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

[pemerton]

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.

There is a difference here between karma and the hypothesised karma points.

There is no issue for simulationist play if fighters have powers like "Cleave Mountain: when you use this power, the top falls off a mountain." This would resemble many traditional D&D spells.

When the fighter starts to have karma points, however, that the player of the fighter may use to start changing the ingame situation in various ways, then it becomes a potentially different matter. If all the karma points do is eg provide a temporary bonus to defence or attack, it's probably not a big deal - and in fact these probably wouldn't be metagame mechanics in the relevant sense, as they would represent the fighter in question exering a heroic effort, or perhaps being the beneficiary of the forces of luck in the universe.

But the more open-ended the karma points, the more the threat to simulation, as they allow the player to control ingame events in a way that fails to respect hitherto-established ingame causal logic. Come and Get It is 4e's poster-child for this.

In practice, Come and Get It has produced widespread calls either to reintroduce ingame causation as modelled via probabilities (the frequently-mooted attack vs Will), or to allow the GM an override in order to preserve the integrity of the ingame situation (so Come and Get It works as written most of the time, but the GM will exempt, for example, the unarmed mage with only ranged attacks, on an ad hoc basis).

I think that even Hussar's mooted idea, in which the resource in question has an ingame rationale (high level fighter's attract the interest of supernatural forces) would be likely to produce widespread hostility. After all, the uniform skill progression in 4e could easily be explained in such terms (although I personally prefer to treat it as primarily a metagame-driven thing), but has nevertheless been widely criticised. Just the same as there are widespread calls to be able to play a wizard who knows nothing about swimming and has no friends among the waterspirits who help out with it, so I would expect there to be widespread calls to be able to play a fighter who has know supernatural allies but relies purely on his/her own mind and body.

 

[pawsplay]

But the more open-ended the karma points, the more the threat to simulation, as they allow the player to control ingame events in a way that fails to respect hitherto-established ingame causal logic. Come and Get It is 4e's poster-child for this.

In practice, Come and Get It has produced widespread calls either to reintroduce ingame causation as modelled via probabilities (the frequently-mooted attack vs Will), or to allow the GM an override in order to preserve the integrity of the ingame situation (so Come and Get It works as written most of the time, but the GM will exempt, for example, the unarmed mage with only ranged attacks, on an ad hoc basis).

The problem is that Come and Get It was conceived as a combination of skill and karma, but was enacted as a spell. That still wouldn't be a problem, except the spell is weakly written. It's not karmic events that harm the simulation, it's powers that don't simulate anything. You can give fighters "powers" in a simulation game; Hero System games do it all the time. Come and Get It is just a very abstract resource.

You could prevent Come and Get It from rupturing the simulation just by saying the game map shows only relative positions and turn order does not reflect a strictly chronological turn of events. And you're done. Whether or not Come and Get It provides a satisfying play experience of course depends on your expectations.

 

[Bluenose]

The problem is that Come and Get It was conceived as a combination of skill and karma, but was enacted as a spell. That still wouldn't be a problem, except the spell is weakly written. It's not karmic events that harm the simulation, it's powers that don't simulate anything. You can give fighters "powers" in a simulation game; Hero System games do it all the time. Come and Get It is just a very abstract resource.

You could prevent Come and Get It from rupturing the simulation just by saying the game map shows only relative positions and turn order does not reflect a strictly chronological turn of events. And you're done. Whether or not Come and Get It provides a satisfying play experience of course depends on your expectations.

What is D&D simulating, then? Reality, good luck explaining turn-based movement. Myth, no-one should be looking directly at Medusa (who is a singular creature) directly and surviving. Fantasy literature, where that nice Mister Conan gets knocked unconscious by a single slingshot. If you start with what you want to simulate, that's one thing, but D&D doesn't seem ever to have gone that way. It's a mish-mash of things people thought were cool, on a system chassis which is fundamentally not simulationist.

 

[pawsplay]

What is D&D simulating, then? Reality, good luck explaining turn-based movement. Myth, no-one should be looking directly at Medusa (who is a singular creature) directly and surviving. Fantasy literature, where that nice Mister Conan gets knocked unconscious by a single slingshot. If you start with what you want to simulate, that's one thing, but D&D doesn't seem ever to have gone that way. It's a mish-mash of things people thought were cool, on a system chassis which is fundamentally not simulationist.

D&D is not simulating reality or myth, but an imaginary space in which adventurers confront dire foes, befuddling wondrous puzzles, and legendary challenges. Putting Conan, Medusa, or realistic tactics into that space is an additional bit of work, but that doesn't mean D&D doesn't simulate anything. The presumption that D&D is either a genre-simulating game or a realistical enactment is not justified. Another way of saying mish-mash is "pastiche," which describes exactly the incorporation of elements across media. Since D&D is not a book, it cannot be a Conan story, although it can refer to one.

As for what the imaginary space is supposed to look like, you do pretty well if you cleave closely to Leiber, Vance, Moorcock, and Dunsany.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As for what the imaginary space is supposed to look like, you do pretty well if you cleave closely to Leiber, Vance, Moorcock, and Dunsany.

You mean "settings in which wizards are incredibly rare, know three, maybe four spells max, and rely heavily on magical items?"

Because that doesn't seem to fit the description of D&D in the slightest.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The F1 is distinguished from the normal guy just off the turnip wagon. End of story. It doesn't matter how much, just that he is.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: See, someone is arguing exactly that.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: Are you really telling me that you cannot imagine any instance where a Ftr 1, in any edition, regardless of statistics, can be considerd a normal human? Really?

Even in the case where the Ftr 1 and turnip farmer are statistically identical (excpept for terminology), or the Ftr 1 is statistically inferior?

And is that because you are unable to imagine how the Ftr 1 may be considered a normal human? Or is it wrongbadfun to do so?


RC

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: See, someone is arguing exactly that.

From a recent post of his upthread I thought he meant that they are distinguishd at the metagame level - for example, the F1 has prospects, in the game, that the turnip farmer that the game labels Normal Man lacks - even if, in flavour text up to time zero in the gameworld they don't differ.

I agree with you that in some early editions of D&D that difference in prospects is fairly minor - the more this is so, the more I agree with KM that we have discovered a mechanical weakness in that edition.

But anyway, that's enough from me on this issue - the very fact that I just agreed with KM about how it is to be resolved means that, from my point of view, it is really a non-issue, just because its only a historical question about identifying weaknesses in past editions.

And I should let Hussar speak for himself.

 

[NoWayJose]

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.

The Hulk's strength is at least explained by gamma-induced mutation. Enough people "buy" into that justification enough to enjoy the comics and movies with some suspension of disbelief.

If a fantasy warrior cut a mountain in half without context or explanation, it would come across as too surreal or mythical.

Taking that point a little further, if a fantasy warrior could summon the herculean strength to smash the peak off a mountain, but he can't smash down a stone door or cut the head off a giant, that kind of glaring inconsistency greatly detracts from believability.

That would be like giving the Hulk a "Hulk Smash: Mountaintop" feat but a strength of 18 for Str checks, or a scenario where he has one "Hulk Smash: Mountaintop" power but already used up his 3 x "Hulk Smash: Earthquake" and "Hulk Smash: Wall". (Permerton and Hussar would say there's always some believable justification for these gross inconsistencies -- I'd say that's bending over backwards to point of snapping your spine in half to claim that Hulk can smash the top of a mountain but he can't smash the wall because he already smashed 3 walls that day.)

So if a fantasy character is going to violate the laws of physics as we're comfortable believing in a fantasy world, it helps to have an explanation/justification, and it helps to be somewhat consistent when applying that explanation.

 

[pawsplay]

You mean "settings in which wizards are incredibly rare, know three, maybe four spells max, and rely heavily on magical items?"

Because that doesn't seem to fit the description of D&D in the slightest.

So wizards are common and don't rely on magical items in D&D? Ironically enough, the characters I am referring to actually own only a handful of magical items, with the possible exception of Turjan.

I'm less familiar with Dunsany, but Vance, Leiber, and Moorcock all cast spellcasters in protagonist roles. Turjan, from Vance, knows over a hundred spells. Leiber's Grey Mouser is a magic-user/thief; I don't know how many spells he knows, exactly. The Lankhmar stories in which he appears virtually defined the D&D urban environment. Moorcock had several fighter/magic-user protagonists, including Elric and Corum. One of Elric's adversaries was a powerful sorcerer who used no magical items, and could cast a startling variety of spells by bending reality, at the snap of a finger. I'm not sure what you're using for reference, but those stories are clearly some of the most infulential stories which inspired D&D, and have been stated as such by Gary Gygax. Maybe you know better than Gary what D&D is.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: See, someone is arguing exactly that.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: Are you really telling me that you cannot imagine any instance where a Ftr 1, in any edition, regardless of statistics, can be considerd a normal human? Really?

Even in the case where the Ftr 1 and turnip farmer are statistically identical (excpept for terminology), or the Ftr 1 is statistically inferior?

And is that because you are unable to imagine how the Ftr 1 may be considered a normal human? Or is it wrongbadfun to do so?


RC

Actually, there is another area you're ignoring - saving throws. The F1 actually has better saves than the Normal Man. See, in any edition of the game, by the mechanics, a F1 is incapable of being statistically inferior, because the Normal Man either has no stats (other than Int, I suppose) or has straight 10's and 11's across the board.

Question: When you say "normal human" are you defining that in a real world sense of someone with the right number of chromosomes, or do you mean the game defined meaning of normal human? Because, throughout this, I've been speaking to the second and not the first.

Question Number 2: Are we speaking about PC's or NPC's? There is a difference.