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

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm using "magic" as short-form for "clerical, divine, or arcane magic, or other supernatural power". To me, you can substitute cleric for wizard in the entire argument and get the same results.

To be honest, it's a little bit of a tautology. What is magic? Magic is anything that allows you to break the normal physical rules.

The tautology matters, though, because it goes beyond "Cleric" and "Wizard."

Gandalf? Gandalf was the archangel Michael. He was also inspired by Odin, who was, you know, a god.
Merlin? Merlin was an antichrist.
Circe? Circe wasn't just a witch, she was also a minor goddess of magic.

When we look at "wizards" that D&D takes after, what we see is a direct connection to the divine.

My problem is when we then exclude the non-wizards from this. What of Hercules or Gilgamesh or Cu Chulain? The common response is: "Well, they're related to the gods." Well, yes, but so are the wizards!

If you have wizards and clerics in your game, you are already stating that it is alright for a Playable Character to be inherently supernatural. The only question now is: are all PCs supernatural, or are some not? If the answer is B, then the game you want is Ars Magica. If the answer is A, then it is not a question of verisimilitude, but rather of the ability or lack thereof of non-wizards to be supernatural. If anything, what destroys verisimilitude is the idea that "only wizards are allowed to be supernatural." That doesn't fit at all!

 

[Hussar]

On Verisimilitude.

The thing is, people tend to assume that powers are directly related to the user. And, it makes sense, if I try to pick a lock, I pull out my piece of wire and try to jimmy the lock. Totally understandable and believable.

But, what if I gave a character a power to do a "Knock" effect 1/day. Totally non-magical character. The player states they use their Knock effect and the lock pops open. Now, if you take the time to examine the lock, you would discover that it actually wasn't locked in the first place, it was swung shut, but, not latched. Or the lock was broken and the player's "Knock" effect simply exploited that.

Completely flies in the face of sim style play where the state of the lock must be determined up front. But, if you ignore that style of play for a second and grant meta-game abilities to the non-magical character, it's not that hard to justify most things in a believable way.

If you want to have "Cleave a Mountain" as an ability (ok, not likely, but possible) it's likely at this level the character has made friends with something powerful enough to cause earthquakes. When he uses this power, Atlas shrugs and the mountain splits in half.

All it really takes is a small bit of effort to link the ability to the game world and it becomes believable. Well, not sure on the mountain splitting one, but, you get the point.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, by your own admission, NPC fighters are outright better than a Normal Man, or, dare I say it, Bob the Turnip Farmer.

You left out the crucial word "average," which modifies the rest. There is still nothing preventing BtTF from having a level in a PC class and being "Normal" as opposed to a "Fantasy Hero." Unusual? Yes. But not to the point of seeing a zebra when you hear hooves rumbling on a Texas ranch.

Most of a world's NPCs will not have PC levels. But those that do have one or two, while rare, are also not noteworthy beyond the confines of their little town.

 

[pemerton]

The thing is, people tend to assume that powers are directly related to the user.

<snip>

Completely flies in the face of sim style play

A relevant quote from Ron Edwards:

Metagame mechanics, by definition, entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the system-operation. Now, it is foolish to speak of Simulationist play as lacking metagame; that would only apply if the people at the table were themselves rules-constructs as well as the rules, and that's silly. But compared to Gamist and Narrativist play, Simulationist play may be spoken of as lacking metagame interpersonal agenda, like "winning" or "doing well" in Gamism, or addressing a Premise in Narrativism. Its metagame, although fully social, is self-referential, to stay in-game. . .

To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame at all, and #2 is wholly metagame.

Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system - does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact, is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - character or player.​

So for warriors there are at least two options: (i) give them points to spend which, while not abilities of the PC itself, still correlate to the PC's standing among the supernatural beings of the gameworld ("Atlas shrugs on my behalf"); or (ii) give them points to spend which purely express the agency of the player at the metagame leleve (Come and Get It).

We know that (ii) causes a bit of controversy. I think even (i) might do so as well, even though it's not necessarily at odds with simulationism (for the sorts of reasons Edwards gives).

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

The world has physical rules.
Only someone with magic can break those rules.
Therefore, someone without magic cannot break those rules.

Cutting a mountain in half violates the physical rules of the world.
Therefore, someone without magic cannot cut a mountain in half.

The counter to that is that the rules of physics need not be the same as in real life. For example, Hulk is so strong that the normal laws of physics can stop applying to him if he is angry enough (up to and including ripping the fabric of reality with a powerful enough punch). He wasn't using magic (like Dr Strange would), but the physical rules of the Marvel Universe allows it to someone of sufficient physical strength.

Similarly, in a fantasy world, a warrior of sufficient power could, by the physical rules of that world, cut a mountain in half.

 

[Odhanan]

D&D is not fantasy literature, it's a role playing game.

Fantasy novels are not role playing games.

Wizards and Fighters are as (un)balanced in my D&D games as the players believe they are. What matters is what the characters (and thus the players) do, and how they do it. The number on the sheet are tools, suggestions of courses of action (I have no strength, so maybe this isn't such a good idea for me to wrestle this guy) - they are not the game itself. The rules are not the game. The game is not the rules.

 

[pawsplay]

Exactly! That is Option 3 of mine. Restrictive magic.

But D&D magic is much closer to Neo-Matrix style magic than it is to the other extremes.

No, it's not.

And do you honestly see someone who is bound by the rules of the physical world being able to defeat Neo in the Matrix?

That's actually what happens in the third Matrix movie, Neo gets killed by a really buff fighter.

 

[pawsplay]

.
To be honest, it's a little bit of a tautology. What is magic? Magic is anything that allows you to break the normal physical rules.

No, that's wonder. Once you codify and understand magic, you learn it operates by its own physical rules. Otherwise, how would you cast the same spell in the same way and get the same result each time?

 

[pawsplay]

So, by your own admission, NPC fighters are outright better than a Normal Man,

Yes.

or, dare I say it, Bob the Turnip Farmer.

No. Bob d'Turnippe is a 1st level fighter, and hence is exactly as good as an NPC fighter.

 

[pawsplay]

A relevant quote from Ron Edwards:

Metagame mechanics, by definition, entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the system-operation. Now, it is foolish to speak of Simulationist play as lacking metagame; that would only apply if the people at the table were themselves rules-constructs as well as the rules, and that's silly. But compared to Gamist and Narrativist play, Simulationist play may be spoken of as lacking metagame interpersonal agenda, like "winning" or "doing well" in Gamism, or addressing a Premise in Narrativism. Its metagame, although fully social, is self-referential, to stay in-game. . .

To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame at all, and #2 is wholly metagame.

Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system - does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact, is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - character or player.​

So for warriors there are at least two options: (i) give them points to spend which, while not abilities of the PC itself, still correlate to the PC's standing among the supernatural beings of the gameworld ("Atlas shrugs on my behalf"); or (ii) give them points to spend which purely express the agency of the player at the metagame leleve (Come and Get It).

We know that (ii) causes a bit of controversy. I think even (i) might do so as well, even though it's not necessarily at odds with simulationism (for the sorts of reasons Edwards gives).

Mainly what this demonstrates is that Ron Edwards has still never gotten his head around Torg, or Force Points.

But moving right along, there is nothing about meta-game resources that violates a simulation; that tension is purely an artifact of his assertion that "coherent" play is superior. "Karma" only violates a simualtion of a probabilistic world, which, guess what?, heroic fiction is not.