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

[NoWayJose]

I think that human interpretive agency is important for a RPG. At least in my game, it's not just the GM but the players as well who have an important role in this - in that they are able to propose interpretations/options, and the GM is under some sort of onus to take them seriously.

I have a question... you brought up the rules about targeting objects, because a few people were going back and forth as to whether a ray could target an object or not. Now 4E is almost 3 years old. I was wondering why the answer to target object issue isn't already commonly known to 4e players (assuming those involved in that debate played 4E?).

Is it possible that there are a number of 4E players/DMs who have grown so comfortable coloring inside the 4E lines, that it never occured to them to ask "Can I target that object with this ray?".

Because if the metagame combination of "System May I" and "spell-as-a-effect" is so explicit that people never think outside that box, then no wonder some people are disregarding the fantasy literature and cinematic narrative as a source of expectations of what they should be able to do in D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And how is that not relying on a human agency (in this case, my own)?

It's not relying on the DM's agency, which I suppose is the clincher. It doesn't ask for permission to do things you probably should be able to do.

Contrast to a video game, where a player cannot do anything the programmer did not predesign. Can I use the axe to chop? Well, only if the programmer thought you should when the game was written. System May I?

Totally agree. This is what I don't like about 4e's current assumption -- it replicates that feeling of being in a videogame, where only the designer's allowed options are the valid ones.

Again, not that most DMs bother to play with the default 4e assumption, at least outside of a combat.

I was almost out of here when that "Mother May I" comment came up....specifically, the idea that relying on human agency is somehow a bad thing.

What's bad is when a player has to have that agency bequeathed to them by request, when they should clearly possess it without having to ask. That's some micromanagement

I disagree. I disagree a lot. My position is the opposite -- failure to rely on human agency is a really bad decision. It is as bad a decision as not giving that human agency some guidance as to how to be reliable.

Any extreme position is, I feel, not a great one in this case. Go just by the rules, and you have 4e's "you can't hit objects" and videogames with their "pre-approved actions only, please!" Go just with DM judgement, and you're playing Amber Diceless.

It becomes "Mother May I" when you have to ask the DM for permission too often, when you can't give a player enough autonomy to perform their own actions most of the time. Asking the DM if my axe can chop wood falls into that camp, since it's pretty obvious that my axe should be able to chop wood, and I shouldn't have to fluff the DM's ego by requesting some special dispensation to do what should clearly be something I can do.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I have a question... you brought up the rules about targeting objects, because a few people were going back and forth as to whether a ray could target an object or not. Now 4E is almost 3 years old. I was wondering why the answer to target object issue isn't already commonly known to 4e players (assuming those involved in that debate played 4E?).

Is it possible that there are a number of 4E players/DMs who have grown so comfortable coloring inside the 4E lines, that it never occured to them to ask "Can I target that object with this ray?".

Because if the metagame combination of "System May I" and "spell-as-a-effect" is so explicit that people never think outside that box, then no wonder some people are disregarding the fantasy literature and cinematic narrative as a source of expectations of what they should be able to do in D&D.

I can't speak for everyone in every 4e-playing group out there, obviously, but this does not accurately describe my situation at all.

More likely is that attacking objects just doesn't come up that often, or that most DMs just don't need to look up specific rules on the issue - they just make a logical ruling and move on. Those rules are there for people that actually need to reference them, due to inexperience or because they don't want to think outside the box, or because some people like to know the rules inside-out-and-backwards.

What I described in my last post was pretty much the same as though I had consulted the previously quoted rules text, but here's the thing - I didn't need the rules to tell me what to do. I made a judgement based on what I think is appropriate, and, what do you know... it happened to coincide with the rules.

In a lot of cases, the rules for things like this are based largely on DMing shared experience as to what works. People who have been doing it for a long time already know these things, generally, but the books cannot assume that (for reasons that this thread has made painfully obvious).

 

[Abraxas]

I have a question... you brought up the rules about targeting objects, because a few people were going back and forth as to whether a ray could target an object or not. Now 4E is almost 3 years old. I was wondering why the answer to target object issue isn't already commonly known to 4e players (assuming those involved in that debate played 4E?).

Is it possible that there are a number of 4E players/DMs who have grown so comfortable coloring inside the 4E lines, that it never occured to them to ask "Can I target that object with this ray?".

Because if the metagame combination of "System May I" and "spell-as-a-effect" is so explicit that people never think outside that box, then no wonder some people are disregarding the fantasy literature and cinematic narrative as a source of expectations of what they should be able to do in D&D.

This would describe the games I have been involved with lately - it is even something I commented on in another thread awhile ago. For some reason the group I game with has switched from trying stuff that makes sense at the time and letting the DM adjudicate to only doing what their power cards say they can do - it is quite frustrating.

 

[Fifth Element]

The game is called Hypothetical Adventures! It specifies that you have to play a Jump Card to leap in the game, but fails to specify that the leap must be significant, etc. That is because HA! wants to minimize human agency (GM decision making)so that it never becomes a "Mother May I" game.

Sometimes, an illustration of an extreme position that no one is actually taking can contribute to the understanding of the discussion.

This is not one of those times. IMHO.

 

[Fifth Element]

I do not like games that seem "tactical" on the outside, but which eventually become "We stunlock the monsters" followed by a flurry of coups de grace, without any real chance of failure, combat after combat after combat.

This happened in the other thread too. You can't coup de grace a stunned creature, it needs to be helpless.

Also, this is spoken like someone with little or no experience with the game. Is that not correct?

 

[pawsplay]

This happened in the other thread too. You can't coup de grace a stunned creature, it needs to be helpless.

Also, this is spoken like someone with little or no experience with the game. Is that not correct?

He wasn't specifying the stun condition of any particular edition of any particular game; he was clearly talking about stunlocking in general and coups de graces in general. Clearly, there are games where this occurs (even some games in which you cannot literally coup de grace someone, as the maneuver, who merely has the stun condition as defined in that game).

 

[Fifth Element]

He wasn't specifying the stun condition of any particular edition of any particular game; he was clearly talking about stunlocking in general and coups de graces in general. Clearly, there are games where this occurs (even some games in which you cannot literally coup de grace someone, as the maneuver, who merely has the stun condition as defined in that game).

It strikes me that he is discussing a game (4E, since all examples are directly tied to it) with which he has limited experience, and using extreme examples that are discussed on the internet all the time but don't show up in most people's games.

 

[pawsplay]

It strikes me that he is discussing a game (4E, since all examples are directly tied to it) with which he has limited experience, and using extreme examples that are discussed on the internet all the time but don't show up in most people's games.

Considering his familiarity with a number of d20 games on which he is basing his own personal project, including D&D 3e in which you also cannot coups de grace a stunned creature, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I think you are focusing on a specific phraseology which is not intended to mean what you are implying it does.

Jo: Let's drive to McDonald's for dinner.
Chris: I don't want to go through the drive-thru.
Jo: That's fine by me.
Chris: But you just said driving to McDonald's. You didn't say anything about getting out of the car. I can only assume you don't realize McDonald's has dine-in seating.

 

[NoWayJose]

For what it's worth, this leads up to a summary of my subjective position over the last 10 pages:

4E Essentials: Hynotism
* The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice
* Slide the target up to 3 squares

This is a classic case of 4E metagamey spell-as-an-effect ¹ design philosophy that makes little or no narrative/fictional sense.

For those who expect that spells be designed with a fiction-first cinematic approach, Hypnotism fails spectacularly: By the letter of the rule, you can't use hypnotism to cause them to drop an item, say something, fall prone, stick their head in a bucket, etc.

Like many 4E powers, for me, the title of the spell ('Hypnotism') and the fluff ('Your piercing gaze and whispered word let you seize momentary control of your enemy's mind') hints at marvelous possibilities, but the actual mechanics are a straightjacket. Expectations raised and dashed, promises and lies, all in the same breath.

This lack of simulationism is tolerated or outright denied by people who are comfortable coloring inside the 4E lines ², and I can't deny them their right to have that experience.

However, for me, the magic of magic (pun intended) has been smothered, thanks to 4E's fetish for balance ³, codified behavior ⁴, and downplay of human adjudication ⁵.

In the case of Hypnotism, I would scrap the spell, move it to a higher level, balance it with drawbacks, and/or (the lamest but easiest way) name it 'Power Word: Move Exactly 30 Feet or Attack Enemy' (which is super-gamey, but at least it's honest).

But that's just a single illustrative example. Overall, I would personally, subjectively, ideally and theoretically prefer:
- A return or partial return to narrative/cinematic-based resolutions ⁶
- A return to literature/cinema as a source of design inspiration and player expectations ⁷
- Magic is more subtly balanced mechnically and narratively more fun and special than in 4e ⁸
- Spells are designed as a tool, not as an effect ¹
- Attempt to define what evocations can and can't do in-game -- for the sake of consistency and clarity ⁹
- Add drawbacks to magic, tweak magic resource management, and reassess sacred cows -- for the sake of balance ¹⁰
- Wizards are semi-capable fighters (like Gandalf) ¹¹ or use low-power magic wands, etc. when spells run out -- for the sake of continual contribution
- Scholarly wizards with little melee value and more powerful magicks are optional for advanced/mature games ¹²
- Avoid swinging all the way back to pre-4E uber-wizard issues that some people have experienced at higher levels ¹³

If you disagree with any of the above, you have every right to argue otherwise. That said, if you're happy with the 3E or 4E status quo, you're already good to go!

Any helpful comments or constructive suggestions?

Edit: I don't think that page 42 of the DMG is the best answer ¹⁴

1. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-98.html#post5536926
2. Various posts pg 100-101 and other threads about metagame vs fiction-first, simulationism, verisimilitude, etc.
3. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-96.html#post5535445 and http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-99.html#post5537089
4. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-91.html#post5533899
5. Various posts pg 100-102 and http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...e-has-changed-over-years-why-i-dont-like.html
6. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ndled-fantasy-literature-101.html#post5538972
7. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ndled-fantasy-literature-101.html#post5539089
8. Most of pg 98
9. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-99.html#post5537032
10. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-99.html#post5537835
11. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-92.html#post5534115
12. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...andled-fantasy-literature-92.html#post5534264
13. Pages 97 and lower
14. http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ndled-fantasy-literature-104.html#post5540211