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

[Hussar]

Because "System may I|?" is soooo much better.

I know you meant this as a joke RC, but, honestly, many times, yes, System May I is better. At the very least, it's impartial and, even if it might be stupid, it's equally stupid to everyone.

Mother May I runs into that human barrier and I've seen way too many games go pear shaped (including more than my share of ones I've been running) because the DM thinks he knows better.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I know you meant this as a joke RC, but, honestly, many times, yes, System May I is better. At the very least, it's impartial and, even if it might be stupid, it's equally stupid to everyone.

Mother May I runs into that human barrier and I've seen way too many games go pear shaped (including more than my share of ones I've been running) because the DM thinks he knows better.

I guess that assessment depends upon your experience.

The reason a human GM is better than a computer, IMHO and IME, is that the human GM can make judgment calls....and is therefore not 100% reliant upon the system.

If a game is worth playing, IMHO and IME, "Mother May I" is indescribably superior to "System May I". A person who disallows a sensible action because the system disallows it -- or a system that disallows sensible actions in the name of balance ("Sorry, you only get three jump cards per session; you can't leap over that garden hose") -- makes the game not worth playing.

Indeed, the whole concept of "System May I" assumes that the system takes precedence over the players; whereas "Mother May I" assumes that the Game Master is a jerk who is participating not to supply reasonably judgments and a fun game for all concerned, but rather to feed his own ego. It also edges into that "Say Yes" meme, where the GM who says "No" is a bad "Mother May I" GM.

Needless to say, I think that is poppycock. Human adjudication in a role-playing game is always, IMHO and IME, superior to system adjudication. This is true even of the worst GMs I've ever encountered. I mean here GMs who have run games that I have walked out on because they were insufferable pricks who wanted to control how the adventure "flowed" and what PCs could do in enormously heavy-handed ways. I mean, literally, "You want to just leave the ruins? Well, you start aging one year per minute until you change your mind!" is better than System May I.

YMMV, obviously, and from many conversations it seems to me that you have had some....unusually bad, let us say.....experiences that make you distrust even typical GMs.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because "System may I|?" is soooo much better.

That's a false dichotomy, mang.

I think "You can only hit creatures unless the DM gives you special privileges" is really dumb, because I think its fun when rules elements are like tools, with many possible uses. If I have an axe, I shouldn't need to ask permission to chop down a door, or use it to gather firewood, or hack my way through underbrush. These are all very predictable uses of an axe. As a DM, I shouldn't have to stop and give permission all the time, either. I should have players confident enough and imaginative enough to say, "This is what I do," and I can say, "Okay, here's what happens."

You don't need much of a "system" to tell you that you can use an axe to chop things other than enemies. You actually just need the "system" to get the heck out of the way of your imagination and not tell you to ask the DM's permission before you go and do something as insane and possibly unbalancing as using an axe to gather firewood.

Again, it's a balance thing. If my axe can clear underbrush, I guess it can chop away this underbrush that is ranked as difficult terrain in this combat, thus making it easier for me to move and possibly giving me a supreme edge in a combat. If my fire ray can light things on fire, I guess it can light that underbrush on fire, clearing it and killing anything inside of it, making the combat super easy.

There isn't a single RPG with a game master setting up the campaign settings, playing NPCs, and adjudicating rules that doesn't ultimately come down to the same hyperbolic point.
If you don't trust your GM's judgment, you don't trust your GM's judgment.

In this case, it's not a problem of trust, it's a problem of degree. I shouldn't need permission to do something that is clearly within the realm of my character's abilities.

It's like asking my DM for permission for my character to breathe, or digest his lunch, or swallow that sip of ale. It's micro-managing on a pretty absurd level.

It exists for a fairly valid balance reason, but I'm of the opinion that fun trumps balance. If my astounding ability to cut things with an axe ruins the DM's plan for an epic battle on a rope bridge, perhaps the DM needs to develop some basic on-the-fly skills (with the help of the system) instead of denying me the ability to hit anything aside from a designated target. I'm used to that in a computer game, but D&D is better than that in part because you can do anything you imagine.

I'm not asking to get rid of the DM. I'm just disputing the benefits gained from this micro-management.

 

[GSHamster]

Again, it's a balance thing. If my axe can clear underbrush, I guess it can chop away this underbrush that is ranked as difficult terrain in this combat, thus making it easier for me to move and possibly giving me a supreme edge in a combat. If my fire ray can light things on fire, I guess it can light that underbrush on fire, clearing it and killing anything inside of it, making the combat super easy.

To offer a different perspective, you're applying a scientific mindset to a magical problem.

Why does the fire spell only work on creatures? Because it's magic. Maybe it's not "real" fire, but magical force that simulates the effects of fire when it comes into contact with flesh. Maybe the fire summoned from the elemental plane "thinks" in some fashion and chooses not to burn non-living material. Maybe the fire requires the "spark of animation" in order to combust.

To me it seems a little disingenuous to say that you can break some of the physical rules with magic, but then other rules (specifically that fire always behaves like fire) must apply. If magic can break the rules, then magic can break any rule, especially the Principle of Repeatability.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why does the fire spell only work on creatures? Because it's magic.

Personally, to me, this first seems like a weak, passive, condescending, cop-out hand-wave ass-pull, and second like like no fun, even if it wasn't. Part of D&D's appeal is the capacity to have my imagination dictate the game. If what I can affect only comes from a specific list of pre-approved DM targets, that's a problem for me, since it kicks the reason I like D&D in the face. I want to be creative with my abilities, and I want my players to be creative with theirs. Until recently, D&D was a good way to do that.

It also doesn't address the "I can't chop shrubs with an axe" problem, unless you decide that axes in this alternate universe suddenly only work based on life-force or something.

 

[GSHamster]

It also doesn't address the "I can't chop shrubs with an axe" problem, unless you decide that axes in this alternate universe suddenly only work based on life-force or something.

Axes aren't magical. The normal physical laws apply to them.

I'm just pointing out a valid (in my view, at least) counter-argument. Magic is magic. It does not obey the physical laws of the universe. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat it differently than an axe.

Heh, it might even be a balancing point for magic vs mundane. Magic can be very powerful, but must be very precise, and can't be "adapted" to different situations the way non-magical elements can be. Of course this might be less fun for the magic users, so it's probably not the best of ideas for a game.

 

[pawsplay]

I know you meant this as a joke RC, but, honestly, many times, yes, System May I is better. At the very least, it's impartial and, even if it might be stupid, it's equally stupid to everyone.

The problem is that the game is at least as futile as Mother May I.

 

[NoWayJose]

Why does the fire spell only work on creatures? Because it's magic. Maybe it's not "real" fire, but magical force that simulates the effects of fire when it comes into contact with flesh. Maybe the fire summoned from the elemental plane "thinks" in some fashion and chooses not to burn non-living material. Maybe the fire requires the "spark of animation" in order to combust.

I agree that this feels like a cop-out, at least for people like me... which is the probably the target audience that one needs to convince. Because the people that are OK with spell-as-a-specific-effect don't prioritize the versimilitude of fiction-first and don't feel the need to fully justify the mechanics in the first place.

Going back to the OP, which is how warrior and wizards are handled in literature, I would venture to say that something like sentient magical fire that purposefully decides not to burn non-living matter is simply non-existent. Same goes for fantasy movies. That kind of spell would be completely uncinematic.

To me it seems a little disingenuous to say that you can break some of the physical rules with magic, but then other rules (specifically that fire always behaves like fire) must apply. If magic can break the rules, then magic can break any rule, especially the Principle of Repeatability.

For the sake of consistency and consensus, if magic creates "fire", then one by default one assumes it behaves like fire. If magic creates Zeenox Energy, then it can be whatever the game defines that to be.

I agree there are some odd cases, like why in 3E are there no rules for lightning bolt being conducted by water, which is why (on the previous page) I suggested that D&D defines what is magical cold (and fire and electricity), how does it mechanically interacts in the game world, including how is it different (if any) from natural cold, fire, electricity. This is not a solution for 4E, which really doesn't care about that kind of thing as Kamikaze so eloquently articulated on previous pages, but would be great to have for a 5E.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a false dichotomy, mang.

I don't think so.

You rely on the rules, or you rely on a human agency to interpret the rules.

I prefer to rely on a human agency.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

For the sake of consistency and consensus, if magic creates "fire", then one by default one assumes it behaves like fire. If magic creates Zeenox Energy, then it can be whatever the game defines that to be.

This very situation is why you need to rely on a (hopefully) reasonable DM to interpret things, to parse the game's syntax and make it work in a believable way.

It makes sense that magical fire can burn through a door, or magical force can smash it down, but what about when you hit the door with a necrotic effect? Or cold?

There are answers, if the DM wants to get creative (necrotic might rot the wood, cold might make it brittle enough to grant a bonus to smash it, etc), but if they don't, it's pretty easy, and not terribly illogical to just say, "sorry, your necrotic doombolt does nothing to the door."

I think having that flexibility is a strength in any system.

I agree there are some odd cases, like why in 3E are there no rules for lightning bolt being conducted by water, which is why (on the previous page) I suggested that D&D defines what is magical cold (and fire and electricity), how does it mechanically interacts in the game world, including how is it different (if any) from natural cold, fire, electricity. This is not a solution for 4E, which really doesn't care about that kind of thing as Kamikaze so eloquently articulated on previous pages, but would be great to have for a 5E.

I'm pretty sure 3.x did define the effect of a lightning effect when it hit water. IIRC, when a lightning bolt hit water, it created a "fireball" sized spread within the liquid medium, rather than continuing through it.

4e doesn't bother defining this sort of thing, but having experience with earlier editions, if it ever came up, I would make a ruling on how it worked. This is the upside of "mother may I" I suppose. Others may not agree, but they don't have to play in my game, either