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

[Crazy Jerome]

Very interesting and important point.

I dare say that for the many people for whom there isn't much of an issue between different classes in D&D, they already use this kind of framing.

In reductionist D&D which is all about a series of combat encounters or noncombat puzzle situations, differences in raw capabilities of classes can become more of an issue, and might be difficult to legislate for in game rules. But in campaigns skillfully run by a good GM, with full player buy-in, 'balance' between classes is not an issue. But you knew that anyway

Fair enough, but with the caveat that "can" and "want to" are two different things:

1. I can skillfully run a D&D game, complete with player buy-in, even to the extent of adjusting on the fly, as necessary, to accommodate whatever goals we have.

2. Sometimes I want to merely run something wide open without worrying about that part, and the players feel the same way. We all just want to cut loose, fully, and know that it will come out alright.

And of course, if something is available and easy to use, criteria between can and want may move a bit. I can run a decent game with a faded-print, smudged, bastardized clone version of the Red and Blue Boxes, in a back-room, noisy game store room. Doesn't mean that such a game won't get pushed aside for better alternatives.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, it's not a matter of who has the most power, but rather a matter of character motivation, role, and plot, that defines "balance" in fiction. In fiction what needs to be balanced is not the amount of kick-butt that each character has (which tends to be how people think of balance in D&D), but rather how important they are to the events in the plot and the ways in which each character overcomes his or her own personal challenges.

OK, grant all that in fiction, if only for the sake of argument. Are you then advocating that the answer is to have narrative style balance mechanics in games? Or are you saying that, absent such narrative mechanics, each game can be written, drifted, tweaked, managed, house-rules or seat of the pants run so as to achieve this more useful balance? Or something else?

Because I've got to think that identifying equal amounts of kick-butt as the motivation in D&D balance is getting the cause and effect and correlations subtley wrong. In my group, when we play heroic fantasy, everyone at the table wants to be doing something. That means if we play a game that is about butt kicking, then they want butt kicking balance. If the game is about trade and intrigue, they want balance in that. If it is about overcoming personal challenges, we aren't playing D&D, because there are better games for that.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Although Conan is quite the badass, his main superpowers seem to be really good saving throws, and a knack for getting his hands on other people's best stuff.

I think Conan's main superpower is a supply of hitpoints far in excess of anyone he faces.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think Conan's main superpower is a supply of hitpoints far in excess of anyone he faces.

Wait, I thought that was John McClane.

Wait, I thought it was healing surges.

Wait, I have to blow my nose.

Wait, I'm good with the "hit points" idea.


Jeff

P.S. 2d6 works much better than 1d12 for what Gygax originally intended.

 

[kenjib]

I think mostly what I'm saying is that fiction operates on a very different dynamic that doesn't really apply to D&D from a strict rules perspective - in what I consider to be good writing magic serves the narrative, rather than being a tool for resolution, or else it becomes deus ex machina and the struggles of the protagonist lose meaning. This form of serving the narrative then changes the nature of challenges. For example, if a hero can zap a lock with magic, then the lock of the prison is no longer an obstacle - instead the narrative changes to a story about sneaking out. Of course if the hero can just teleport out then there really is no obstacle at all, so then the event needs to serve some other purpose. Does he overhear something? Meet a new ally?

So along the lines of the Chekhov's gun principle (Chekhov's gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - every scene should serve a purpose. Why is the character there doing what he is doing and how does it further the plot? Magic can dramatically re-frame this question.

The more I think of it, however, this line of thinking might be very useful for understanding what's going on though - For example, this is part of why magic using characters can run rampant in older D&D editions. They can reframe the challenges and encounters to a large extent with narrative changing abilities like scrying, teleportation, and raising the dead, while the non-magic users can't.

In fiction, while magic capable characters get these meta-narrative shaping traits, the non-magic characters are often given all of the coolest traits that define the conflict (like heir to a lost throne, for example). This keeps them relevant and goes along with my point earlier that often protagonists are mundane while the facilitators are magical.

In D&D there is no such compensation. Of course you can always make it work that way if you want, ala what Plane Sailing suggests - but that requires a set of skills and motivations that aren't really in the books, and operate outside of the system. Narrative style mechanics could capture this kind of player balance, but then I suspect that you're looking at a type of game that D&D is not trying to be (even if you can make it work). For example, there are many games where you can have more plot-oriented stats such as "incorruptible," "heir to a lost throne," or "soul-bound to a fallen angel," instead of ability stats. In those kind of games, balance between players operates in very different ways (with their own sets of problems as well).

4th edition D&D helped to address this problem by simply toning down or removing the meta-narrative controlling powers from magic characters. I think that really watered down a lot of the open and creative feel to the game though. I wonder if there is a different way to address this by giving a very different sort of narrative controlling power to non-magic characters.

EDIT: Of course then you're really messing with the core "story" of D&D, which at heart has always been about kicking down the door, kicking the monsters in the junk, and taking their stuff.

EDIT: A quick idea I just had: Protagonists define the conflict, while magic reframes it.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Wait, I thought that was John McClane.

Wait, I thought it was healing surges.

Wait, I have to blow my nose.

Wait, I'm good with the "hit points" idea.


Jeff

P.S. 2d6 works much better than 1d12 for what Gygax originally intended.

In most Conan stories by the end Conan is looking a lot like John McClane at the end of Die Hard.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

4th edition D&D helped to address this problem by simply toning down or removing the meta-narrative controlling powers from magic characters. I think that really watered down a lot of the open and creative feel to the game though. I wonder if there is a different way to address this by giving a very different sort of narrative controlling power to non-magic characters.

EDIT: Of course then you're really messing with the core "story" of D&D, which at heart has always been about kicking down the door, kicking the monsters in the junk, and taking their stuff.

EDIT: A quick idea I just had: Protagonists define the conflict, while magic reframes it.

Riffing off of that while thinking out loud: Graft an almost purely narrative, metagaming, defining/framing system on top of what 4E already has. Fluff of this system is variable--sometimes magic, sometimes not. Call it "Framing" for lack of a better word. It has an almost entirely separate rewards cycle from the rest of 4E. Something like, when you "experience" a narrative issue, your options and power over the narrative grow.

The tie to the world/story/simulation is that much of the picks are very powerful but obviously situationally limited. "Heir to the throne" lets you do some appropriate stuff. "7th son of a Wizard" lets you do some other equally appropriate stuff. As you grow in your narrative control, through play, the appropriate stuff naturally becomes more powerful and useful. It is not unlike 4E rituals, except heavily slanted towards the metagame. If an ability is too game changing even for ritual, then it becomes a possible Framing ability.

 

[kenjib]

For some reason that actually kind of reminds me of the domain/kingdom/stronghold running rules that have popped up in various editions, but with a very different focus and goal.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Originally Posted by Mishihari Lord View Post
I think magic should be really strong, otherwise what's the point? If it's no more effective than mundane tactics, there's no reason to use it.

Swap the words magic and mundane around in that sentence. Does your argument lose it's force? If not, then you're got a perfectly reasonable argument for making magic users and 'mundane' characters balanced in terms of power.

That argument does lose its force if you turn it around. The point of magic is that it makes possible things that are impossible by mundane means. If you balance magic use by making exactly it exactly the same as accomplishing the same thing through mundane means it becomes pointless, and worse, boring. A good magic system lets you do impossible things but also puts limits on it so that its not the solution to every problem (which would also be boring)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem with Chekhov's Gun is that if your players are too attuned to that style of storytelling, you may wind up with a Chelsie the Cow situation:

Chelsie the Magic Cow, once owned by El Ravager and subsequently eaten by Li'l Knobby Foot. Originally she was an ordinary cow, grazing by the side of the road as mere flavor text. El Ravager insisted on investigating, and B.A.'s attempts dissuade them were met with more fervour and suspicion ("there must be something really special about that cow that he's trying to keep us away from it"). When Teflon Billy used Detect Magic on the cow, B.A. sarcastically declared that it radiated a blinding magical aura. El Ravager laid claim to the cow, named her Chelsie, and over the course of several adventures sought to determine her supposed magic abilities; sadly, he never succeeded. Poor Chelsie met her end as a meal and warm clothing for Li'l Knobby Foot when he fled for his life from the Untouchable Trio (see above). There is a similar story regarding Knuckles and a mule, though that was a case of deliberate trickery on the GM's part; B.A. convinced Bob (Knuckles' player) that "Little Mike" was actually a dwarven warhorse. Mike was also stolen by Knobby Foot, but was kept on as the former hireling's steed when Knobby Foot joined the Barringer rebellion (see below). (Oddly enough, when KenzerCo published the actual rulebooks for HackMaster, the dwarven warhorse showed up on the equipment lists of the Player's Guide, along with a plethora of other items mentioned in the comic. However, it contains no references to magic cows, so Chelsie's special abilities remain a mystery.)