It seems that a recurring theme in the analysis of any game mechanic is the 'what does this do once applied to 1500 magi'. It seems to me that the presumption of this line of reasoning is that the core rules represents the typical magus of the Order. I wonder if this is really the case.
The rules are, naturally, specifically designed for player characters, the protagonists of the story. One of the core assumptions about PCs in general in games is that they have unlimited potential. This is not necessarily true of NPCs.
If Ars were a game of modern scientists, would you make a game world assuming that every scientist is a potential Nobel prize winner? Or better yet, in sports be Hall of Famers? It seems to me that the bulk of the Order are "merely" a professional athlete. They might play in Wimbledon or the The Masters or be a starter on a pro team, but they aren't talented enough to be Hall of Fame types like Federer, Woods, Griffey, Jordan, etc.
What's my point? Well, I think there are a lot of wizards who either aren't that good (by the standards of Hall of Fame Hermetic magi) or aren't motivated enough to be amazing. I don't think that as many wizards pass the century mark in years lived as is theoretically possible. There would be more wizards like Gwhyr from Lion of the North.
The RAW are for the top end potential folks that might be archmages or the next a big explosion. Do many people think abotu this kind of thing at all?
/