D&D 5E Merlin and Arthur or Batman and zatana

[Paul Farquhar]

Uh...

In fiction "weak character wins out against powerful character" makes an interesting story. "Powerful character beats weak character" doesn't. Batman wins because he is weaker.

This doesn't work very well in tabletop RPGs, since it would require heavy-handed intervention by the DM.

Which is not to say that the DM can't have a hand in keeping the game balanced, and a lot of the angst about "unbalanced classes" is misplaced.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This seems to be saying that characters who don't speak very much, but who do a lot of things (e.g. a Wizard too haughty to talk to others, but who uses illusions to deceive opponents and kills three or four opponents with a fireball) could not possibly be seen as more important.

I don't think that that's accurate. Speaking time certainly matters, and can skew results. But combat doesn't involve a lot of speaking, and spells are quite flashy and impactful even if the Wizard character never speaks a word.

Ever watched Critical Role? D&D is absolutely a game of talking, and the players who do the most of it dominate the game, and are, effectively, the "main characters", irrespective of how strong their characters are in a fight.

 

[Voadam]

Super hero teams are probably the best analogy for D&D groups in fiction.

In the Justice league cartoon each of the heroes is competent and generally about equal in the fights. Green Lantern is about as good as the Flash who is about as high powered as Wonder Woman etc. Batman gets to that level and does it through his awesome mortal combat skills, using his bat grappling hook gun to get out of the way, sometimes some explosive batarangs, amazing acrobatic dodging, etc. and a bunch of powers that come up outside of combat such as his detective skills, his intimidation, his monetary resources, his ninja stealth, and such. Also a bit of plot armor.

Generally they are about the same level, get into regular combats that they win, and have unique schticks of powers and abilities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ever watched Critical Role? D&D is absolutely a game of talking, and the players who do the most of it dominate the game, and are, effectively, the "main characters", irrespective of how strong their characters are in a fight.

You have continued the focus on "a fight." Wizards and their spells can do far more outside of fights than they do inside them...and they can easily end fights in one or two rounds with a spell! Hence why I referenced things like illusions.

I would absolutely expect a game where all of the participants are famous actors or voice actors would be heavily driven by who does the speaking. Further, CR isn't a great example, because a lot of it is at least partially pre-scripted. Meaning...it literally is more like LotR, where characters are variably important by authorial fiat.

 

[Garthanos]

Batman is the Odysseus to Superman's Hercules, or perhaps Achilles. That is, Odysseus doesn't have particularly special strength or speed (though he is quite good with a bow), but he is, as the Romans put it, Ulixes sapientissimus graecorum, "Ulysses, craftiest of Greeks." (Technically it can also be translated as "wisest of Greeks," but the force of the phrase is very much emphasizing that he's wily as hell; other descriptors include audacissimus, "the most audacious/daring.") Hercules was also crafty on occasion, as when he tricked Atlas into taking back the job of holding up the sky, but craftiness wasn't his stock-in-trade. The two never had a showdown as far as I can tell, but it's certainly implied that Odysseus could pull off some pretty crazy shenanigans purely through being ridiculously intelligent, guileful, and well-prepared.

An irony is that there is evidence(though not conclusive) and some historians that think maybe Herakles and Odysseus were branchings from the same hero with different emphasis ( just to name a couple obvious elements both were archers and Odysseus was so strong nobody could draw his bow save perhaps his son)

Anyway thanks for using the analogy love it.

 

[Voadam]

Gandalf and the Fellowship of the Ring is a decent Gygaxian long term campaign D&D party.

At the beginning of the book Gandalf has been playing in the campaign for multiple years and is high level. Aragorn has been playing for a couple years and is mid high level. Legolas, Gimle, and Boromir joined last year and have a few levels. The Hobbits start at 1st level. Baggins played before but is playing a new character who gets some great loot inheritance from his older character.

In AD&D levels could vary wildly in the party in long running persistent campaigns.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You have continued the focus on "a fight." Wizards and their spells can do far more outside of fights than they do inside them...and they can easily end fights in one or two rounds with a spell! Hence why I referenced things like illusions.

I would absolutely expect a game where all of the participants are famous actors or voice actors would be heavily driven by who does the speaking. Further, CR isn't a great example, because a lot of it is at least partially pre-scripted. Meaning...it literally is more like LotR, where characters are variably important by authorial fiat.

It doesn't matter if it's inside a fight or outside a fight, the players who do most of the talking dominate the game.

The main difference with Critical Role is ALL the participants are good at talking, so it is better balanced than a home game, where one or two more assertive players tend to dominate.

 

[Voadam]

Batman wins because he is weaker.

Based on Frank Miller's other work (Daredevil, Punisher, 300, etc.) and his writing on this specific comic series, I would say the narrative design intent is probably that Batman is stronger because he is willing to be ruthless and dedicated and assert himself and do whatever it takes to crush his enemies.

Superman has more potential power, but is not as "strong" as Batman and so is actually weaker and loses to the dedicated hard core strong man when they come into actual conflict.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It doesn't matter if it's inside a fight or outside a fight, the players who do most of the talking dominate the game.

The main difference with Critical Role is ALL the participants are good at talking, so it is better balanced than a home game, where one or two more assertive players tend to dominate.

I guess I just don't buy the fundamental premise.

"Talk is cheap," as they say.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Talk is cheap," as they say.

Given the number of children I have taught with confidence and assertiveness issues, I would say that this is a good example of "90% of aphorisms are not true".