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

[billd91]

#4 says the point is to show mastery, not to win. Do you play games to intentionally lose? If you're in the process of playing a game, and you do something in-game to amuse your friends, you're drawing pleasure from the social aspect, not the game aspect.

How about if I'm playing D&D and get a massive crit with a greataxe? Can't I take pleasure from that or am I only deriving pleasure because my friends are high-fiving me? That's a major problem with #4 as you communicated it. There's nothing about mastery in lucking into an awesome result and enjoying the heck out of it. Nor is it deriving pleasure from the social aspect of getting together if I enjoy the way the game mechanics themselves come together and produce a result.

The point of a game is to play the game. But the only way that you're playing is to be engaged with the game. And that's because there's a very primal aspect of our nature that rewards you for engaging with a system.

The point of playing a game is to enjoy the time spent on it (unless you it for a living in which case getting a paycheck may also be a point to playing the game).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If the game is intended to be played a certain way (and I think the intention for D&D is tough-as-nails fighters, problem-solving thieves, healing clerics, and blasty wizards), then why do the rules support a play method that's opposed to the intention?

The rules also "support" a play method in which you gather at the table with your characters and try to kill one another. Explicitly or implicitly.

The rules support this.

It's not the way the game is intended to be played.

 

[Fifth Element]

Are you seriously questioning why an RPG might appeal or try to appeal to a broad market of people with differing tastes in play?

Presumably not. D&D does appeal to a wide variety of tastes, and this is one reason why some people who play D&D encounter the problem with dominant high-level wizards, and others don't. It's not that one group is a bunch of douchebags with a crappy DM; it's that different groups play the game in different ways.

 

[LostSoul]

Are you game?

I am game.

A couple of questions first:

Do I start with any spells prepared?
How do we encounter each other?
Are the drow 10th level because of their +2 level adjustment, or 12th level like you stated?

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not entirely sure Diamond Cross will be responding any more?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's not that one group is a bunch of douchebags with a crappy DM; it's that different groups play the game in different ways.

And that's fine. But when the way you choose to play the game means you're not having fun playing the game, either change the way you play the game or play a different game.

The people who are saying 3.5/PF doesn't work for them are completely willing to change everything that does work for us, because (apparently) they just can't control themselves from ruining the game for their fellow players.

When a player comes to the table and immediately engages in P v. P play, which the rules support, what's the proper thing to do (assuming the group doesn't want that kind of play)?

Why is the answer different if a player comes to the game with a rules-abusive cleric or druid or wizard (or, yes, even fighter or rogue)?

Why are these players incapable of having elements in the game that they don't seek to abuse to "win" D&D? "If it's in the game, I must make every conceivable effort to abuse it, whether it's fun for the other players or not"? 'Cause, I gotta be honest, that's what I'm hearing.

 

[TwoSix]

How about if I'm playing D&D and get a massive crit with a greataxe? Can't I take pleasure from that or am I only deriving pleasure because my friends are high-fiving me? That's a major problem with #4 as you communicated it. There's nothing about mastery in lucking into an awesome result and enjoying the heck out of it. Nor is it deriving pleasure from the social aspect of getting together if I enjoy the way the game mechanics themselves come together and produce a result.

But dude, the deriving the result is the system mastery! If you didn't have system mastery, rolling a 20 wouldn't mean anything, because you wouldn't be able to interpret it. You and I have system mastery, because we know that a 20 is good and 1 is bad. My mom wouldn't be happy if she rolled a 20, because she doesn't know the rules of D&D for that 20 to have any meaning. You're deriving pleasure from the understanding of a complex system.

Mastery != powergaming. "Mastery" as I'm using it isn't mastering as in control, it's mastering as in understanding.

 

[TwoSix]

Why are these players incapable of having elements in the game that they don't seek to abuse to "win" D&D? "If it's in the game, I must make every conceivable effort to abuse it, whether it's fun for the other players or not"? 'Cause, I gotta be honest, that's what I'm hearing.

Because when I play a game, I want to play to the best of my ability. If I don't, I'm not having as much fun. I have more fun playing Street Fighter against my 24 year old brother than against my 4 year old sons. Why? Because my brother is a challenge. I don't like playing chess against my wife. I'm not an expert, but I've played some, and she barely knows the pieces. So I have to hold myself back and mess around to not end the game. I have some fun trying unorthodox things, but it's just not the same as an actual challenge.

Playing a wizard in a party of Tier 4 or 5s is like playing Street Fighter against a 4 year old.

 

[Mort]

And that's fine. But when the way you choose to play the game means you're not having fun playing the game, either change the way you play the game or play a different game.

The people who are saying 3.5/PF doesn't work for them are completely willing to change everything that does work for us, because (apparently) they just can't control themselves from ruining the game for their fellow players.

When a player comes to the table and immediately engages in P v. P play, which the rules support, what's the proper thing to do (assuming the group doesn't want that kind of play)?

Why is the answer different if a player comes to the game with a rules-abusive cleric or druid or wizard (or, yes, even fighter or rogue)?

Why are these players incapable of having elements in the game that they don't seek to abuse to "win" D&D? "If it's in the game, I must make every conceivable effort to abuse it, whether it's fun for the other players or not"? 'Cause, I gotta be honest, that's what I'm hearing.

I'm realy not sure where you're getting this from at all. The whole point (certainly from me and from what I've seen the great majority in the thread) is what exactly causes a caster to be overpowered in some instances - and what can be done about it so it doesn't happen - there have been several suggestions both for why casters can be perseived as overpowered and what can be done about it? I don't see anyone yelling "I plan to abuse the system to the best of my ability and you can't stop me!"

Also, I'm not exactly getting what a player in your group would do to be considered abusive, rude etc.

Let's say a new player in a new campaign took color spray, for example. He uses it in several combats, which turns some potentially difficult combats into a cakewalk (cast colorspray incapacitate 2-4+ opponents, everyone beats them to a pulp etc.) - Is it wrong of him to continue to use one of the most powerful 1st level spells? Is it ok as long as he didn't realise how unbalanced the spell is (as it completely bypasses the HP mechanic and is save or die at first level) Is it ok as long as he's not a jerk about it?

What's the criteria? or is it more of a you know it when you see it type thing?

honestly curious.

 

[Fifth Element]

And that's fine. But when the way you choose to play the game means you're not having fun playing the game, either change the way you play the game or play a different game.

And plenty of people do; they play 4E among other games. That doesn't mean they didn't actually have a problem with 3E the system.

The people who are saying 3.5/PF doesn't work for them are completely willing to change everything that does work for us, because (apparently) they just can't control themselves from ruining the game for their fellow players.

How are they changing your game? No one's saying you should stop playing the way you play. They're saying that your claim that the problem does not or should not exist for anyone is specious.

Remember that you said if you don't play with douchebags and have a decent DM, this problem does not exist. You therefore appear unwilling to even accept that some people with good groups do have a problem with the game. I'm not insisting that you must have this problem; just that some people do and their problems with the system are legitimate.

For them, the system has this problem just like for you, it doesn't. I fully acknowledge that this problem does not crop up in your games. Can you acknowledge that it does occur in some people's games, and that doesn't necessarily mean they suck at playing?