How is the Wizard vs Warrior Balance Problem Handled in Fantasy Literature?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Its always been my thought that D&D was a kit, you didn't need to use everything from it all the time.

That's a fat bit of wisdom packed in that sentence.

 

[pawsplay]

That's a fat bit of wisdom packed in that sentence.

But think of the glacier dwarves!

 

[pemerton]

In fiction, while magic capable characters get these meta-narrative shaping traits, the non-magic characters are often given all of the coolest traits that define the conflict (like heir to a lost throne, for example). This keeps them relevant and goes along with my point earlier that often protagonists are mundane while the facilitators are magical.

In D&D there is no such compensation. Of course you can always make it work that way if you want, ala what Plane Sailing suggests - but that requires a set of skills and motivations that aren't really in the books, and operate outside of the system. Narrative style mechanics could capture this kind of player balance, but then I suspect that you're looking at a type of game that D&D is not trying to be (even if you can make it work). For example, there are many games where you can have more plot-oriented stats such as "incorruptible," "heir to a lost throne," or "soul-bound to a fallen angel," instead of ability stats. In those kind of games, balance between players operates in very different ways (with their own sets of problems as well).

4th edition D&D helped to address this problem by simply toning down or removing the meta-narrative controlling powers from magic characters. I think that really watered down a lot of the open and creative feel to the game though. I wonder if there is a different way to address this by giving a very different sort of narrative controlling power to non-magic characters.

Well, 4e does have stuff like "heir to a lost throne" or "soul-bound to a fallen angel". This is the stuff of paragon paths and epic destinies. Unfortunately, what the game is currently missing is any solid guidelines for incorporating this stuff into play in a meaningful way. That doesn't mean it can't be done, however. And this is the stuff which can be used to differentiate the magic from the mundane, without undermining the narrative balance across PCs (I think that the tactical stuff that comes from powers also lends itself better to this than you suggest in your post - fighters get more "meta" powers, for example, than do wizards - like Come and Get It).

Are you then advocating that the answer is to have narrative style balance mechanics in games?

<snip>

Because I've got to think that identifying equal amounts of kick-butt as the motivation in D&D balance is getting the cause and effect and correlations subtley wrong. In my group, when we play heroic fantasy, everyone at the table wants to be doing something. That means if we play a game that is about butt kicking, then they want butt kicking balance. If the game is about trade and intrigue, they want balance in that. If it is about overcoming personal challenges, we aren't playing D&D, because there are better games for that.

But do those games also deliver such crunchy combat goodness! (Well, yes, Burning Wheel does, but for better or worse I run a 4e game . . .)

Graft an almost purely narrative, metagaming, defining/framing system on top of what 4E already has. Fluff of this system is variable--sometimes magic, sometimes not. Call it "Framing" for lack of a better word. It has an almost entirely separate rewards cycle from the rest of 4E. Something like, when you "experience" a narrative issue, your options and power over the narrative grow.

The tie to the world/story/simulation is that much of the picks are very powerful but obviously situationally limited. "Heir to the throne" lets you do some appropriate stuff. "7th son of a Wizard" lets you do some other equally appropriate stuff. As you grow in your narrative control, through play, the appropriate stuff naturally becomes more powerful and useful. It is not unlike 4E rituals, except heavily slanted towards the metagame. If an ability is too game changing even for ritual, then it becomes a possible Framing ability.

Again, without the need for a whole new subsystem, I think there is scope to build on the existing elements of 4e for this. Different paragon paths and epic destinies, for example, should have implications for the use of various skills, and how they factor into skill challenge framing and resolution (in just the same way that they have different powers that factor into combat framing and resolution).

Of course then you're really messing with the core "story" of D&D, which at heart has always been about kicking down the door, kicking the monsters in the junk, and taking their stuff.

Well, the sooner D&D loses this core story, the better in my opinion. 1st ed Oriental Adventures showed me how to abandon it, and for me at least it's only got better from there.

 

[Hussar]

Were you there when they wrote 'em up? Psychic?

The rules in no way assume that you're "special" beyond the fact that your PC has a modicum of training. That you have an extraordinary stat or two isn't all that unusual. According to D&D Str charts, I have a 14-15 in that stat, and I'm 5'7", 43years old, am a lawyer, and don't work out anymore.

A "1st lvl Ftr" can describe a talented farmboy brawler, an avg. Joe fresh out of basic training, a 45 year old veteran whose skills have atrophied with age & injury or Hercules at age 5. A "1st lvl Wiz" sounds like a graduate if a private HS or college student in terms of education.

Except that your 1st level fighter can have percentile strength, for no other reason than his class, if we're talking 1e or 2e.

Your 1st level fighter in 3e is based on a point buy value that makes him superhuman compared to baseline. NPC's don't roll their stats, they work from 15 point buy assumption.

When have you ever seen a PC with a 15 point buy?

Heck, even as far back as 1e, when they talked about demographics, PC's were less than a single PERCENT of the given population. Most humans had a d6 HP, not even a hit die. Even by 3e, those demographic percentages hadn't actually changed that much and PC's were still head and shoulders above the common man.

Farmboy in 3e is a Commoner 1, with a 15 point buy value. A 1st level PC fighter is considerably more powerful.

Heck, even a classed NPC isn't even considered as strong of a challenge as a PC.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except that your 1st level fighter can have percentile strength, for no other reason than his class, if we're talking 1e or 2e.

So?

Baseline- that just means he has some kind of edge from his familiarity with combat, not that he's superhuman.

(FWIW, I always thought that was a crappy rule, alongside the rule that certain races or sexes couldn't have percentile strength at all.)

Your 1st level fighter in 3e is based on a point buy value that makes him superhuman compared to baseline.

1) Ummm...mine rolls his stats, which, as I recall is still the baseline assumption. Point buy is presented as an equal alternative.

2) Even with point buy, that makes them elite physical specimens, but hardly superhuman by necessity. Again, it depends upon how those stats match up to the concept. If he's a Athenian, he may be one of a kind. If a Spartan, he may be average.

If he's 5 years old, start looking for supernatural parentage.

When have you ever seen a PC with a 15 point buy?

Never, since we generally roll.

We have 2 GMs who DO use a point-buy, but its not WotC standard. You have 78 points to distribute freely- that's an average of 13 points per stat. Above average? Yes. Superhuman? No.

Heck, even as far back as 1e, when they talked about demographics, PC's were less than a single PERCENT of the given population.

If Michael Jordan represents an innate physical talent of 0.001% of the population of the world today, that means that there are approximately 6.5 million MJs out there. Some play sports..but maybe not with intensity. Some are soldiers. Some are planting rice in a paddy, others are tossing bales of hay. One may have died because he trod on a landmine in some 3rd-world border war. Perhaps one or two are playing in KISS tribute bands. I bet one is a lawyer. Odds are good that 2 are Chinese and one is Indian.

Only one actually got to play in the NBA.

What makes him MJ isn't his stats, its what he did with them.

 

[Bluenose]

So?

Baseline- that just means he has some kind of edge from his familiarity with combat, not that he's superhuman.

How much training do you think it takes to gain the level of familiarity with weapons and armour shown by 1st level fighters in every edition of D&D. How many years does it take? How much competence with the wilds before a 1st level ranger is assumed able to operate without supervision? How long is a wizard's apprenticeship? A 1st level 'any PC class' has training and practice behind them, and not a few weeks of it either. (I might make an exception for a Sorceror, possibly).

If Michael Jordan represents an innate physical talent of 0.001% of the population of the world today, that means that there are approximately 6.5 million MJs out there. Some play sports..but maybe not with intensity. Some are soldiers. Some are planting rice in a paddy, others are tossing bales of hay. One may have died because he trod on a landmine in some 3rd-world border war. Perhaps one or two are playing in KISS tribute bands. I bet one is a lawyer. Odds are good that 2 are Chinese and one is Indian.

Only one actually got to play in the NBA.

What makes him MJ isn't his stats, its what he did with them.

The fact that there's only one Michael Jordan, one Pele, one Michelangelo, one Wayne Gretsky, one William Marshall, suggests that it's not just physical attributes or training or experience or even desire that makes exceptional people. Besides, one in ten thousand (0.001%)? Far less than that even play professional sport.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How much training do you think it takes to gain the level of familiarity with weapons and armour shown by 1st level fighters in every edition of D&D.

You mean like my buddy who went into Special Forces training able to take everyone but the instructor, whom he gave a workout? (A few months.)

Or do you mean like another buddy who got drummed out of the Marines for being an uncontrollable psycho? (Ditto.)

Or like some of my friends & family who are career military and can barely shoot straight? (Never.)

How much competence with the wilds before a 1st level ranger is assumed able to operate without supervision?

If you're a city slicker like me, a few years if scouting. If you live in a tribal society, probably by age 8.

How long is a wizard's apprenticeship?

Depends on the student. A talented, driven student may pass his tests in months, with any time after that being a formality. A lazy student, or one who barely has any talent at all may take years.

Look at Marvel's Dr. Strange- he learned in months what the Ancient One had been teaching to another pupil for some time...

Or look at me with calculus. I suck at it, even after taking it in HS and college. OTOH, one of my classmates had taught himself calculus by his sophomore year.

The fact that there's only one Michael Jordan, one Pele, one Michelangelo, one Wayne Gretsky, one William Marshall, suggests that it's not just physical attributes or training or experience or even desire that makes exceptional people. Besides, one in ten thousand (0.001%)? Far less than that even play professional sport.

Certainly- there is opportunity. Just because you have all of MJ's physical gifts doesn't mean you'll get to use them playing B-ball. Perhaps you never leave the provincial farm you grew up on and nobody- not even you- suspect you could be leading your country to Olympic Medal contention.

Then there is desire- maybe you don't like B-ball at all, and fishing is your sport if choice.

Nutrition, health, culture, opportunity, drive, luck- all play their role.

I'm an entertainment attorney. I get to see all kinds of talented people trying to make it, some as good or better than artists making millions. One, having pulled strings to get a Sony exec to see his show at a Dallas nightclub is still unsigned. Not because he sucked- he definitely had talent and a good stage show- but because the night before his show, someone robbed the club of all it's equipment. No lights, no mics, no PA...no show. The Sony exec left within minutes and never granted my client another shot.

 

[Hussar]

DannyA, you can keep chucking up all the anecdotes you like, but, the game actually disagrees with you. Normal humans in 1e actually had different stats than PC's. Actually, scratch that. Normal humans in 1e DIDN'T HAVE STATS AT ALL. That's right, they didn't even HAVE a strength score, never mind not having a percentile one. Con? Nope. Dex, nope. Wis? Nonexistent. They did have an Int score - average int, which is 9.

Heck, the demi-humans were considered far more powerful than humans for the simple fact that there were no zero level demi-humans.

I'm kinda wondering though, how exactly that farmboy fresh off the turnip truck has enough money to buy armor and a weapon considering his take home pay is measured in silver pieces per month. 20 years might get him a longsword. Chainmail? Fergettaboutit. Yet, that 1st level fighter has enough resources to easily buy that and more.

You want a game where the PC's start as relative nothings? There are such games out there. Chivalry and Sorcery comes to mind and I'm sure there's others.

But D&D? D&D PC's have been head and shoulders above the rabble at level 1 since OD&D.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Again, without the need for a whole new subsystem, I think there is scope to build on the existing elements of 4e for this. Different paragon paths and epic destinies, for example, should have implications for the use of various skills, and how they factor into skill challenge framing and resolution (in just the same way that they have different powers that factor into combat framing and resolution).

I both agree and disagree with this, and not in a wishy-washy way, either.

I agree that building on such elements would provide a lot of gaming groups with enough to really make this shine. The DM and players would have to really want it, and go after it, but that would often be enough.

I disagree that this is a good way to do it from a design perspective. It is too tacked on, instead of integrated from level 1 forward. It is "horizontal" design when it should be "vertical". It is the same problem that fate points and other such constructs have. I've used such constructs in games, and they can help. But if they are not intrinsically tied into the reward cycle, then you have to stay after them to make them work:

1. Arcana Evolved or 3.5. The players pursue Hero points and action points, respectively, because they let you do extra stuff. In AE, you get them for being a great big hero. You use them when trying to be the great big hero falls completely flat. That is almost but not quite right.

2. Burning Wheel. The players pursue fate, persona, and deeds because fighting for what you believe is the only way for the character to improve a skill very much and with much speed (edge cases not withstanding).

It is not that the first way is bad. The negative side effects are rather slight, and it does produce some nice moments for those with the right attitude about them. It is merely so much less than what it could be. In my D&D, I'd rather have no such thing (and thus play old school style) or have something really thought through and robust, and thus play BW style. Ideally, in D&D, it would be optional. Otherwise, we get some muddled, weak, middle version that frequently turns into not heroic action, but saved as my "get out of jail free card", and about as exciting as playing that card in Monopoly.

Specifically, my objection along the above lines to paragon paths and epic destinies (and other similar things) is that they are trying too hard to be that middle ground. It would be better in my eyes if the whole bits were scrapped in favor of some paragon or epic thing that could develop in parallel with the fighting ability. It wouldn't even need to be the same rate as character advancement, either. If your epic destiny is to be a demi-god, start out that way. As you pursue your destiny, it unfolds. Or don't, and it doesn't.

 

[pawsplay]

How much training do you think it takes to gain the level of familiarity with weapons and armour shown by 1st level fighters in every edition of D&D.

To have a marginal advantage over an untrained human? Probably a few months. That's how long it takes to get a yellow belt, or to break in a new combat sports player, or for basic training in the military.