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

[TwoSix]

In what way is playing basketball by dribbling with your face playing as not intended?

Cast your mind out on the cushiony soles of some Nikes* and imagine actually playing basketball by dribbling with your face? Are you there?

(You are? Seriously? Damn ... )

Okay, in your imagination, is there any hint at all, as you face-dribble, that you're not playing as intended?

What is it that gives it away?

The broken nose, probably.

To extend the metaphor, I see 3e sort of like normal basketball, except that that 2' out from the 3-point line, there's a 20-point line. But most people keep on playing with Dwight Howard and Pau Gasol, not realizing that a Ray Allen type shooting guard is all you need to win the game.

Or to keep with the fantasy literature theme, 3e is like Quidditch. Sure, there are Chasers and Beaters and Keepers, but their only role is to keep busy and have fun until the Seeker wins the game, barring extremely contrived scenarios like Bulgaria-Ireland in the Quidditch World Cup.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

To extend the metaphor, I see 3e sort of like normal basketball, except that that 2' out from the 3-point line, there's a 20-point line. But most people keep on playing with Dwight Howard and Pau Gasol, not realizing that a Ray Allen type shooting guard is all you need to win the game.

Cool.

Hey, just out of curiosity, how exactly does one "win" at D&D?

See, I was talking about playing the game as intended, and then all of the sudden you're talking about winning the game. And, well, that seems to be a common factor in the "teh wizzard is b0rken" crowd. And, well, I don't think it's a coincidence.

 

[MrMyth]

Cool.

Hey, just out of curiosity, how exactly does one "win" at D&D?

See, I was talking about playing the game as intended, and then all of the sudden you're talking about winning the game. And, well, that seems to be a common factor in the "teh wizzard is b0rken" crowd. And, well, I don't think it's a coincidence.

Oh, come on now. You pushed heavily forward with the basketball metaphor, basketball being a competition that involves trying to win the game. And when he gives in and tries to respond via that metaphor, you use that as an excuse to cast his argument about trying to "win" D&D?

Seriously, poor form, man, poor form.

It has come up many times in this thread, but no matter how many times you put the idea forward, that doesn't make it true - it is entirely possible to run into these issues of some characters being more capable than others without that being the result of some players being out to 'win' the game or being inherently power-gamers or whatever other form of play you think is the 'wrong' way to play D&D.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Oh, come on now. You pushed heavily forward with the basketball metaphor, basketball being a competition that involves trying to win the game. And when he gives in and tries to respond via that metaphor, you use that as an excuse to cast his argument about trying to "win" D&D?

That's exactly the point. Within the bounds of the "basketball as game" analogy, there was no mention of winning the game. The entire analogy was on playing the game.

At which point he brought up winning the game. Are you saying that his analogy was no longer to D&D somehow?

It has come up many times in this thread, but no matter how many times you put the idea forward, that doesn't make it true

No, me putting something forward doesn't make it true. I observe truisms, I don't create them.

it is entirely possible to run into these issues of some characters being more capable than others without that being the result of some players being out to 'win' the game or being inherently power-gamers or whatever other form of play you think is the 'wrong' way to play D&D.

Sure. Once. Anybody can be a douchebag accidentally, and (as far as I'm concerned) everyboody gets at least one pass. But to continue to play in the way that turns out to be no fun, at some point it stops being accidental and starts being deliberate (or, at the most charitable, willfully ignorant).

Are you saying that the complainers in this thread are complaining based on one instance of accidental douchebaggery? Maybe so (anything's possible), but if so, they've got a whole other set of problems.

 

[TwoSix]

Cool.

Hey, just out of curiosity, how exactly does one "win" at D&D?

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women?

As to the rest, I think we hashed that over last week re: the desire to challenge oneself and the system while playing. So I'm not going to re-hash, especially since I don't have a prescription for it.

Meanwhile, everyone keep doing pick-and-rolls and dunking. It IS fun, after all. Doesn't make me stop wondering why they keep painting the 20-point line on the court. Is ignoring the line adding to your game, or is it just too much work to move to another court that doesn't have one?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Meanwhile, everyone keep doing pick-and-rolls and dunking. It IS fun, after all. Doesn't make me stop wondering why they keep painting the 20-point line on the court. Is ignoring the line adding to your game, or is it just too much work to move to another court that doesn't have one?

I'm pretty sure the line is painted in ink that is only visible to Bill Laimbeer-ish players, so we don't even see it. (So why would we give up a perfectly nice court?)


Jeff

P.S. "Jesus goes for the lay-up ... oh, he's fouled hard by Laimb -- oh, my God, Bill Laimbeer has just been turned into a pillar of salt!"

 

[MrMyth]

That's exactly the point. Within the bounds of the "basketball as game" analogy, there was no mention of winning the game. The entire analogy was on playing the game.

Except that, in Basketball, playing the game is pretty thoroughly tied to the competitive element, as it is not in D&D. He wasn't bringing in winning because of its relevance to D&D, but because of its relevance to basketball.

Sure. Once. Anybody can be a douchebag accidentally, and (as far as I'm concerned) everybody gets at least one pass. But to continue to play in the way that turns out to be no fun, at some point it stops being accidental and starts being deliberate (or, at the most charitable, willfully ignorant).

Are you saying that the complainers in this thread are complaining based on one instance of accidental douchebaggery? Maybe so (anything's possible), but if so, they've got a whole other set of problems.

Well, I've certainly seen single instances ruin an entire session or one-shot. But the point is two-fold: for one thing, what happens when you keep running into different spells that cause problems in different ways? The same sort of disruption can keep cropping up, even without setting out to do so.

But, secondly... you run into a lose-lose situation.

Either you play the wizard with the full capability you want it to have, and that the game gives you - at which point you sideline other party members and are, apparently, a 'douchebag'.

Or you avoid any and all useful utility spells or over-effective combat spells, at which point your own enjoyment is severely hindered - since playing the game the way "it is supposed to be played" apparently involves knowing which spells are balanced and which ones are not, and throwing out everything that doesn't play well with others. Which, honestly, should be the job of the designers, not the players.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But, secondly... you run into a lose-lose situation.

Well, no ... maybe you do. Many, many, many of us do not.

For some reason, you feel that of three alternatives -- (a) stop playing the way you play, (b) find a game that suits you better, or (c) force the rest of us to accept (or just acknowledge some need for) a change we don't need -- you guys go for (c).

Again, this isn't a coincidence.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm pretty sure the line is painted in ink that is only visible to Bill Laimbeer-ish players, so we don't even see it. (So why would we give up a perfectly nice court?)


Jeff

P.S. "Jesus goes for the lay-up ... oh, he's fouled hard by Laimb -- oh, my God, Bill Laimbeer has just been turned into a pillar of salt!"

Bill Laimbeer? Dude, how old ARE you?

I guess that's the difference. That line is neon-green for me every time I make a wizard's spellbook, or have to pick my cleric's spells for the day. I can resist the urge, sure. But it's doubly hard because I know I can trivialize the encounter, and that most of the other players won't even notice. ("Wow, the warmage did like 12d6+12 damage!")

 

[Stormonu]

Or you avoid any and all useful utility spells or over-effective combat spells, at which point your own enjoyment is severely hindered - since playing the game the way "it is supposed to be played" apparently involves knowing which spells are balanced and which ones are not, and throwing out everything that doesn't play well with others. Which, honestly, should be the job of the designers, not the players.

No, the players have as much, if not more resposibility than the designers. Why are we relying on the designers to make rules against face-dribbling when players should have perfect sense not to do so themselves?

Back on the knock example; this isn't only the tool of the wizard. The rogue can pick the lock, the fighter can bash the door in. The problem comes in the fact it takes the fighter or the rogue a minute or two to do so. The wizard does it in a matter of seconds, and without a check of some sort. Supposably, this was balanced by the fact the wizard would only be doing this maybe once an adventure, whereas the fighter or rogue could employ their door-opening skill at any time.

Somewhere along the way though, people started arguing the wizard was broken because he could things like this any and every time it came up, often forgetting that D&D isn't played as one encounter per day and the wizard whose blown his all his spell allotment on these kind of things is going to get eaten by the grue on the other side of the door.