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

[pemerton]

I think a major difference between east and west fantasy is the lack of a sharp division between supernatural and non-supernatural in eastern fantasy.

I think the notion that this sort of divide exists in "western" (=Northern and Western European?) fantasy is a bit anachronistic.

In the Mabinogion, are the various kings and other warriors supernatural or not? The question doesn't arise within the context of the stories, and probably not within the context of the orignal authors and audience. It is a modern projection.

In Arthur, is Lancelot's great prowess supernatural (in D&D terms, the divine abilities of a paladin, as 1st ed DDG tackled the issue) or not? For the greatest of Christian warriors, it doesn't make sense to ask this question.

Likewise Thor's ability to hook the Midgard Serpent, or to drink so much that he causes the ocean level to drop. Is this supernatural, or is he just a really tough (and thirsty) viking?

Even in Tolkein, it doesn't make sense to ask how much of Elrond's ability to restore physical and mental wellbeing, or how much of Aragorn's ability to lead, is supernatural rather than just a manifestation of the personality of each.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Like I said- that storyline occurs long after I quit buying comics- I can only go by what I'm told here.

This whole thing reminds me of Karate Kid from Legion of Superheroes. Despite having "mastered every martial art developed up to the 31st century", he was initially rejected by the LoS because he "had no powers."

This is a guy who could dent steel with his fists- veeeery wuxia. He earned membership by fighting Superboy (whom he could not hurt). And once took on the entire Fatal Five single-handedly, clearly defeating the Persuader, Emerald Empress, and Mano (the last by luck, he claimed).

Arguably the best martial artist in the entire continuum of DC...

Could it be that they're setting up a tie in? Bats as the founder of "Super Jeet Kune Do?"

*blech*

I hope not.

Want to know something even worse? He dodged a lightning bolt in one story.

 

[pemerton]

Narrative matters.

<snip>

narratively speaking they aren't ordinary characters. They're protagonists, which in of itself makes them extraordinary, but also gives them narrative power. Beowulf isn't the son of the gods. He's not a magical sorcerer. He is by all accounts an entirely mundane king in the scope of his "world." But because he is narratively the protagonist, he isn't juts "a normal guy."

Narrative matters. Ignoring it leads to crappy stories and crappy games.

Agreed.

It's a bit depressing, though, that after 100 posts we've barely moved on from the point I made in post 222 upthread.

Can't we all agree that this distinction between ingame "normality" and metagame protagonism exists, and get on to discussing the various ways in which martial/mortal/natural/"normal" progatonists can be made viable within a roughly D&D-ish mechanical framework?

(For clarity - Prof Cirno, this isn't a criticism of you and your many posts in this thread, with which I almost entirely agree. It's a call for others in the conversation to recognise the distinction that you and I and KM and others have drawn, and then to frame the discussion with reference to it.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Want to know something even worse? He dodged a lightning bolt in one story.

That goes along with a lot of people calling him a Ranger/Monk...

Still pretty churning to the gut...

 

[Hussar]

But, comic wanking is fun. Ok, ok, I'll stop.

Really, in my mind there are only a few solutions.

1. Undo the weaponization of magic. Turn casters into pretty much fighters (or perhaps slightly weaker fighters, after all Gandalf wasn't a poor fighter, and depending on which version of Merlin you like, he could use a sword too) with the ability to do something like ritual magic.

2. Bring the non-casters up to par with the casters. The Buffy RPG, for example, gives the "normal" characters more metagame powers. The less powerful you are in game, the more powerful you are at a meta-game level. Or, go the legendary route and make fighter types just damn powerful.

I'm not really sure there are any other solutions. Either you bring down the casters to the mundane level or you bring up the non-casters to the fantastic level. The problem comes when you try to mix the two. It's not an unsolvable problem by any stretch. A group may very well just work around it. I know the groups I've been in mostly have over the years. But, if you want to code it into the game, you pretty much have to go one route or the other.

 

[pemerton]

Option 3. There is at least one sort of literary approach to the issue which sees warriors (eg Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir) as more deeply invested into the social and political reality of their world than are wizards (eg Saruman, Elrond, Obi-Wan - Gandalf is a bit of an exception here). The mechanics could find a way to leverage this - not necessarily in the 1st ed AD&D way of turning high level fighters into wargame pieces, but in something like the HeroWars/Quest way, where these relationships to which fighters have access but wizards don't can be used as augments to the fighter PC's own actions.

(Having written this, maybe it's just a particular version of Option 2, if you see relationship-based augments as a type of metagame power.)

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think whats important is parity. Being equal but different.

When confronted by a problem the wizard, fighter and rogue should be able to deal with it in their own way with the same regularity of success. A 20ft wall? The wizard levitates up and over, the fighter digs in and climbs up and the rogue jumps, flips and parkours his way up the wall. An enemy combatant? The wizard blasts him with a magic spell, the fighter slices him in half with a sword and the rogue sneaks up and stabs him in the back. A locked doorway? The wizard uses a spell to unseal the door, the fighter breaks the door down and the rogue picks the lock.

When the WotC designers talk about D&D's sweet spot they are talking about those levels where this is mostly true.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the notion that this sort of divide exists in "western" (=Northern and Western European?) fantasy is a bit anachronistic.

In the Mabinogion, are the various kings and other warriors supernatural or not? The question doesn't arise within the context of the stories, and probably not within the context of the orignal authors and audience. It is a modern projection.

In Arthur, is Lancelot's great prowess supernatural (in D&D terms, the divine abilities of a paladin, as 1st ed DDG tackled the issue) or not? For the greatest of Christian warriors, it doesn't make sense to ask this question.

Likewise Thor's ability to hook the Midgard Serpent, or to drink so much that he causes the ocean level to drop. Is this supernatural, or is he just a really tough (and thirsty) viking?

Even in Tolkein, it doesn't make sense to ask how much of Elrond's ability to restore physical and mental wellbeing, or how much of Aragorn's ability to lead, is supernatural rather than just a manifestation of the personality of each.

It's actually an incredibly modern thing.

The question is this: what makes a hero?

Is it your origins? Some stories believe it is something bred in the bones, something inherent to an individual. The very earliest heroes were gods and the children of gods; Hercules, Susano'o, Krishna. Or they were taught by the fey, or were somehow connected to the faerie, as can be seen in some Irish mythology. Or they had some magnificent destiny pre-plotted before them. The important thing lying in this is that they were all supernatural, be they fighters or wizards both. Some power was granted on them. This, in turn, is what makes Beowulf so damn fascinating, as he doesn't seem to be gifted with any outside power.

But that's old storytelling. Post-modernism has subverted traditional heroic construction and we no longer favor divine provenance (or, for that matter, prophecy, fate, destiny and other related structures).

Today we see a lot more self-built heroes (especially with the secularisation of literature): characters who have made themselves strong, tough, skilled through their own efforts rather than the blessings of the gods or what-have-you. Contemporary and futuristic heroes are almost all atheists, in practice if not belief. They may have superhuman reflexes and reactions but this is always 'natural' or, at most, created by Man/Technology. These are characters that are The Best Soldiers, The Smartest Hackers, The Most Persistent Cops.

So the idea presented in this thread is that Batman and other post-modern style heroes are all down to Earth people. That's the rub, isn't it, though? They're not normal people - they're heroes. Heroes are always a little off-kilter, a little out-of-step with the rest of the world. After all, you have to be outside the world to change it - and to challenge others who would change the world for their own ends. Heroes are a kind of autogyro, correcting our equilibrium whenever some mad king or crazed scientist attempts to disrupt it. After all, that's where the word "hero" comes from: to protect or defend.

That's part of why heroes were all divine or otherworldly in origin: not just as an explanation of their power, but also to allow them to reshape the world on their own terms, to fight and defeat enemies in an acceptable manner. When a normal person kills someone, it's murder; when a hero kills someone, it's justice.

And that's where the problem with D&D comes in. It takes the post-modernist hero who is non-supernatural, takes the pre-modernist hero who is staunchly supernatural, and then claims that they must coexist (oh, but only the supernatural ones get any power). In doing so you strip the post-modernist hero of his heroism. Suddenly Beowulf isn't allowed to reshape the world on his terms; he has to abide by the rules the wizards put down (the same rules the wizards break).

That's why this superman / batman argument is a non-argument, or at least in the terms they're being argued. Superman and Batman are both heroes. The difference is that Superman is far more pre-modernist and takes his strength from an outside origin, whereas Batman is post-modernist. Trying to claim Batman is just a normal average Joe is missing every sort of point that could ever be missed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

the various ways in which martial/mortal/natural/"normal" progatonists can be made viable within a roughly D&D-ish mechanical framework

Well, one of the more obvious solutions is actually pretty much what Batman does: Make their own gear.

Imagine if a D&D fighter did not have to depend on DM handouts to get their magic items. They could craft their Flametounge or their Holy Avenger themselves. "Craft" is an ambiguous term -- they could dunk their armor in the blood of a red dragon and make it Armor of Fire Resistence. The don't "cast magic" per se, but the weapons and equipment they wield become enhanced.

From an out-of-character perspective, they could simply select powers. "Oh, I'm level 3, I'm going to gain the Armor of Frost ability that lets me freeze enemies who hit me!" Next adventure, they have it.

From an in-character perspective, they could stumble upon their item ("Guess what I found under the chicken coop!"), they could craft their item ("Using Undying Ice from the Frostfell, I craft a suit of armor!"), they could pay someone else to craft it ("Dear Dwarves of Glacier Mountain..."), they could be rewarded with the item ("Huh, guess the Queen of Winter liked the way I killed that dragon..."), they could have it delivered by an international support network ("Thank you for this most recent gadget, Q!"), or they could even discover the way to make that happen from simple research in a fantasy world ("Oh, I guess if I bend the metal here, and add this bit of dragon's tooth there, and leave it out in a snowbank overnight....").

Same way Spellcasters learn new spells, warriors gain new items.

Armor. Weapons. Boots. Rings. Rogues are no longer outclassed by a wizard with invisibility, because they get to choose their very own ring of invisibility at about the same level.

This also frees up the DM to award more random treasure. Rather than useful, narrow, practical things, the DM can play with magic items with a heavy cost, a weird theme, or a slightly divergent theme. More wondrous items, less +1 things. The +1 things are right there for adventurers to make/find/whatever themselves, automagically as they level up.

So a hypothetical D&D Batman goes from a Batarang +1 and a Cloak of the Bat at first level, all the way up to Kryptonite Bullets and a Helm of True Seeing (or whatever).

This also meshes with the myths, and lets characters customize their gear to their hero's theme.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Hell, it probably meshes with the myths better as many heroes find or are given there weapons. "Hey Persus, outside of being half god, here are some awesome magic items."