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

[Dannyalcatraz]

His Wits are inherently superior. His ability to think things through is inherently superior. No actual person has any of this capability, no matter how hard they try.

His wits are about par for the course for a chess grandmaster or Nobel Laureate- rare, but not unique and definitely not superhuman. In DC Universe, he is touted as being "one of the best" in many fields- detective work, martial arts, certain fields of science, but not the best at any of them. He has been criticized by his mentors, allies and opponents in certain fields- like martial arts- as being unwilling to put in the time to reach the pinnacles of true mastery...probably because he's got a lot on his plate and his day is 24 hrs long, just like everyone else's.

He's a polymath (and a disturbed one) not a superhuman.

Look at storylines covering his early years, and you'll see that despite this "superiority", he has nearly gotten himself killed with his carelessness and cockyness. Even as an experienced crimefighter who has first hand knowledge of alien life, he has often been depicted as being unaccepting of the supernatural...a blind spot that has- again- nearly killed him more than once.

His ability to do that is a fantasy.

It is not something that any person could ever actually do.

In the RW? Probably not.

Within the context of the reality in which he exists, he is an unusual specimen, but most certainly not unique.

Who is his greatest foe? The Joker, an utterly insane former chemical engineer. Not an über genius. Not one of his martial arts mentors. A chemical engineer turned psychopath.

It gives him the ability to do things that no person could ever actually do, things no less fantastical than cutting down mountains with a sword or wrestling the Nemian Lion or flying because you've been given a special pair of boots by the deity of travel.

No, I can't agree with you there. Batman never does anything remotely supernatural. He uses wits & science, but never violates the rules of physics in the way you're describing.

If you're arguing that Batman is somehow "a normal person" while Hercules is not, you are defining "a normal person" is a way that is very, very odd to me, and not in line with any fantasy literature that I am aware of.

Bruce's parents were both human. Hercules is a demigod, literally half-divine in origin. He could do things as a child that Bruce could not do as an adult no matter how much he trained.

Bruce Wayne is, in a sense one of the characters in DC's stable who could be considered a paragon of humanity. He- and those like him- are characters you can aspire to be.

Hercules isn't even fully human. You literally can never be like him in any meaningful sense at the most fundamental levels.

If you can't see the enormous gulf between the two, you have an odd conception of literature indeed.

 

[pemerton]

I still can't give the bananaman any experience points.

Nor can I. But the post is great.

His Wits are inherently superior. His ability to think things through is inherently superior. No actual person has any of this capability, no matter how hard they try.

<snip>

This ability *makes* him better than anyone else in the world. That's why he's unlike any other human being who has ever lived or will live. He is above and beyond with skill.

<snip>

His ability to do that is a fantasy.

It is not something that any person could ever actually do.

It gives him the ability to do things that no person could ever actually do, things no less fantastical than cutting down mountains with a sword or wrestling the Nemian Lion or flying because you've been given a special pair of boots by the deity of travel.

In the RW? Probably not.

Within the context of the reality in which he exists, he is an unusual specimen, but most certainly not unique.

<snip>

Batman never does anything remotely supernatural. He uses wits & science, but never violates the rules of physics in the way you're describing.

<snip>

Hercules isn't even fully human. You literally can never be like him in any meaningful sense at the most fundamental levels.

And here we see what is, in my view, the fundamental issue - the clash between game and metagame.

Within the imaginary world it is true, as Dannyalcatraz says, that Batman is not supernatural. Whereas Hercules is.

But relative to the realworld it is true, as KM says, that Batman is just as much a fantasy as is Hercules.

Thus, when KM says:

If you're arguing that Batman is somehow "a normal person" while Hercules is not, you are defining "a normal person" is a way that is very, very odd to me, and not in line with any fantasy literature that I am aware of.

The response is: from the point of view of the real world, the gaming table, you are correct; but from the point of view of the imaginary world in which Batman exists, than Danny is correct.

So if you want a game in which a player can play Batman, the rules of the game have to make it possible for fantastic results to occur, even though they are not, in the gameworld, supernatural results. Mechanics that make the gameworld be a fantastic one, without being a supernatural one.

And the standard way to achieve this is via metagame mechanics - that is, mechanics which allow a player to change things in the gameworld without the mechanic actually expressing or tightly modelling some particular action by that player's PC. That is, non-simulationist mechanics.

KM gives a hypothetical example:

A D&D character should have these abilities, and by having these abilities, they would be innately superior to any actual person.

The abilities would hopefully be expressed in ways that would not require players to be mythic geniuses, so that we'd give the rogue something like I Knew You Would Do That that lets them automatically declare an attack a miss every so often (for instance).

4e has these sorts of powers for martial classes. They are widely derided - Come and Get It being the most common target. Of course there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether Come and Get It is or is not the best-designed metagame mechanic of all time, but the frequent objections to it don't turn on its merits as a metagame mechanic, but rather are objections to the very idea of the player of a fighter having access to this sort of mechanic.

So, when KM says:

D&D fighters are not allowed to have these abilities, though, because without explicit magic being used, D&D does not let people break reality in the ways that Batman breaks reality.

I agree, with two exceptions: hit points and saving throws. And I get the impression that many 3E players don't treat hit points and saving throws as metagame anymore (although in AD&D, or at least 1st ed, this is quite clear) and instead as literal "meat" and literal "toughness".

4e tried to take D&D into new territory in this respect, but instead of improving on the experiment and coming up with powers that are richer or more interesting than Come and Get It, the impression from Essentials is that WotC is retreating again, back to the D&D tradition that the only fantastic powers allowed - other than hit points and saving throws- are those which are supernatural within the gameworld.

 

[Glade Riven]

Batman is a cross-classed Rogue-Monk anyways. Maybe ninja class, depending on edition. Green Arrow, on the other hand, is a Fighter that focuses on an archery build and has a bunch of trick arrows.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Good catch on that RW/setting world dichotomy, Pemerton- I'd +1XP you if I could.

 

[pawsplay]

...He's Batman.

Let that sink in for a minute. He's not a "normal person," because he's frickin' Batman.

Superman isn't a "normal Kryptonian" either. Frankly, Clark should be dead. The problem with Batman is that no real world person has a 72 year long career crammed into about fifteen fictional years. In that context, there is no way he could be so lucky. But in any given comic book, he's quite human in most respects.

However, I do quibble with the "no supernatural abilities" bit. In the DC Universe, amazing kung fu powers are considered "normal" whereas to most of us they would be considered supernatural. That doesn't change what he is in the setting: a highly trained, gifted normal dude with an exceptional destiny.

Similarly, if you read Mallory, Sir Lancelot knocks Mordred literally off a horse and into the dirt. To actually drive someone with that much force would be impossible (at the least, Lancelot would unhorse himself at the same time). But in-universe, it's a function of him being an exceptional knight, not being a supernatural being.

From an in-universe standpoint, Batman is an improbability, not an impossibility. He's not as good a martial artist as Lady Shiva, as good an acrobat as Nightwing, as good an analyst as Babs Gordon, as good an archer as Ollie, as good a mechanic or driver as the Blue Beetle, or as good a social engineer as Luthor. However, he is in the top tier in all those categories. He is the world's greatest detective (that's what it says on the tin) and at least as good a tactician as anyone he's ever gone up against (including Lady Shiva, whom he generally defeats by out-foxing).

He is superheroic, but because conceptually, and according to his genre conventions, normal humans are capable of superheroism. Which makes sense; Supes may be the man from Krypton, but he has his off days. Anyone is potentially vulnerable. In The Dark Knight the point is well-made that as terrifying as superbeings are, any one hero or villain is not as scary as the totality of the effects their powers have on the world. Superman can defeat a tank divison; Luthor may blackmail Superman; aliens may mind control Luthor; demons may possess the aliens; etc.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

He's a normal man, just obsessively driven and trained to be one of the best single combatants in the world (though, according to DC's own stuff, he's NOT #1).

He's actually barely in the Top Five. Lady Shiva and her daughter (Cassandra Cain, former Batgirl) are both better hand-to-hand fighters, for instance. (There are a couple of others that are considered equal or better -- Black Canary (trained by Lady Shiva; I'm seeing a pattern) might even be there by now.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Within the context of the reality in which he exists, he is an unusual specimen, but most certainly not unique.

Neither was Odysseus or Hercules or Achilles or Gilgamesh or.... That doesn't make Batman any different from them.

He uses wits & science, but never violates the rules of physics in the way you're describing.

Neither does Superman, in the context of the universe. Neither does Achilles or Gilgamesh or Merlin, in the context of the universe. That doesn't make Batman any different from them.

Bruce's parents were both human. Hercules is a demigod, literally half-divine in origin. He could do things as a child that Bruce could not do as an adult no matter how much he trained.

He also did things that Achilles and Orpheus could not do. And Bruce does things that Herculues could never do.

That doesn't make Batman any different from them.

Hercules isn't even fully human. You literally can never be like him in any meaningful sense at the most fundamental levels.

If you can't see the enormous gulf between the two, you have an odd conception of literature indeed.

No one can ever be like Batman in any meaningful sense at the most fundamental levels.

In the universe of the greek myths, characters could and did be like Hercules, even mostly-probably-mortal characters like Odysseus and Orpheus. In the same way that Batman is like Superman.

There's should be no enormous gulf between a D&D warrior, and any of those characters. They're all fantasy heroes, as our D&D warrior should be.

4e has these sorts of powers for martial classes. They are widely derided - Come and Get It being the most common target. Of course there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether Come and Get It is or is not the best-designed metagame mechanic of all time, but the frequent objections to it don't turn on its merits as a metagame mechanic, but rather are objections to the very idea of the player of a fighter having access to this sort of mechanic.

Those objections are what hold back D&D warriors from achieving equity with D&D spellcasters. Spellcasters get to do that because it's magic, hey!, but warriors don't get to do that because they're not magical, hey!.

D&D warriors need to be magical. They need to be as clever as Odysseus, as strong as Hercules, as invulnerable as Achilles. Or, as clever as Batman, as strong as the Hulk, as invulnerable as Superman. Since it's ultimately the same thing.

Because D&D has had a problem embracing the idea that warriors of enough skill just make things happen, as if by magic, it's a persistent problem.

CaGI is not a great mechanic, but it's not fundamentally different in concept than saying "Batman happened to have planned for this very eventuality...." It's magic. It just works. Because they are that skilled.

4e tried to take D&D into new territory in this respect, but instead of improving on the experiment and coming up with powers that are richer or more interesting than Come and Get It, the impression from Essentials is that WotC is retreating again, back to the D&D tradition that the only fantastic powers allowed - other than hit points and saving throws- are those which are supernatural within the gameworld.

This isn't a problem if all of your fantastic powers are basically the same as a sword blow or an arrow shot, functionally. Essentials characters get no rituals. They only have attacks, defenses, and "utilities" (which are mostly related to attacks and defenses). Aside from skills, they are mostly undefined outside of a combat scenario.

Which works kind of OK with the idea of narrative control like this as treasure. Because wizards don't get teleport by default, it lets you award teleport, or a similar effect, to anyone who can do it, at any level you're comfortable with. It might be the actual teleport spell, or it might be the ability to slip through shadows and teleport around that way, or it might be the ability to fly swifter than light itself, or it might be the ability to jaunt through the Feywild, or whatever, the function remains the same.

He is superheroic, but because conceptually, and according to his genre conventions, normal humans are capable of superheroism.

In D&D, this is true, too.

So why can't my rogue be as clever as Batman/Odysseus/Coyote/whatever, without me as a player having to be this clever?

Why can't my rogue effectively be magical (even if it's handwaived for the modern myths as "really just very skilled and very practiced")? Why can't my rogue have prepared for every contingency and acquired the right weapon for every battle?

Why can't my rogue climb walls without having to roll a friggin' skill check? And why does the Wizard, who should not be as good at this sort of thing, get to?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He's actually barely in the Top Five.

A few deceased ones were also better...and more critical of his skills. My favorite was Paul Kirk, Manhunter. In the story in which Kirk dies, Bats is criticized (mentally) for taking too much time fighting towards the objective. Kirk cuts a swath through the foes, Batman gets bogged down.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He uses wits & science, but never violates the rules of physics in the way you're describing.

Neither does Superman, in the context of the universe. Neither does Achilles or Gilgamesh or Merlin, in the context of the universe. That doesn't make Batman any different from them.

I know you know what I meant by that. At no point does Bats do anything beyond the capabilities of another trained human in the DC continuum. He does not warp reality, he lives within it. Nothing in his repertoire would be described by DC continuum scientists as being a "power", by DC arcanists a "spell". He is not the strongest, smartest, fastest. He is an idealized human. He has no otherworldliness in his genetics, no blessing of the gods, no magic ritual to set him apart. Just training.

He is a mundane. A muggle.

In the universe of the greek myths, characters could and did be like Hercules, even mostly-probably-mortal characters like Odysseus and Orpheus. In the same way that Batman is like Superman.

No, no they can't. Not without some non-human aspect to them. The way Greeks thought about heroism almost precludes this.*. While there are purely human Greek heroes, the ones anyone can name are all partly non-human.

Orpheus was the son of a Muse and either a human or the god Apollo. Achilles was the son of a nymph and protected by a ritual bathing in the River Styx. Perseus was the son of Zeus.

Odysseus is as close as you get to Bats- the mist cunning man in the world. He is strong- no other mere mortal was able to string his bow- but someone like Hercules could. But even he was the grandson of Hermes on one side and the great-grandson of Aeolus

* Mere mortals who approached the capabilities of the gods were struck down- see Arachne or Psyche.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Because D&D has had a problem embracing the idea that warriors of enough skill just make things happen, as if by magic, it's a persistent problem.

CaGI is not a great mechanic, but it's not fundamentally different in concept than saying "Batman happened to have planned for this very eventuality...." It's magic. It just works. Because they are that skilled.

The equally great strength and great weakness of metagaming effects is that they require the participants to provide the world context. It is a strength when the participants have a view of the world that makes providing the context easy. It is a weakness when the view is otherwise. (It makes no difference for this point whether or not the view of the world is "correct" or any other such judgment. Only whether the view is able to easily or not leverage the metagaming construct into the context.)

To use a silly example, assume a game where the main mechanic for magic is that you (the player, not the character) sing a bit of a song that is relevant to what you want to accomplish. (Apologies to Alan Dean Foster.) That is almost pure metagame, the one world context hook being the "relevant to intent" part. You can play this game with young kids, maybe. They might use nursery rhymes. It works. You add an adult to the mix. IF that adult can put themselves into a view of the world where those nursery rhymes can work, loosely, then it will work. Otherwise, the gap is too far--the adult can grudgingly get from "Little Miss Muffet" to summoning or driving away spiders or padded furniture or maybe a bit of fear effects involving arachnids, but cannot get from there to, say, having a group of talking animals over for a tea party. In the childs' mind, it is all a strange mixture of fairy tale logic and impressions from a story book twisted with half memories of Lewis Carroll and walruses. (Not that adults can't tie into that. But when they do, the tie is into a part of childhood.)

What you think you know about how something does work (or would work, if it was possible) informs your view of metagaming mechanics as much as what you do know or don't know.