D&D 5E Merlin and Arthur or Batman and zatana

[Umbran]

Based on Frank Miller's other work (Daredevil, Punisher, 300, etc.) and his writing on this specific comic series, I would say the narrative design intent is probably that Batman is stronger because he is willing to be ruthless and dedicated and assert himself and do whatever it takes to crush his enemies.

Superman has more potential power, but is not as "strong" as Batman and so is actually weaker and loses to the dedicated hard core strong man when they come into actual conflict.

The Dark Knight Returns is a Batman story, so of course Batman wins. This isn't about balance, this is about narrative.

Batman narratives have, for decades now, been primarily cynical, and have cynical views of power. The stance that you are willing to "do whatever it takes" includes doing things that are immoral or unethical.

Good Superman stories, however, have a different view of power - in them, Superman can operate not because he has more power, or because he can "do whatever it takes". He operates because he has empathy, and establishes and retains moral and ethical authority. We can see this isn't a good Superman story because it works on the basis of Superman having ceded his moral authority to the government. It required Superman to work on Batman's basis, not his own, so of course he loses.

I mean, if you allow that losing his home, his finances, losing Alfred to a stroke, and risking his own heart attack is "winning" for Bruce. If that's a win... well, we know Bruce is kind of screwed up anyway.

If the Dark Knight Returns was a good Superman story, when asked to take down his long-time ally, Superman would approach this differently. Clark's not a genius, but he's not an idiot - he knows Bruce is a planner. He would not simply agree to meet on a terrain Bats agrees to. He'd approach Batman in a time and place Bruce wasn't controlling, and arrange with Bruce to fake that fight, so Bruce could fake is own death and escape authorities. In doing this, Superman would be retaking the moral high ground he'd ceded to authorities, making it a win for Superman.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And quite often, a less confident player does NOT say "I cast X". They say nothing until a confident player says "Why doesn't Bob cast X?".

So...

Who's the one with the power? The one making suggestions that could not be fulfilled unless the caster was there, or the one casting the spell?

Like...I genuinely am starting to feel led on, here. Are you seriously saying the person who suggests casting a spell is more powerful, more impactful, than the person who actually casts it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While not the perfect translation, superman is a paladin and batman is a rogue with a smattering of monk.

The issue arises when you look at things from a purely combat angle, supes is specced almost entirely for combat, he convinced the GM to let him trade out his spell list for an OP outer planes species that has flight, a few innate at will spells(scorching ray heat vision, cone of cold ice breath, haste superspeed, scrying Xray vision, disguise self clark kent, ect...) resistance to standard damage but is vulnerable to magic and cold iron kryptonite, 20 STR, 20 CON, decent CHA, and averageish DEX, INT and WIS, But now bats on the other hand, bats is basically built entirely the other way around, his stats are lower because of multiclassing and taking feats instead of ASI, they’re more equal across the board 12s-16s with more focus on DEX, INT and WIS, only he’s got reliable talent plus the skilled feat to get bonuses to stealth, acrobatics, investigation, history, perception, survival and intimidation, plus a ton of starting gold from his noble background that he uses to supplement his abilities even further by buying magic items tech.

So Supes and Bats are not balanced in a fight but they are balanced across the whole campaign which is what really is the important thing to achieve, they’re not meant to be put against each other head to head they’re meant to support each other as they fill different niches in the party dynamic and they both do their own role well

Edit: it’s also to note that Supes and Bats are originally both the protagonist of their own media separately before being brought together in the justice league whereas frodo and gandalf are part of the same story and play entirely different roles within it, frodo is not meant to be anywhere near the same level of narrative power as gandalf is.

Ahh, spotlight balance, my great nemesis. If I could remove any one concept from TTRPG design forever, ensuring it never ever was considered again, spotlight balance would be one of my primary targets.

 

[Umbran]

Like...I genuinely am starting to feel led on, here. Are you seriously saying the person who suggests casting a spell is more powerful, more impactful, than the person who actually casts it?

Well, are we talking about one incident, or a habit? One incident is one incident, and does not speak to overall power dynamics at the table or in the narrative. If, in general, that person who is casting the spell doesn't do so unless/until someone suggests it, that character now is basically a walking spell battery for others to use, having ceded their impact to others.

Ahh, spotlight balance, my great nemesis. If I could remove any one concept from TTRPG design forever, ensuring it never ever was considered again, spotlight balance would be one of my primary targets.

What's wrong with spotlight balance? You find something wrong with having a game designed so that play is unlikely to be dominated by the most aggressive personalities at the table?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Who's the one with the power? The one making suggestions that could not be fulfilled unless the caster was there, or the one casting the spell?

The person making the suggestions. They are, in effect, playing the other person's character as well as their own.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, are we talking about one incident, or a habit? One incident is one indecent, and does not speak to overall power dynamics at the table or in the narrative. If, in general, that person who is casting the spell doesn't do so unless/until someone suggests it, that character now is basically a walking spell battery for others to use, having ceded their impact to others.

Even if one is a battery...batteries are sources of power. That's literally what they are, sources of energy capable of doing work over time.

What's wrong with spotlight balance? You find something wrong with having a game designed so that play is unlikely to be dominated by the most aggressive personalities at the table?

Because I find it is used far more often as an excuse to not actually balance things at all, and to instead give one or two people stardom abd everyone else bit parts. That it directly contributes to Casters & Caddies because people put so much emphasis on "well someone ELSE can be powerful when it's THEIR turn" and then...their turn either never comes up, or gets clipped as short as possible by the people who have the game-provided power to hog the spotlight.

I know what it's supposed to be in theory. It's supposed to share the spotlight equally, or thereabouts. I find that just doesn't happen. D&D in particular is egregious about this problem because magic is always, without fail, guaranteed to be the best way to grab and hold the spotlight, and as soon as the resources are gone—as soon as the spotlight has a reasonable chance of finally swinging away—the casters expect rests or even retreat so they can be back to full again. The five minute workday is a direct result of pushing for spotlight balance, rather than trying to generate a situation where just playing naturally will he pretty balanced.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The person making the suggestions. They are, in effect, playing the other person's character as well as their own.

I reject this notion of "in effect" here. The other person is still playing their character, unless the first is literally using IRL mind control.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, are we talking about one incident, or a habit? One incident is one indecent, and does not speak to overall power dynamics at the table or in the narrative. If, in general, that person who is casting the spell doesn't do so unless/until someone suggests it, that character now is basically a walking spell battery for others to use, having ceded their impact to others.

It would be fair to say that a table like that may have found an internal balance. However, unless the game actually promotes such an approach to play, that wouldn't be indicative of the balance of the game itself. Certainly we could imagine a different table where the wizard player ignores suggestions and just uses their spells as they see fit.

 

[Umbran]

Even if one is a battery...batteries are sources of power. That's literally what they are, sources of energy capable of doing work over time.

If the player leaves the sheet on the table, say, "Just tell the GM what I do," and walk away, the person who walks away no longer has the power. They have explicitly ceded it to others.

If the player sits there and just waits to be told what to do, that is not materially different from the above.

If you aren't the one engaged in using your power, it isn't really your power.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In a DnD session, for an external viewer that don’t know much about the game,
The most important character would be the one that speak most, is often spoken to,
to whom other players ask advice or ask to have the final word on dilemma.
The external viewer will also consider cheer up, and rewards shown between players.

Traditionally, D&D sessions have very few external viewers, but always have players around the table. Balance considerations should be evaluated from the perspective of the people around the table, not a hypothetical external viewer.