So magic can do magic things and non-magic cannot and that is a problem? Scratches head.
Put that way, yeah, mabye. If it's magic can do anything and non-magic can't do anything at all, that'd certainly be a problem. What I think you mean though, is that magic can do things a wider and more wonderous range of ways than non-magic can. A band of soldiers can burn down a village by riding through it, throwing torches, and cutting down any villagers that try to quench the blaze. A wizard or dragon can also burn down the same village, just in a different way.
The double-standard goes a lot further than that. It has magic doing things that, even in genre, it generally can't, and has non-magic unable to do thing that not only in genre, but even, demonstrably, in reality, it can.
For instance, if you're in a medieval battle, you could very easily loose a limb. You could catch an arrow in the eye and be instantly killed. In both cases, no matter how skilled and experienced a soldier you might be.
Those things can't happen in D&D - they can be arbitrarily narrated for 1d6 hp NPCs killed by an arrow or axe or whatever, but they can't happen to anyone with a stack of hps. There have been critical hit variants that let that kind of thing happen, but never an official part of the game. No, in D&D, you'd need a magical Sword of Sharpness or Arrow of Slaying to accomplish them.
Conversely, magic-users in legend and literature can do some remarkable things. Circe could polymorph men into animals. Gandalf could conjure light or fire. Merlin could foretell the future. Maleficent could put a helpless baby in a coma with a 16-year delay. But, they couldn't all do all of those things and more. D&D magic-users of high enough level could.
I guess one way of putting it is that if any wizard (or sorcerer, or god) ever did anything magical in any story from anywhere/when, any D&D (and every) wizard with a high enough level spell slot can probably do it. But, if a fighter is to do something in D&D, it had better be something that absolutely anyone could do, on demand, at any time.
Even with your pejorative way of viewing it Tony, you are right. I don't want a game that is "fixed" in the way you want it fixed. For me that would be a broken game. Which is why we view 4e differently. You think it fixed things and I think it broke them.
We are speaking of two very different things here, so we can't even say that we're at odds, really (except in what we focus on as important). I'm talking about the qualities that make a good game in a technical sense (measurable, things like clarity, consistency, and balance - things that don't make a game fun, by themselves, but the absence of which can make it unplayable). You're talking about the subjective criteria that you demand in a game (verisimilitude, immersion, feel - things that are critical to a an individual gaming experience, and may be quite different for each individual).
That 4e happens to be a good game in that technical sense, but not one that you care for, personally, is, to make some polite assumptions, little more than a coincidence. The difference in opinion is what we care about enough to debate on the internet. I care enough about the quality of the actual content of the game to debate the finer points of it, I don't care enough about a specific style of play to advocate for it above all others. That makes me a detail-oriented and obsessive hobbyist, which is not exactly something to be proud of, even in geek culture, but I'll own up it.
I do doubt there is any real solution where we all play the exact same game.
All, maybe not. You and I? I could envision such a game. It probably wouldn't be a fantasy-genre game (because of the very topic of this thread), but I suspect there could be a game that was decent enough from me to enjoy playing, and that didn't push any of your hot-buttons. Also, I'm sure we could sit down and play 1e AD&D together, we'd just get different things out of it - for me it'd be mostly nostalgia, which isn't enough to keep me playing for /long/, but it's not impossible.
Rules flexibility and modularity would be the only possibility for us to use the same rules book. We still wouldn't be playing the same game. I'd be playing D&D modded one way and others would be playing D&D modded another. The bitter battles that rage which neither side is going to give an inch on ultimately get us nowhere.
Nod. The 'kit to make your own game' game is something I, personally, like (it's kinda how a lot of us Hero fans used to view that system), but it's not for everyone. It requires work, up-front, to make the game your own - game-design work for the DM, and negotiation/consensus among the players & DM to make sure everyone's good with the design goals the DM is shooting for.
If I had to play a game you liked Tony, I'd just quit gaming altogether.
You've never had to, and, with the d20 OGL and SRD, out there, it's prettymuch inconceivable that you ever would be. Which does make one wonder about this ceaseless crusade against games you'd never be forced to play.
I believe ideally the solution would be two versions of D&D supported side by side.
Well, we had that - 4e and Pathfinder were both supported for a little while there - but, it didn't stop the edition war from raging against 4e the whole time.
But right now we are going for the flexibility and modularity edition. I feel like the wizard in many ways has been hammered and many of you are spouting off that it's still dominating the fighter.
Really, it seems more like 5e is seeking to balance the wizard and fighter by harkening back to the two editions where each was at it's most broken. The wizard harkens back to 3e, with high save DCs that can hammer the target's worst save (for all spells, not just his highest level ones), tremendous flexibility (both tactical and strategic, as opposed to mainly strategic in 3e), and virtually no meaningful restrictions on casting. The fighter harkens back to the 2e cuisinart-of-doom, with a hail of multiple attacks leveraging even small static bonuses into monster-mincing DPR.
Thing is, the double standard still applies: While the fighter delivers high DPR, there isn't really a huge gulf between it and the Evoker wizard. OTOH, the gulf in flexibility between the two is immeasurable. The Evoker can wake up one morning and decide to prep a slate of utility and control spells and completely change his contribution to the party, tailoring it to the expected challenges of the day - while, at the same time, keeping a couple of scalable evocations in his back pocket in case he needs to bust out just a bit less DPR than he can when he's loaded for bear.
So I throw up my hands.
Sorry if that sounds rantish. I'm just tired of this fight. I wish there was a happy solution for us all.
You've been saying that for years.
The happy solution would have been for people to live and let live, and never started the edition war. I'd be happily playing well-supported 4e (and looking forward to a 5e in a another 3 or 4 years), you'd be happily playing 3.5, grognards would happily be playing well-supported retro-clones.
A happy solution to the double-standard would be for those harboring that prejudice to leave it at their tables, and not try to browbeat WotC into making the game force it on everyone else. It's not like you couldn't still apply the double-standard in an otherwise balanced game, you'd just make casters higher-level or ban non-caster abilities until they were suitably pathetic.