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

[NoWayJose]

You rely on the rules, or you rely on a human agency to interpret the rules.

This Mother May I vs System May I is an interesting side-trek, but I worried it will explode into another pirate captain fiasco.

Why do people sometimes like to quibble about certain angles, and solution-driven progressive approaches yield barely a peep?

 

[I'm A Banana]

You rely on the rules, or you rely on a human agency to interpret the rules.

You don't need human agency or rules to tell you that an axe can chop. You just need to kind of know what an axe is.

The game and the DM, I feel, are both safe in assuming that you know what an axe is (or can find out).

4e's default position is "It's entirely up to the DM!", which seems pointless to me. If my character's axe can't chop, it's not doing a very good job of being an imaginary axe. I assume the primary goal of D&D is to play a game of imagination, and if the DM suddenly rules that axes can't chop wood, that makes the game pretty clearly fail its primary goal. It's pointless micromanagement.

Axes aren't magical. The normal physical laws apply to them.

Now we're turning a little closer back to Spellcaster/Warrior balance: according to 4e's rules, the way to balance the two is to make axes and magic behave the exact same way.

I can't burn down that tree with fireball (unless I have special DM permission).

I also can't cut down that tree with my axe (unless I have special DM permission).

This balances the two, really well.

But it fails to provide a satisfying play experience, by failing to give a player reasonable agency over their own abilities, by failing to live up to the standards required of my willing suspension of disbelief (e.g.: that axes and fire in the game work something kind of resembling how axes and fire work in reality), and by failing to let me be creative with my character's abilities.

So I don't think it's a great way to solve the Spellcaster/Warrior balance issue, despite its remarkable ability to strictly balance their capabilities.

 

[LostSoul]

KM, I don't understand where you're coming from. A bunch of questions:

How do you define balance?

Assume you're writing your own game:

How would you write the rules that tell you how actions are resolved?

How should the game resolve an action's impact on mechanical features (HP, etc.)?

How should the game resolve an action's impact on the fiction?

What do you think the DM's responsibilities should be?

What criteria does the DM use to make decisions?

 

[NoWayJose]

KM, I don't understand where you're coming from. A bunch of questions:

How do you define balance?

Assume you're writing your own game:

How would you write the rules that tell you how actions are resolved?

How should the game resolve an action's impact on mechanical features (HP, etc.)?

How should the game resolve an action's impact on the fiction?

What do you think the DM's responsibilities should be?

What criteria does the DM use to make decisions?

I know this was addressed to KM, but please see last several pages, it must touch upon at least some of those questions.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm sure the answers are there, but I am having trouble seeing them. I'm asking those questions because I really don't understand where he's coming from and, instead of arguing different points he's making, it's probably best to go back to the basics and start from there.

 

[NoWayJose]

I'm sure the answers are there, but I am having trouble seeing them. I'm asking those questions because I really don't understand where he's coming from and, instead of arguing different points he's making, it's probably best to go back to the basics and start from there.

Speaking only for myself, as I can't speak for KM, I believe I have touched upon some of those questions in the last x pages, and I believe that KM was on the same wavelength (more or less, correct me if I'm wrong). I sympathize that you're having trouble seeing them (myself, I didn't read pages 2 to 80, I think), but I find it too discouraging and unmotivating to package a nice summary for anyone's convenience (no offense, intended).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can't burn down that tree with fireball (unless I have special DM permission).

I also can't cut down that tree with my axe (unless I have special DM permission).

This balances the two, really well.

But it fails to provide a satisfying play experience, by failing to give a player reasonable agency over their own abilities, by failing to live up to the standards required of my willing suspension of disbelief (e.g.: that axes and fire in the game work something kind of resembling how axes and fire work in reality), and by failing to let me be creative with my character's abilities.

An axe has a RW identity independent of the game, so what it can or cannot do is part & parcel of what an "axe" is capable of doing in the game. You can cut down a tree with an axe in the RW, therefore it can do so in game.

A fireball spell has no existence independent of the game in which it exists, therefore, it's capabilities are ENTIRELY defined by the game.

"What about RW fire?" you may ask. Well, fire burns at different temperatures depending on it's fuel sources. That's why a crematory fire can reduce a human body to ashes and the one used in a sideshow can be held in the palm of your hand. What temp DOES a fireball burn at?

As for it's targeting and the response "it's magic"- that's not a cop-out of imagination. Magic may break the rules of physics, but it has rules of it's own. Remember all the discussions about whether Magic Missile could target illusions? If a spell can't target objects, there may be a perfectly reasonable reason why...to a magical theorist in the game world. It may not be spelled out to the gamer, but then again, who wants to read a treatise on the underpinning rules of game magic that most gamers would never need to play the game?

 

[I'm A Banana]

How do you define balance?

By and large, I don't. It's an ever-shifting target. It depends on what you're talking about.

I think my ideal "balance" between characters for a PnPRPG would be that each player's character could contribute to overcoming the conflicts of the game in a unique mechanical and narrative way.

How would you write the rules that tell you how actions are resolved?

Rule 1 is that anything that's not a conflict happens through descriptive narrative. A player can make their character do anything they can imagine their character doing. A DM must determine the result of the action, forbid impossible actions, and judge when there's a conflict that might need mechanics to resolve.

The rest of the rules are basically those conflict resolution mechanics.

How should the game resolve an action's impact on mechanical features (HP, etc.)?

Well, if it was my game, I'm pretty firmly a fan of a cinematic, narrative style, so I would say the resolution should vary based on the intended dramatic tension of the conflict. If there's no conflict, there's no tension, and so the action either happens (if it could logically happen), or it doesn't. If there's a very minor conflict, a single die roll might dictate the resolution. If it's a big, dramatic conflict, something more detailed (like a combat system), with building tension and a big, final resolution.

If someone were going for a more simulation style, I'd imagine they'd have a single resolution system perhaps more based in how "easy" it is. An easy task requires only a simple resolution, but a hard task requires a more detailed resolution. Easy and hard can be determined by level, training, class, etc.

How should the game resolve an action's impact on the fiction?

For me, the ideal way is the same way actions resolve in reality: cause -> effect. This provides a thrill of discovery when the effect happens, keeps the time flowing in one direction, and helps ground players in their characters by making them decide an action based on current abilities, not expected results. It's easier to improvise, easier to narrate, and more fun to play through.

What do you think the DM's responsibilities should be?

They control the game, though not the characters. They determine if an event is possible, if it is a conflict, what kind of conflict it is, what the effects of the resolution of the conflict can be, etc. They facilitate the game by either constructing a narrative (in my preferred cinematic style) or by constructing a world (in a more sandbox style), and keep the game flowing by controlling pacing (including level pacing).

What criteria does the DM use to make decisions?

When deciding about their world or story, they make decisions according to their own desires, taking into account the desires of the rest of the group.

When adjudicating an action, they make decisions based on a quick cycle:
Is it possible? If no, then no, it can't happen.
If yes, then is it a conflict? If no, then it happens.
If yes, then which resolution mechanics will you use?
After you have a resolution, what happens?
Then, what does the character do in response?
Is it possible? ....etc....

KM, I don't understand where you're coming from.

Hope that helps!

 

[NoWayJose]

As for it's targeting and the response "it's magic"- that's not a cop-out of imagination.

I disagree 90% but instead of derailing this thread with arguments about what is intuitively obvious to me (and already debated ad nauseum in many other threads), I will instead ask (even beg) you to just trust me that I feel it's a cop-out.

The people who don't have a problem with 4E magic as is, are not the people who worry about wizard vs warrior balance, because it's already balanced. So you're good to go!

It's only the rest of us deniers that have to find another way to address balance issues with magic as we imagine it narratively and cinematically.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I disagree 90% but instead of derailing this thread with arguments about what is intuitively obvious to me (and already debated ad nauseum in many other threads), I will instead ask (even beg) you to just trust me that I feel it's a cop-out.

Oh, I'm not claiming your POV is invalid, just that I don't agree with it at all.

The people who don't have a problem with 4E magic as is, are not the people who worry about wizard vs warrior balance, because it's already balanced. So you're good to go!

Personally, not a big fan of 4Ed magic. Too watered down, too shackled by balance. But I can live with it.

It's only the rest of us deniers that have to find another way to address balance issues with magic as we imagine it narratively and cinematically.

Targeting issues aren't new to 4Ed. The MM vs illusions debate goes back across the editions. Nor are the ancillary effects of magical fire and other energy/element effects. (Remember, I'm the one who closed out the thread on whether 3.X energy damage Enchantments triggered on touch attacks, in the context of the flaming whip.)

Saying a spell can't target an object is not inherently anti-narrativeist. Perhaps some spells can only target the living. Perhaps it's fire (if it IS a fire spell) is not hot enough or long lasting enough to damage most non-living targets.

Just because we don't know the "Why" of spell targeting restrictions doesnt mean the reasons are inherently or automatically gamist.

If it helps, think of the underlying rules of magic as being something the designers of 4Ed left for you to color in.