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

[Mort]

...OR that at some point after he started- something supernatural like a magic ritual, a radioactive spider bite, super-soldier serum, a shower of chemicals charged with the electricity from a lightning strike, a gamma or cosmic ray burst, an infusion of alien nanotech, etc.- gave him innate (not trained) abilities that would be otherwise impossible for any human to have.

This is the disconnect. You're saying unless he was born that way (though you could argue that batman was born "that way" but there was a trigger to finish it off) or some outside force intervened, he's simply human. I'm saying the combination of factors that make Batman who he is - the extreme wealth, the mental ability and focus above just about any other superhero, the physical perfection, the ability to excell at anything he tries (training is one thing, being regarded as the top of the heap of martial artists in the DC Universe is something else entirely) - makes "human" especially "normal human" just a mark on the page and not really applicable.

To put it another way, yes Batman had to work at it, unlike Superman for example, but he had everything there to work with; no one else, not even in the DC Universe could work their way to his level, not really. And that takes him beyond normal human.

Hmm, maybe I'll have to read the rest of the thread and focus on the actual question, sorry for the threadjack.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You're saying unless he was born that way (though you could argue that batman was born "that way" but there was a trigger to finish it off) or some outside force intervened, he's simply human.

Yep. And just so we're clear, no DC writer has ever implied that he was anything but a normal- albeit rich- kid.

I'm saying the combination of factors that make Batman who he is- <snip>- makes "human" especially "normal human" just a mark on the page and not really applicable

With which sentiment I simply can't agree...for a variety of reasons.

Wealth is not a super power. Burning some portion of that fortune spending your entire waking life training in various martial and mental disciplines is not a super power. Being able to plan many moves ahead is not a super power. And so forth.

What he has at his disposal, he has in extreme abundance, but he has nothing that rises to the level of paranormal, i.e. outside the realms of human possibility.

Or, to put it another way, a paragon of humanity is still, ultimately, human.

training is one thing, being regarded as the top of the heap of martial artists in the DC Universe

Except he's NOT top of the heap of martial artists in the DC universe. One of the best? Absolutely. The clear number 1? No.

Again, I'll refer to the closing issue of the Manhunter series in which, while Batman got bogged down in the crowd of martial arts fighters, Paul Kirk cut right through, criticizing Bat's skills.

To put it another way, yes Batman had to work at it, unlike Superman for example, but he had everything there to work with; no one else, not even in the DC Universe could work their way to his level, not really. And that takes him beyond normal human.

Within the DC universe, others HAVE reached equivalent levels of competence.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Double Post

 

[JoeGKushner]

I take it you never saw On Her Majesty's Secret Service. In the final scene, Bond's newly wed wife is sniped down and dies in his arms.

The incident is again referenced in License to Kill.

It is very clear that, in this at least, Bond lost.

See also how he fails to save Vesper in Casino Royale, and how that subsequently affects him in Quantum of Solace. Again, quite clear that Bond can fail, and that he can lose things he cannot replace.



RC

Ah, but now we come to conflict! Conflict, potential loss, ennui, despair, character motivation! These things happen to almost all characters including fully standard super hero ones and can be character defining moments like when fans phoned in to kill Robin. How many times did we see that display case get broken in the Batcave?

 

[JoeGKushner]

...OR that at some point after he started- something supernatural like a magic ritual, a radioactive spider bite, super-soldier serum, a shower of chemicals charged with the electricity from a lightning strike, a gamma or cosmic ray burst, an infusion of alien nanotech, etc.- gave him innate (not trained) abilities that would be otherwise impossible for any human to have.

And yet despite not having any innate abilities, his scope of focus enables him to move among the super human so then the net result is... yup, Batman is essentially a super human despite not having any 'super powers' that any other human could use. The nature of the setting makes that possible. Superman = impossible. Batman fighting Superman and as a normal human winning? No possible but happens frequently enough because in the nature of Batman's setting, where the laws of physics decide to take a nap, well, Power Armor and other things are the norm depending on where in the Batman spectrum we are.

Two recent examples would probably be from the movies where Superman/Batman get introduced to the new Supergirl. The Amazon's isle comes under attack from Doomsday clones. Somehow Batman survives this. Part of it is the standard super-Bat Tech that once again, no normal human would have access to. Part of it plot protection.

The other one would be the Red Hood animated feature. While still doing things that some would argue are 'normally humanly possible', its on the lower end of the Bat Spectrum.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, but now we come to conflict! Conflict, potential loss, ennui, despair, character motivation! These things happen to almost all characters including fully standard super hero ones and can be character defining moments like when fans phoned in to kill Robin. How many times did we see that display case get broken in the Batcave?

As should be obvious, conflict happens whether you win or lose.

Loss happens only when you lose.

No one claimed that only superhumans or non-humans could experience conflict; it was claimed that not losing was a sign of being superhuman.

Of characters who, in fact, have lost.


RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As should be obvious, conflict happens whether you win or lose.

Loss happens only when you lose.

No one claimed that only superhumans or non-humans could experience conflict; it was claimed that not losing was a sign of being superhuman.

Of characters who, in fact, have lost.


RC

Utterly irrelevant. He has experienced loss as the emotion. He has not lost as the narrative design.

Narrative.

The word has meaning.

I'm expressing this to the entire thread because this is the disconnect.

...OR that at some point after he started- something supernatural like a magic ritual, a radioactive spider bite, super-soldier serum, a shower of chemicals charged with the electricity from a lightning strike, a gamma or cosmic ray burst, an infusion of alien nanotech, etc.- gave him innate (not trained) abilities that would be otherwise impossible for any human to have.

As I already said, you put far too much emphasis on origin stories, but I think I see the disconnect.

In the "world of the DC universe," Batman is a normal guy. In the world of the Rambo universe, Rambo is a normal guy. In the world of the James Bond story, James Bond is a normal guy. And in the mythology as it is told, Beowulf is a normal guy.

In terms of narrative design, they are not.

Narrative matters. Batman is an "ordinary man" compared to Superman, but still wins at the end of the day against other Evil Supermans. Rambo is an ordinary man who nonetheless rips a great big machinegun - sized hole through third world countries filled with baddies. James Bond is an ordinary man but still defeats every other "ordinary man" he comes across. Beowulf is an ordinary man, but he rips off Grendal's arm, dives underwater for several hours, kills Grendal's Mother, and slays a dragon.

Because narratively speaking they aren't ordinary characters. They're protagonists, which in of itself makes them extraordinary, but also gives them narrative power. Beowulf isn't the son of the gods. He's not a magical sorcerer. He is by all accounts an entirely mundane king in the scope of his "world." But because he is narratively the protagonist, he isn't juts "a normal guy."

Narrative matters. Ignoring it leads to crappy stories and crappy games.

 

[fanboy2000]

As I already said, you put far too much emphasis on origin stories, but I think I see the disconnect.

Of course he's putting an emphasis on origin stories. The original contention was that a first level fighter couldn't have been a farm boy in D&D. The disconnect is that people are using stories set after Batman's had enough time to raise a son from 12 to adulthood, and start doing it again, as evidence that he was never normal.

If you start a D&D game at first level and the backstory is that you're PC was a farm boy, then that's your character's backstory. Of course you're not going to stay a farm boy, that's boring. But your PC still started out as a normal farm boy.

It's like saying Abraham Lincoln couldn't have been born in a one-room log cabin in Kentucky to a farmer because he later became President of the United States.

Narrative matters. Ignoring it leads to crappy stories and crappy games.

I agree.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Of course he's putting an emphasis on origin stories. The original contention was that a first level fighter couldn't have been a farm boy in D&D. The disconnect is that people are using stories set after Batman's had enough time to raise a son from 12 to adulthood, and start doing it again, as evidence that he was never normal.

If you start a D&D game at first level and the backstory is that you're PC was a farm boy, then that's your character's backstory. Of course you're not going to stay a farm boy, that's boring. But your PC still started out as a normal farm boy.

It's like saying Abraham Lincoln couldn't have been born in a one-room log cabin in Kentucky to a farmer because he later became President of the United States.

The problem I have is that he is claiming that because Batman has "normal guy" as an origin story he can never be thought of as being extrahuman or superhuman unless something objectively supernatural happens to him.H is belief is that the supernatural requires the supernatural to occur. Batman can't be a superhero because an alien never gives him a magic ring, or because a radioactive spider never bites him.

In other words, you can never be Beowulf, because a wizard never makes him magical.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Or have fewer spells that replace skills.

Or have most spells that emulate skills operate based on some kind of class level basis.

Or make spellcasters' "learning spells" decisions more focused- like what happens with Specialization- or more randomized- as per previous editions.

Or, or, or.

"Magicing-up" the warrior isn't the only solution. It may not even be the best.

100% AGREED!

These options -- ideally, I think used simultaneously -- all help reduce that wizard vs. warrior balance problem in a way similar to the way fiction handles it.

Personally, I'm in favor of more boosting up the warrior rather than tearing down the spellcaster. The reason for this is that "spells" (and effects that functionally work the same) are more fun and heroic than percentage chances of success.

The most helpful thing to look at in D&D history here, is, I think, the difference between the 4.0 Magic Missile and the 4.e Magic Missile.

The old 4e MM required a roll to hit, and basically worked like firing off a (weak) arrow. It introduced a "roll for success" element.

The new MM just deals its damage automagically. It does not have a "roll for success" element.

Even though the new MM is largely considered a weaker, less effective power, I find it more fun and heroic than the old one, simply because it just works. It doesn't have a chance of failure. I like that effect. It is empowering, as a player, to be able to just do something, and to force the world to react, rather than to try and do something, and potentially fail. If fantasy heroes fail, it isn't usually because they aren't skilled, it's because their weakness is exploited, or because their enemies have fantastic levels of skill in whatever is opposing the hero.

I want warriors to be able to do the same thing. I'd much rather have that then have wizards rolling to hit with Magic Missile.

Spider Climb, to me, isn't that big of a deal. By itself. I've seen many films and read many stories in which spellcasters did essentially the same thing.

OTOH, if your game is full of spells that let you best any skill at any time...and there is insufficient "scarcity" of spells to make doing so a realistic opportunity cost, there is a problem.

I'm just not convinced that there is insufficient scarcity.

I'm not sure "scarcity" is the problem. Making Spider Climb scarce doesn't make the rogue feel better when he's outshone because the wizard's player got lucky.

However, I do think that "scarcity" can be a solution (see: my idea of making all class powers work as treasure), as long as its applied on a broader level.

It's the idea that any character might gain an ability something like Spider Climb. Maybe it's the mage, maybe it's the rogue, maybe it's the fighter, maybe it's the cleric...

Or the idea that only one character is ever going to be good at climbing. It might be the Wizard, or it might be the Rogue, or it might be the Fighter, or it might be the Cleric....

At any rate, you're not telling Batman to roll to climb while Merlin just does it.