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

[Ranes]

And in the end, after our magic-user was demonstrably folded, spindled, and mutilated far more often than not...

Sorry for the tangent but are you by chance a fan of Frank Zappa?

I've been using Unearthed Arcana's excellent incantations (ritual) rules for years and they're excellent for, among other things, cultist villagers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry for the tangent but are you by chance a fan of Frank Zappa?

I wouldn't call myself one, although I am aware of him.

I used to work for the government, both in the US Army and the US Census Bureau. The back of the cheques reads: "Do Not Fold, Spindle, or Mutilate".

(Like you were going to do that to your paycheque!)



RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except that a 10th-level warrior would model this better.

Which is one reason why 1Ed-3.5Ed DMGs left the possibility of NPCs having PC levels open to DM discretion and did not link those levels perforce to being an adventurer.

And why several of us have been saying that having PC class levels don't neccessarily mean you're automatically some kind of "Fantasy Hero."

 

[Hussar]

It is also blindingly obvious that the DM can choose to have that turnip farmer, at any time in the future, become a FTR 1 as a result of in-game events, and progress as far, or farther, than the PC FTR 1.

So, again, no, the system doesn't determine his potential. The DM, and the logic of the shared fictional space do.

This is only blindingly obvious if you choose to ignore the mechanics. Silly things like the fact that NPC's don't actually gain XP, saving throw differences, the fact that NPC normal people don't have stats, proficiencies, and that sort of thing.

I see where this is headed and I'm not going down this road. If you want to actually discuss the system, fine. But, I'm not about to go around, yet again, on trying to pin the tail on the houserule that RC thinks makes better D&D.

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the actual mechanics. I was very clear and repeated myself frequently that I was talking about how the game actually defines a normal man, not:

Answer: I mean a human being, which could potentially exist without supernatural effect within the real world or the fictional analogue thereof.

See, that's a whole 'nother discussion and one I have never once actually engaged in in this thread. Which, I think, has been the problem from the start. Everyone wants to apply this to some sort of simulationist think and argue from that POV.

My point is simple. The game, whichever edition you wish to choose, DEFINES NORMAL HUMANS as a part of the game mechanics. This definition is not based on any real world analogue, but, on how the mechanics of the various systems work. In 1e, a Normal Man has a d6 (IIRC) hp and no other stats than Int. In 3e, a Normal Man is defined by that system, as having 10's in every stat and being a Commoner 1.

Thus, by the definitions of Normal Man that exist in the system, when you move beyond those constructs, your character is no longer a Normal Man, again, as defined by the system.

I've been very careful about this all the way along. I might have mis stepped a few times, and I've been known to be incoherent on occasion, but, I've very much tried to stick to the point that Joe Average as defined by the system is inferior to an PC classed individual. The PC classed individual has abilities that Joe Average simply can never have, no matter what he does.

Does that make the PC classed individual superhuman? Frankly I don't care. He is superior though. No amount of massaging the situation, delving into NPC vs NPC comparisons and clouding the issue with all sorts of real world and fictional character examples that really only reinforce my point changes the fact that Joe Average, again, as defined by the system, is inferior to a PC.

Which, in a game of Heroic Fantasy is exactly as it should be in my mind.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

And why several of us have been saying that having PC class levels don't neccessarily mean you're automatically some kind of "Fantasy Hero."

Er..yes...that's the point.

The DM should use what he thinks best models what he wants to achieve.

What I have a problem with is the notion that "leveling up" is assumed to have some kind of in-game reality; that NPCs choose to "take" a level of warrior or "choose" a particular feat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is only blindingly obvious if you choose to ignore the mechanics.

Or read them and understand both what the mechanics are, and their intent, both as expressed in the orignal work and in the only samples (published modules) of how that original work was intended to be used that have been provided by the publisher.

But, I am sure you understand the rules, and the intent behind the rules, more than the writers of the 1e modules (including, apparently, Gary Gygax).

As for your participation in the thread, and what you have or have not argued, anyone who wishes to scroll back through this monster is free to do so.


Game On!



RC

 

[Hussar]

Which is one reason why 1Ed-3.5Ed DMGs left the possibility of NPCs having PC levels open to DM discretion and did not link those levels perforce to being an adventurer.

And why several of us have been saying that having PC class levels don't neccessarily mean you're automatically some kind of "Fantasy Hero."

But, it does make you better than a normal man.

 

[Hussar]

But, I am sure you understand the rules, and the intent behind the rules, more than the writers of the 1e modules (including, apparently, Gary Gygax).

Nice appeal to authority there. Pretty soon you'll be breaking out the Tolkien quotes too.

Of course, the fact that you've ignored all the bits that Sepulchrave has quoted to you about 1e's demographics, the fact that NPC's don't gain XP, and the, oh, I don't know, actual words in the DMG.

I mean, heck, you talked about modules where the PC's start off as zero level commoners. (I remember these rules, Unearthed Arcana? 2e? Been way too long). Funny thing that. The PC's start off with a single weapon proficiency and a d4 hit points. They don't actually gain real hit dice until they hit level 1 with whatever class they are taking. Heck, they don't even start off with experience, they start with NEGATIVE experience.

So, basically, a normal man, again, as defined by the system, is far, far weaker than any character class.

Although, AIR, I loved those rules since they worked so well with Con bonuses. Nothing like a 1st level fighter with d10+2d4+2XCon bonus at 1st level. 18 Con and you started out with something like 20 hit points at 1st level. Nice.

((BTW, I'm almost 100% sure we were screwing those rules up. I know. ))

 

[the Jester]

And no one is disputing that. The problem isn't whether the game is gritty or high magic. It's in the thread title. The Wizard vs Warrior Balance problem. WHFRP doesn't have this issue; fighters are gritty - but magic will blow back in your face. Exalted doesn't have this problem; magic is powerful, but so are fighters. The problem is The Wizard vs Warrior Balance. You want warriors to play gritty and wizards to play near-effortlessly.

Whoa there Tex, you're assuming an awful lot about my playstyle here. I'm neither advocating gritty nor high magic (and in my experience it IS possible to have both with a good dm and any edition of the rules as your skeleton).

The thread title addresses the wizard vs. warrior balance in novels, not in games. This whole discussion has moved pretty far afield- which is fine- but let's not get all rowdy about the topic unless we are actually talking about the thread topic. (To summarize my thoughts on the actual thread topic in a sentence: You don't have balance problems in a novel, because it is a novel.)

I want both warriors and wizards to play fairly gritty, even when the wizards do have awesome reality-warping spells. And somehow for the last 30 years, I've pulled it off.

Low magic is fun. The problem is the mix of the low magic fighter and the high magic wizard. Play WHFRP 2e for a bit. Wizards there don't like casting spells because they backfire and have side effects. Or open yourself to demonic posession.

Again, you can do it with a good dm. My campaign has had fun fighter-types from 1e through 2e through 3e and 4e; I have never had a fighter player feel like he doesn't get his chance to shine. 3e was where the balance was most precariously tilted, but even then the party's fighter really shone quite often.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to play. I'll repeat my question from upthread: why are there those who insist that I'm doing it wrong? It works for me, it works for my players, and it works well enough that I always have a waiting list of players longer than the actual list of players in my game at any given time. Clearly asserting that it cannot possibly work to have the mix of high magic and gritty is simply false, as my own experiences demonstrate, so perhaps rather than telling me that I can't possibly have a working campaign that's fun for fighter players and wizard players, it would be more constructive to ask how I pull it off.

Which, frankly, I wouldn't know how to answer, since I appear to have been always doing it. I think the wizard's weaknesses balance his strengths very well in 2e and earlier and in 4e. I understand the whole "narrative control" issue some people have, but I think they underestimate the ability of a high level fighter to throw his weight around the campaign. (Or maybe a lot of dms just don't let them play with armies?) A lot of old sandbox campaigns culminated in a fighter becoming a king or warlord, with an army of followers and a massive castle ready to withstand assaults. Just as the wizard can, albeit very differently in style, a fighter can change the campaign world map for all time (at least in a persistent, lasting campaign).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nice appeal to authority there.

Do you understand what you are referring to?

Logical Fallacies Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.​

See also Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I am not arguing that Gygax's (etc.) statements are correct statements about his intent, or that his examples are correct examples of his intent, because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative, but because those individuals, making statements about their intent, or their use of said material, are authoratitive.

This is true in the same way that it is true that Hussar is the foremost authority on what Hussar thinks.

I can quote Gygax as an authority on Gygax's intent without falling into logical error (although he still might make false statements about his intent, and thus lead me to a false conclusion), but I cannot quote Gygax about what is possible in Danny Alcatraz's campaign (a subject on which he is not an authority) without falling into error.

IOW, the "Appeal to Authority" may lead to a false conclusion, if Gygax etc. affirms a falsehood within said body of work, but so long as I remain in an area where Gygax has authority (i.e., his thoughts, works, and intent), I am on pretty safe ground.

OTOH, you are not, because (1) the body of Gygax's work (and other TSR 1e work) undermines the value of your testimony, and (2) you are attempting to appeal to the authority of the DMG on a subject which, not only is Gygax not an authority, but on which he expressly states that he is not an authority within the body of the quoted work. IOW, you are committing the very fallacy you erroneously claimed I was. Ironic, eh?

I mean, heck, you talked about modules where the PC's start off as zero level commoners. (I remember these rules, Unearthed Arcana? 2e? Been way too long).

Funny thing that. You remember these rules, but don't remember where they came from so you can reference them, and somehow missed the references upthread (which you are now, apparently, aware of) to where they came from.

In 1e, you are looking at Greyhawk Adventures.

For 3e, you need Goodman Games' Heroes are Made, Not Born, and a module published in Dragon Roots #1 or #2 by C.E. Rocco (but I'd have to look up the name and issue to give you more information; it is on my shelf at home).

((BTW, I'm almost 100% sure we were screwing those rules up. I know. ))

And yet you are almost 100% sure that you are not screwing up the rules about normal men, despite examples to the contrary of your firmly held position?

Again, ironic, eh?



RC