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

[Thunderfoot]

I'm going to take hit on this, but...this goes back to what I've said a million times before - balance is BS!. Balance is neither a good thing nor a requirement for D&D. 4e's everyone is the same is a sticking point for me. 3e was bad enough. (I've played both, ran campaigns in both and am not disparaging any edition, per se)

This idea that a wizard is the most powerful thing at higher levels is what is supposed to happen. But since DMs try not to kill PCs anymore, the idea that you actually have to make it to higher levels get lost in the sauce.

Sure a 7th level caster could do some pretty cool stuff, but they had to get there first and a kobold with a lucky crit could end the career of a wizard as easily as a lowly snake and a failed poison save. Does nobody remember the phrase, "wizards are squishy"? Or how about the converse, "Hey, meat shield, protect the caster."

In fantasy genres balance should be a dirty word unless you are talking about thief skills.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Does nobody remember the phrase, "wizards are squishy"? Or how about the converse, "Hey, meat shield, protect the caster."

Wizards have always been squishy. They still are squishy in 4e. I'm talking from experience here (as the GM) not just looking at the books.

In previous editions, meat shields had real difficulty protecting a wizard. They could try to get between the bad guy and the wizard, but that didn't work in open terrain. They couldn't stop the bad guys unless they were spiked chain wielders (could you trip on an AoO?) or had the psionic feat Stand Still (not core).

In fantasy genres balance should be a dirty word unless you are talking about thief skills.

I think balance is an important part of a game. It's part of the balance of fun. If you have a role that's less fun, why are you there? But of course that's not relevant in a book.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

FWIW I think my friends and I were lucky enough to start playing this way from the beginning - probably because we were in at the very start of D&D and the only model we had in our minds that we brought to the games was a literary one, and so we unconsciously picked up some of the literary tropes in terms of balance between characters and integration of the characters with the world.

Furthermore, I think the early editions of D&D did actually support this conceptually at least, with the emphasis on stronghold building and engagement with the wider campaign world at 'name' level; and emphasis which disappeared with 3e onwards.

Cheers

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

psionic feat Stand Still (not core).

Tiny nitpick: Stand Still isn't a psionic feat, its a general feat.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Riffing off of that while thinking out loud: Graft an almost purely narrative, metagaming, defining/framing system on top of what 4E already has.

Riffing further...

One of the many things I liked about the Conan OGL game from Mongoose was the 'fate points' which PCs got - an opportunity to exert narrative control over the adventure.

In a D&D game where there was a concern that casters had too much relative narrative control over the game through their spells, the non caster classes could be given 'fate points' as compensation - because in literature the warriors often get lucky at the right point, and a lucky break goes their way.

This wouldn't be giving them supernatural powers, but it would be recognising the literary ability of the noncaster classes to steer the narrative.

It might be an interesting idea to try out!

 

[kenjib]

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:

That's funny stuff. I was referring more to conflict than to setting components though. I don't think that anyone would disagree that challenge should be more than illusory, which is the issue I was discussing regarding magical as a solution for every problem.

~~~~~~~~

Plane Sailing - I like the fate points stuff. I also think you hit on something that the older versions seemed to encourage somehow, and maybe you're right that the stronghold type rules played a large part of it. Is a game driven by plot threads and character motivations through a timeline, or is it a more open sandbox type game, where the players do all kinds of crazy stuff.

It's the difference between whether the gameplay is prescriptive and descriptive relative to the storyline it represents. It seems like nowadays it's common to know what kind of story you want, then plant the plots seeds and follow it to it's conclusion - i.e. you write the story and then play it out. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like in the old days it was more common to go out and mess around, do all kinds of crazy things, and then realize afterward that it was a pretty cool story - kind of like how it sounds to me that EGG's game group worked.

Another way of looking at it is this: In the old days you made a 1st level fighter, gave him a name, dropped him like a blank page on the table and he built his story as he played. Now it seems more common to create a 1st level fighter with a name, backstory, relatives, goals, etc. all pre-written, which all carries out in play.

Wizards with powerful narrative ability thrived in that old freewheeling environment, because they had a mechanical capability to alter the landscape at almost any scale. The other classes only had that kind of ability mechanics-wise if you used the stronghold rules - in which, interestingly, fighters held the most power, placing them back in the protagonist's seat.

 

[pawsplay]

There is no balance problem in fantasy literature because you have to look at how conflict is framed and how narrative is constructed. Ultimately, magic will do whatever the author needs it to do, so the real question is not how power is balanced, but rather what authors have needed magic to do.

Conan will do whatever the author needs him to do. Magic is no different from any other subsystem with regard to translating literature to roleplaying.

 

[kenjib]

Conan will do whatever the author needs him to do. Magic is no different from any other subsystem with regard to translating literature to roleplaying.

Yeah - exactly! ...and boy does Conan seem to get just the right kind of luck at just the right time in almost every story? It's almost magical!

Magic does have the unique capability to break with real world conventions that would break our suspension of disbelief otherwise though. That's the key. It's a supremely powerful plot device in that way. Conan is still presumably bound by the limits of what an (idealized) human could do. To diverge too far from that would break suspension of disbelief and ruin the story. Wizards do not have those bounds to the same degree.

 

[Glade Riven]

While not liturature, Avatar: The Last Airbender (the cartoon show, not any movie of similar name) has a different take on the Wizard vs. Fighter. The elemental Benders (bending the elements to one's will instead of typical casting) are often both (the different bending styles are based off real world martial arts). There are characters with no bending, however, and cases where bending fails. Things get a little crazy-over-the-top with the bending in the final chapter, but Sokka (one of the main characters) manages to hold his own amongst all the high level benders. By the end, the main party consists of 5 wizard-monks (4 elements + the Avatar), Sokka (fighter), and Sokka's girlfreind (monk).

Granted, the Avatar saves the day and defeats the Big Bad Evil Guy. But it IS his show. At least he got to fight Mark Hamil...

 

[pawsplay]

Magic does have the unique capability to break with real world conventions that would break our suspension of disbelief otherwise though. That's the key. It's a supremely powerful plot device in that way.

It's still limited, though. Generally, magic won't make a bunch of extras line up so they can be conveniently roundhouse-kicked by the heroes, but that certainly does happen in supposedly non-magical action movies. Merely because magic could do anything doesn't mean the PCs could do anything. Any ability, whether magic or otherwise, has almost limitless consequences. Conan may be a lucky guy, but he also has a good sword-arm; under the right circumstances, that talent can defeat almost any foe.

Problems arise when you fail to define "magic." It means something different in every game world and it must be definied, i.e. limited. It's not a given that someone who can raise an island with magic is more powerful in game terms than a swordsman; what is involved in casting that spells? Is it fast? Expensive? Tiring? Time consuming? What else can the magician do?

I've seen systems that ran into problems by including "martial arts." Martial arts quickly included unarmed combat, armed combat, throwing weapons used by Asians, chi techniques, Taoist sorcery, and ninjitsu, all rolled up into one. A problem? You bet! Why? Because it steamrolls over other characters who might focus more specifically on sorcery, unarmed combat, and so forth.