D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Doug McCrae]

I think to some extent D&D does simulate magic in fiction, namely The Dying Earth, Tolkien, and maybe Dr Strange. Trouble is, in the fiction it simulates wizards are just better than non-wizards.

The fantasy supplement for Chainmail (1971), the medieval wargame that was a major source for D&D, features wizards who can cast powerful spells such as fireball at will. They aren't yet Vancian. Tolkien is the major influence, and to a lesser extent Howard (the only two authors mentioned). There are nazgul, balrogs and hobbits, and Tolkien is specifically credited as the source for dragons. Gandalf the wizard is the most powerful member of the 'party' in both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and the only character able to employ effective showy fast magic such as fire and lightning (though the magic of Elrond, Galadriel, and Sauron is arguably stronger).

It seems to me that in creating OD&D (1974), Gygax and Arneson retained the potent flashbang magic of Chainmail, but sought to limit it for reasons of class balance. The balancing mechanic chosen was derived from Jack Vance's Dying Earth, in particular the short story Mazirian the Magician (1950). In this tale Mazirian is pursuing a woman thru a forest that contains many dangers (it's a very D&D-y monster-filled world). He has memorised five spells. Each spell is efficacious enough to allow him to overcome an encounter. He kills a deodand with Phandaal's Gyrator, slays Thrang the "ghoul-bear" with the Excellent Prismatic Spray, and uses the Omnipotent Sphere to survive collapsing stone blocks. He is finally defeated only because he faces a sixth encounter and is by now out of magic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think to some extent D&D does simulate magic in fiction, namely The Dying Earth, Tolkien

Freakishly, though, D&D MUs, even back in the day, outstripped those sources "Gandalf was a 5th level Magic-User," the greatest Dying Earth magicians could memorize only a few spells at a time (though, they could be pretty butch spells - imagine if high level D&D wizards could choose between memorizing either up to 6 1st or 2nd level spells, or up to 4 6th+ level spells.)

...and maybe Dr Strange.

Wha? A comic book?

It seems to me that in creating OD&D (1974), Gygax and Arneson retained the potent flashbang magic of Chainmail, but sought to limit it for reasons of class balance. The balancing mechanic chosen was derived from Jack Vance's Dying Earth

That squares with what he wrote, yeah - also, that he went with the short, spoken spells of Vance vs the more typical ritual magic of myth/legend/RL-practice/etc, to keep the PC caster viable.

Of course, the result was LFQW.

Trouble is, in the fiction it simulates wizards are just better than non-wizards.

Even if we want to hang Tier 1 caster-dominance's pointy had on that justification (and even if it held), it would clash with the whole 'Vancian for balance' idea, since, y'know, why limit magic to make it balanced if the caster were supposed to be 'just better?'
Since balance was part of the idea, and is certainly something games, especially cooperative ones, need to avoid sucking, it wouldn't make sense to go ahead and intentionally make casters "just better" then weight them the same as other classes (you get to pick one class). The difference in exp tables hardly qualified - there were times in the progression that a fighter & MU with the same xp would be the same level, or even the MU /higher/ level than the fighter - though, I do recall an obscure imitator, Ysgarth, that made exp progression weight very differently for different classes, the wizard heaviest of all, so it's not like no one ever explored the idea, D&D just didn't take it very far, and abandoned it entirely in 3e.

, in particular the short story Mazirian the Magician (1950).[]/quote] He has memorised five spells.

So, he too, was a 5th level magic user?

Each spell is powerful enough to allow him to defeat an encounter.

TBF, an encounter with a single monster.

He kills a deodand with Phandaal's Gyrator, slays Thrang the "ghoul-bear" with the Excellent Prismatic Spray, and uses the Omnipotent Sphere to survive collapsing stone blocks. He is finally defeated only because he faces a sixth encounter and is by now out of magic.

And, he also used one of those 5 spells to breath under water as well, where the stone blocks were pushed over on him, but each of the other spells just killed* something. Modelling killing something in D&D can range from a d4 of damage on up, so it's not terribly indicative, really depends on what you're killing. Though, yeah, those're some flashy spells (that Phandaal, he was a card).

But, perhaps most importantly, Vance is where they got the habit of naming spells after their creator. Because, afterall, wizards don't "memorize" their spells anymore, but Tenser, Mordenkainen, et al still have spells named after them.

Still in all honestly I find those who pick non magic users baffling, why play someone who fools around with knifes when you can play someone who can bend reality?

The fighter has been the most popular D&D class in every edition: when it was just a d10 HD, decent matrixes, permission to use more weapons/armor than other classes, and % STR in 1e, to the DPR king it could be in 2e and (shared crown) 5e, to the elegant but Tier 5 design of 3.x, to, even, the gasp balanced, strong defender-role class it was in 4e (false accusations of 'casting spells' and handwringing over complexity notwisthstanding).

It just represents the most popular, familiar, and/or relatable archetypes of heroic fantasy.









* in one case, hypnotized?

 

[pemerton]

In my experience (both in person and from online discussions), 99% of complaints about balance re mundane vs casters is the result of the person(s) ignoring important parts of game design that are meant to mitigate the power of casters.

<snip standard lists of requirements for knowing and casting a spell>

TL;DR: almost every balance issue I’ve heard of comes down to a playstyle that benefits casters in spite of the rules

As I have said before the issue is not one of power it is one of agency.

As I read the OP, Eubani is correct. See eg

Much has been made about balance between spell casters and martial classes in the various versions of Dungeons and Dragons, but by making it about only about efficacy I think we all largely miss the point. Besides the most egregious cases I think most complaints about spell caster and martial class balance are more about a desire for more compelling game play for martial characters, both inside and outside of combat.

Playing a spell caster is fun because the decisions you make shape and alter the outcomes of events in a way that is usually not true for players of martial characters. A well timed and well chosen spell can completely turn the tide of an encounter or problem that the players are dealing with. Generally speaking the decisions martial characters make do not have much impact on how things go. Their prowess definitely does, but there is little in the way of being able to distinguish yourself.

The issue is not about potency - the ability to efficiently overcome challenges presented to the players by the PC - but about the ability to impact the fiction in distinctive, character-revealing ways.

I'm not sure you can have awesome at-will abilities. The moment you put one in then everything at-will that's not as awesome as it is instantly relegated as not worth using. Thus, at-will abilities cannot be awesome.

That said, there can be highly situational abilities that are resource free that can be much more awesome than the normal at-will abilities. I don't think such abilities are enough to fix anything.

<snip>

Abilities to set up attacks worth rather poorly in theatre of the mind and even on a grid it takes to many statuses or conditions to appropriately track. It just doesn't work well.

In post 13 in this thread, @Campbell says:

Game mechanics can be written in a way in which they embrace GM judgement and fictional positioning to allow for creative play. You do this by explicitly calling out areas for the GM to apply their judgement as a referee and having fictional positioning requirements built in to how you design mechanics.​

Fictional positioning requirements need not be highly situational. And there is no reason that they must work poorly in "theatre of the mind". Fictional position is not about the location of a token on a map. It's about the table, through play, establishing true descriptions of the circumstances of the characters.

A concrete example from my Classic Traveller game - one of the PCs has a suit of powered armour (battle dress) and a rather powerful plasma gun. The use of these is effectively at will. In combat, they are rather awesome in their effects. But the player does not have his PC use them all the time, because it is awkward to do so. Besides their blatant character, there is the devastation that the plasma gun tends to inflict.

Conflict/scene resolution mechanics for action/obstacles outside of combat. An actual mechanical framework to resolve conflict naturally contracts the potency disparity between spellcasters and martial characters.

Unless this is what I've been referring to as player control of fiction then I'm not sure what it means. If it is player control of fiction then I've already discussed it and dismissed it because very broad player control of fiction mechanics aren't very popular.

<snip>

Player-facing "say yes or roll the dice" abilities and action resolution handling for martial characters .

No idea what this is

The two things that @Manbearcat mentions are closely related. And they are not about "player control of fiction" as you mean that. They're about the way that the consequences of checks - both success and failure - are established. The focus is on framing of the situation, on calling for checks only when something of established significance is at stake, and on allowing successes to not just change the fiction, but to allow them to change the fiction so as to give the player what s/he wanted out of the situation.

In D&D, 4e is the only edition that has systematised this sort of approach. Most of the systems that Manbearcat mentioned upthread as having addressed the concerns raised in the OP adopt some version of this sort of approach.

 

[FrogReaver]

...

and on allowing successes to not just change the fiction, but to allow them to change the fiction so as to give the player what s/he wanted out of the situation.
...

It's weird you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and then start talking about the exact thing I was going on about as if it's something different than what I was going on about. It's a truly amazing ability you have there!

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyways, I think I've figured out these threads. Ya'll like other kinds of games and are convinced that if we would just try them that we would too. So ya'lls preference gets brought up at every turn while you dismiss other preferences.

That's really what it seems like. I'm not sure if that's the intent but it's what's happening.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thing is, no amount of discussion of 'fixes' to the issues D&D raises will result in D&D no longer serving the agendas of its' current fanbase.
But, the intellectual exercise of examining how it might be - in some more tolerant quantum-alternate-universe community, perhaps - well, interesting. If it could ever be undertaken without being shouted down.

But that's the thing. I went through the exercise. I identified the potential solutions - like player control of fiction etc. I then evaluated those solutions along with what D&D is and found them to be incompatible with what I deem to be essential parts of the D&D playstyles.

That seems to me like the logical place to take this discussion after potential solutions are identified - can they be applied to D&D. I'm not sure why I and others that reached that conclusion are being shouted down for stating it.

 

[pemerton]

It's weird you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and then start talking about the exact thing I was going on about as if it's something different than what I was going on about. It's a truly amazing ability you have there!

I don't think you have understood my post.

You were talking about the player establishing elements of the fiction outside the character's causal control. @Manbearcat, and I, are talking about what is sometimes called conflict as opposed to task resolution. Apocalypse World (to pick an example) doesn't hae the former, but does have the latter. Prince Valiant also.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The issue is not about potency - the ability to efficiently overcome challenges presented to the players by the PC - but about the ability to impact the fiction in distinctive, character-revealing ways.

Heck, push-button neo-Vancian casting can fail by that criterion pretty easily, too.

A concrete example from my Classic Traveller game - one of the PCs has a suit of powered armour (battle dress) and a rather powerful plasma gun.

OMG, 'battle dress,' that takes me back.

 

[pemerton]

I don't understand how the fact that person X (where X is not @Campbell) doesn't like something is an answer to Campbell's question in the OP, which is how do we create an environment for skilled play where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play?

And if someone thinks the answer to that question is it can't be done then maybe post that once. No need, I think, to keep reiterating it.

Anyway, here's a way to make playing a cleric feel like playing a cleric - it's a rule from Burning Wheel: for any prayer to take effect the player has to speak the prayer, in play. This also establishes the casting time (similar to the old Limited Wish and WIsh spells in AD&D).

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think you have understood my post.

You were talking about the player establishing elements of the fiction outside the character's causal control. @Manbearcat, and I, are talking about what is sometimes called conflict as opposed to task resolution. Apocalypse World (to pick an example) doesn't hae the former, but does have the latter. Prince Valiant also.

I don't care one bit about your terms for stuff. I'm with @Tony Vargas on his forge speak rants.

Instead let's keep it simple. All the games you are citing the player (not through his character) is in charge of some element of fiction. That element of fiction may be placed behind a die roll or whatever mechanic the game has defined as necessary to push it into being actual fiction - but at the end of the process it's the player that's now in control of that bit of fiction.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.