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

[Raven Crowking]

Not "always say yes" - "try to say yes" as in not a knee jerk no. For me this is much more applicable to in game situations (swing on the chandalier - sure, throw the table at 2 mooks to nock them over - try it and quite likely - etc.).

This I agree with; but I don't think that the WotC advice reads like that at all, at all. Nor do I think that everyone who reads the WotC advice comes to this conclusion.

"Say Yes" in the WotC books is, IMHO, as much (or more) about selling splats as it is about DMing/GMing. If the DM is going to say No to your splat, there is no reason to buy it. If the DM is going to say Yes, you can "win the game" with your wallet.

(Actually, on further reflection, it is very, very suprising that TSR kept with the "Check with your DM first" line in the 2e era.)



RC

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Well, you seem to be framing the discussion not only as "3E is fine" but also as "4E is bad." That seems like the same attitude you're attacking here.

Dude, I wasn't the one that even brought up 4E. I didn't even mention it, until I was asked to explain why I didn't like the "solution" it provided.

I do not like 4E, but I have not been an edition warrior for a long, long time. You don't get to ask me why I dislike 4E and then feign indignation when I explain why I dislike 4E.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This fits pretty well with my pet theory: Many GMs that play/played D&D for a long time had to deal with this problem (in much smaller form) since 1st edition and they learned how to adapt. At this point they have multiple tricks/table rules/ unwritten agreements that control the problem. Many of these solutions are applied without thinking too much, for example Danny houseruling in spell access from earlier editions.

Just a point of clarification: we haven't actually HRed the old acess rules into 3.5 in any active campaign. I have a campign I've been designing for a few years in which such rules will not just be used, but are actually derived from the state of the world- IOW, essential to the fabric of the setting.

What has actually restricted spell access has been: 1) the fact that most of the guys running games have limited sourcebook access and 2) personal PC design choices.

Of the latter, some are non-optimized because of matching concept & mechanics (like me), others due to inexperience or lack of an impulse to optimize...despite everyone in the group having more than a decade's experience in the hobby (and D&D in particular).

 

[Raven Crowking]

You don't get to ask me why I dislike 4E and then feign indignation when I explain why I dislike 4E.

Um.....You do know this is the InterWeb, don't you?

 

[Fifth Element]

I do not like 4E, but I have not been an edition warrior for a long, long time. You don't get to ask me why I dislike 4E and then feign indignation when I explain why I dislike 4E.

I didn't ask.

I'm not feigning anything, I'm asking you to explain why, if you don't like people calling your game unfun, can you not see why others would not like you calling their game dumbed-down?

 

[Mort]

I actually do and I don't follow any kind of randomized scarcity to the spells a spellcaster can pick up as he levels up. And I still don't see significant problems with casters being super-powerful compared to melee characters... with one exception. And that exception is a player who pushes at the boundaries of power while the rest don't. So I'm totally on board with the issue mainly being one of play style.

When my players make wands and scrolls but do so from a support character point of view (making healing, general buffing, or protecting wands and scrolls), they're not being a problem. When the player starts to view the item creation/buying rules as being a rudimentary point-buy system for personal power-ups, then we start to run into problems, particularly if that player views the game as competition between himself and other players.

But this is not a play style issue - not really. What you've essentially said is: the casters don't step on others toes because they don't want to be rude/unfun. You and your players are seeing a system issue and consciouly playing around it. My players and I were much the same - we saw the potential issue but it did not get in the way because we knew how to get around it and frankly I have a great laid back group. 3e/3.5 is a good system but left unchecked there can be large problems with spellcasters as levels get higher, I don't think this statement is that controversial.

On this same vein: One of the best campaigns I've ever played in (lasted 5 years and I only stopped when I moved away) was a RIFTS game. I will proclaim loudly how much fun I had with the DM, the players and the campaign - it was great. Does not in anyway change the fact that the RIFTS rules system is (IMO opinion of course) absolutely awful.

 

[billd91]

But this is not a play style issue - not really. What you've essentially said is: the casters don't step on others toes because they don't want to be rude/unfun. You and your players are seeing a system issue and consciouly playing around it. My players and I were much the same - we saw the potential issue but it did not get in the way because we knew how to get around it and frankly I have a great laid back group. 3e/3.5 is a good system but left unchecked there can be large problems with spellcasters as levels get higher, I don't think this statement is that controversial.

I don't think the game needs to do much, as a system, to discourage that behavior or, perhaps more accurately, shouldn't do too much. But then, I've played a number of more open point-based character generation games like Champions and Mutants and Masterminds as well as other widely varying character build games like Villains and Vigilantes. I prefer to have the flexibility and variation that can then be used as tools in the game rather than try to do away with them systematically.

In other words, while it may be a part of the system to have the potential for disparity, that's a feature of the system should I choose to use it, not a bug.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm not feigning anything, I'm asking you to explain why, if you don't like people calling your game unfun, can you not see why others would not like you calling their game dumbed-down?

I didn't call it dumbed down. I called it "equalized" -- recognized it, actually, as I was responding to a post that pointed out its equalized nature -- and used a literary allusion to why I feel that "equalized" is not always a good thing.

Personally speaking, I think there's only one thing truly "dumbed down" in 4E (diagonal movement). I think lots of stuff has been "padded for safety" to the point at which I don't recognize what's under the padding, but I don't think it's any less complex than 3E.

 

[Mort]

I don't think the game needs to do much, as a system, to discourage that behavior or, perhaps more accurately, shouldn't do too much. But then, I've played a number of more open point-based character generation games like Champions and Mutants and Masterminds as well as other widely varying character build games like Villains and Vigilantes. I prefer to have the flexibility and variation that can then be used as tools in the game rather than try to do away with them systematically.

In other words, while it may be a part of the system to have the potential for disparity, that's a feature of the system should I choose to use it, not a bug.

I only see it as a feature if everyone has access to it. Point based systems are like this, they can have massive disparity between powers etc. But since everyone has access this can work itself out. The problem with this comparison in 3e is that most of the truly gamebreabing stuff is there for the casters but not there for the non-casters - as such I'd go much more with bug than feature.

I will say that some late 3e supplements (Bo9s and PHB II for example) closed the gap quite a bit (though reaction was at best mixed) and Pathfinder has also gotten on the bandwagon that fighter feats are not required to suck - which has also been a big help.

 

[Fifth Element]

I didn't call it dumbed down. I called it "equalized" -- recognized it, actually, as I was responding to a post that pointed out its equalized nature -- and used a literary allusion to why I feel that "equalized" is not always a good thing.

Your literary reference explicitly refers to intentioanlly bringing great things down in order for them to be on "equal footing" with lesser things. You didn't use the words dumbed down, but the implication is clear. How else would we interpret that reference?