but rather a few walled port towns here and there and scattered coastal or riverside fishing villages loosely connected by mutual beneficial relationships similar to the Hanseatic League.
You could manufacture a reason for a government system to come from that, though. Even a federation-like system where the walled port towns have a fair bit of sovereignty, but realize that there's a much bigger threat looming and they should pool as much of their resources together to combat it. Or maybe that threat has happened already -- maybe even a few times!!! -- and knowing that it's only a matter of time before it happens again, they're like, "we need to have a system in place."
Nations have been built on less.
Also you refered to them as a port towns, which would assume trade of some sort, which would in turn need to be governed by some arbiter, lest war break out over disputes on the daily. (And . . . maybe that's what happened, and they all got together and said, "Let's create a body of governance to mitigate these issues" and now that governing body is overstepping their reach? Or on their death throes . . or are favoring one town over the other because of . . plot-things. Working backwards has already given us three plot-driven arcs with which to build a campaign. Even if you don't use them, you can see how working backwards is easier, quicker and can be more fruitful than going the other way (sometimes).)
So if you still feel the need to have these details in the campaign, build it backwards:
This land is XYZ. Why? Because 123 happened. And why? Because so-and-so did such-and-such.
At some point, though, I urge you to simply use the answer countless other moms and dads have given to their kids after suffering a barrage of Whys:
Why does your world have to have wizard colleges or Bard colleges at all, you could have a wizard who is self taught and instead of buying spell scrolls spends time, materials and effort learning new spells to add into the book, you could have a a bard who learnt from there mentor and so that is how they gained their skills.
You seem to be fixating on being able to apply the DnD world to your homebrew. I have had homebrew worlds where the rules and mechanics of the classes exist, but the fluff around them is very very different.
Similarly, I played in a campaign recently where your "race" or "lineage" was just that: a lineage. All of the players were human. If the player wanted to play an tabaxi, they got all the applicable abilities that a tabaxi naturally has, but they still looked human. Same with a player that wanted to play an elf. Or a dwarf. Hell, you didn't even have to be a SHORT human to "play a dwarf."
The description of the race/lineage is, basically, just fluff and flavor when you're creating your own world. Only the mechanics matter. And even then, they barely matter.
Yep, he asks for help, then says why that doesn't help. It's certainly something.
"It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it pays off for him."
I'm not trying to argue here, nor am I trying to sound snarky when I say this, I'm really not; but regardless of what some of you seem to think I'm actually getting more information than you seem to gather from this discussion and I'm using it appropriately, as insulting as your tongue-in-cheek mockery is.
Case in point: I had not thought to use Teleportation Circles as a story device or a world building device prior to this conversation, nor had I really understood the relative early history of our races connection to mineral mining and coins, many of the class ideas coined by Scarloc and definitely worth taking note of, which I am doing.
That being said, I'm not going to stop anyone from further belittling or insulting me, even in minor slight, because it's not productive to do so. Several of the view points in the discussion have given me room to think and I'm grateful for that.
https://youtu.be/sig8X_kojco
That video might be interesting to you about 15 mins in they talk about the issues your having
This was quite helpful, thank you.
I think you might find it hard to imagine that because you don't live in that world--you live and experience the world that doesn't have magic (so far as we know ;).
But even super-duper ancient civils have had class systems and caste systems (or some semblance of them). India's caste system started in something like 2000 BC. Archeologists have found evidence of a class system as far back as 7000 years ago. Neolithic era had shown signs of inheritable property. The idea of a system such as an order of knights is an attachment to the very human idea of "haves" and "haves not" -- and the more sinister "haves" and the "don't want YOU to haves".
So in a world beset by magic of all types, there would def be a group of people who would want to control that magic -- and its distribution -- as much as possible.
Maybe the earliest civilizations in your world was able to keep the magic restricted outside of royalty or nobility or whatever. As the civilizations grew and expanded, the ability to keep magic reigned in simply . . . atrophied.
At some point in world building, you have to just say, "Hey, this is the world as it is now" and be done with it. How they got there is irrelevant (unless it's relevant, if you catch my meaning). In fact, I urge you to use the loose world building as a way to draw your players into the world more by involving them in its creation.
For a player, THAT world just became infinitely more interesting than a world riddled with layer upon layer of meticulously thought-out historical events conveniently wrapped in a (probably not very easily) digestible timeline that leads the characters to the point in time they're in right now.
(Also. we probably have a 0.5% chance for a conversation like that to ever happen at your table. More than likely, a merchant handing your player any amount of currency will result in: a) a too long haggle scene; b) an attempt to pickpocket the merchant; or 3) a roll for intimidation; or (most likely), D) all of the above + followed by a roll for initiative. If you call it gold, your players will call it gold. If you call it waxed monkey shit, your players will call it waxed monkey shit. How waxed monkey shit became currency is only irrelevant to a player if it's relevant to the player's character or the plot/arc of the adventure. Although you might have a couple players wonder how monkeys are treated in a world where their shit is taken, waxed and redistributed. Are they treated well? Is the world's overlord an Awakened Monkey and it's all the Overlord Monkey's shit??? What happens, then, to the world economy when the monkey is constipated?? What's the waxed monkey shit counterfeit underworld like? Did they find feed the counterfeit-shitting monkeys the same diet as the Overlord Monkey to replicate the color and consistency perfectly? And since the word "counterfeit" is the combining of contra- and facere (to make), should we actually call fake monkey shit money "counterfece"??
. . . I digress. (How about that for OCD by the way?) But it illustrates the point a lot of people have already made. There come a point where world-building needs to stop, if only to let the creator move on to other more relevant tasks. Language is intrinsic to the world that gave birth to it and nurtured it. But we "handwave" it away when it comes to worldbuilding for games, because it's mostly (mostly) irrelevant. Plus, it may lead to insanity. So feel free to handwave away anything that's not 100% locked down. And the rest? Let your players help you with -- at the table, during an actual session. And that means leaving the world open enough -- and full of holes -- so that they can fill it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it. You're OCD. But this is not your story. It's your AND your players' story. Let them have a hand in creating it. They might feel more invested into that world, too, which is an added bonus. Plus, it takes some of the burden off of your shoulders for finding ways for a player to have an emotional investment in the world their characters are in. It's one thing to manufacture "emotional investment" of a character:
It's another thing to get the player of the character to actually care. And one trick you can use is make sure they are involved in the world building as much as possible.
And I have to point out that, the more I read this thread, the more I echo DM_from_1975's sentiment too:
I've read at least four or five replies that seem to have covered a lot of your requirements with your style of world-building (namely, the based on realism necessity) and you seem to have a counter for every one of them. And a lot of your counters are based on your own self-described ignorance on a topic (e.g., the mining thing). It seems like someone telling you that "hey there are great examples of real-world, super-early civilizations that mined precious metals" would send your OCD into overdrive with tabs upon tabs of wiki-articles,
Since you want to base your game world in part of the historical trajectory of the real world, maybe some books/audiobooks on development of civilizations and societies and world history could give you that spark that you think you need to fill in these details that very few players will care to ask about. Or . . you can simply hand-wave it away, rely on the D&D 5e archetypes (and your players' desire to play in a D&D world) to prop up your world, and turn your attention to other more pressing world-building matters.
(And this advice is coming from a person who has a spreadsheet full of in-world words (including their origins, cognates and borrowings), common sayings and their source, and tons of other language-related stuff that will probably never be asked about and will likely won't be used because it will be too distracting from the story . . . )
Could'a fooled us! ;)
But . . . why? And to whom? Why do you need to explain this? What purpose does this serve the story? Is knowing this info vital for the player so they can run their character? And what player in their right mind would want to play a paladin and then demand to know how such a thing as a paladin is even possible? Hell, they don't even need to call it "paladin." It can be whatever.
Literally anything:
You run just as much risk — if not more — by overexplaining as you do underexplaining. When you leave out details (especially ones that don't matter much) the player will likely fill in the holes. And it won't be campaign-ending. If they over-reach with the fillings, you can course-correct.
You could manufacture a reason for a government system to come from that, though. Even a federation-like system where the walled port towns have a fair bit of sovereignty, but realize that there's a much bigger threat looming and they should pool as much of their resources together to combat it. Or maybe that threat has happened already -- maybe even a few times!!! -- and knowing that it's only a matter of time before it happens again, they're like, "we need to have a system in place."
Nations have been built on less.
Also you refered to them as a port towns, which would assume trade of some sort, which would in turn need to be governed by some arbiter, lest war break out over disputes on the daily. (And . . . maybe that's what happened, and they all got together and said, "Let's create a body of governance to mitigate these issues" and now that governing body is overstepping their reach? Or on their death throes . . or are favoring one town over the other because of . . plot-things. Working backwards has already given us three plot-driven arcs with which to build a campaign. Even if you don't use them, you can see how working backwards is easier, quicker and can be more fruitful than going the other way (sometimes).)
So if you still feel the need to have these details in the campaign, build it backwards:
At some point, though, I urge you to simply use the answer countless other moms and dads have given to their kids after suffering a barrage of Whys:
Similarly, I played in a campaign recently where your "race" or "lineage" was just that: a lineage. All of the players were human. If the player wanted to play an tabaxi, they got all the applicable abilities that a tabaxi naturally has, but they still looked human. Same with a player that wanted to play an elf. Or a dwarf. Hell, you didn't even have to be a SHORT human to "play a dwarf."
The description of the race/lineage is, basically, just fluff and flavor when you're creating your own world. Only the mechanics matter. And even then, they barely matter.