The Role of the Wizard, or "How Come Billy Gets to Create a Demiplane?"

[ProfessorCirno]

IME, narrative power arises from a meaningful interaction with the game world, regardless of class.

Magical power has a mechanical "system" to represent it. Religious and cultural significance, political power, the ability to psychologically move NPCs - these don't.

Manipulation of the game world is not the exclusive province of magic-users through their class abilities. It arises through players recognizing the potential impact of their characters upon their environment, and then striving to effect the change they want to happen.

Does the GM need to extend opportunities to non-magic-users more thoughtfully in order to make this happen? Probably. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so.

See, you're admitting it's a problem.

The wizard - or, more properly, the spellcaster - already has narrative power. The GM needs to give non-casters specific opportunities or set ups to try and give it to them.

Except even then, the wizard is flying around invisible and teleporting and creating a demiplane and drastically altering the world, while the fighter is waiting for the GM to throw him a bone.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

This is largely how it stopped being once you got past OD&D, where you were just leveling up your minature skirmish team and getting gold to field more units. (and people say 4th edition is just a minis game!)

I've rarely seen anyone run a stable of characters in nearly 30 years of playing D&D. And this includes Dark Sun, where such a thing was actually encouraged. Most people played one character, because they wanted him to have an important role in the campaign as a whole. And its not a lot of fun to get sidelined as a fighter. Sure, the casters will say they sucked at low levels, but come on.. no you didnt. Even at 1st level, when you're just a sleep spell on legs, you're still auto killing 2d4 hit dice once per day. You have the same THACO as the fighter. Cleric? same AC, faster exp table, and bonus spells?! My 10+ con doesnt seem as impressive compared to his 8+con + 3 cure light wounds.

And if you're more willing to put your "fodder" characters(thief/fighter) in dangerous dungeons over your "elite" magic users, it just highlights the problem.

OKAY-we've all greed that yes the game has the gritty mundane warrior and the high flying magician.

But see-here's the question.
What is D&D really supposed to be like? Remember, everyone wants to be cool, and everyone wants to be useful at least some time or another both inside and outside of combat.

1. Is it meant to play more gritty with magic taking a back seat, at where magic can do some minor tricks and curiosities, taking long casting times and lengthy rituals such that the magician while mysterious and kind of "cool" -usually cant do much in a fight and outside of it there are few problems he is ever required or at least handy in solving?

2. Is it meant to play more like a high fantasy game with magic everywhere and used in just about everything? Wizards live in their big high towers and cities are ruled by divine priest kings. These guys can do just about anything, magic and faith are power. They usually cant be bothered to do many 'menial' things even though there magic could easily solve many problems, and so they may send soldiers or knights to take care of hacking and slashing some monsters or thieves to delve into somewhere to nab some goody for him for he will pay a large sum of gold. PCs might roll up both magic and mundane characters, the latter working or lead by the former?

Right now I have a wealthy CE Eldritch Disciple who has a small sanctuary to his deity, but is investigating a temple currently fought over by both Demons & Devils, started by a dabbler who invited both cults into his estate and is looking into finding a way to make it his own after the Devils were ousted. He's done some homework and made some deals, sent some spies, and gathered a lot of info about the place. On the side he's also got a vendetta against another Evil deity, whose cultists offed some of his friends, and currently have his Succubus consort and his half-fiend spawn in slavery. He and his 'comrades' (party) have ransacked two of the deities temples-although they are mostly CG or CN and dont always get along with him.

In the same game, I also have a 9nth lvl LN Warforged Monk that doesnt know what to do with himself and has taken up the mercenary life, and a fresh LE aussie Duergar Rogue from 'down undadark' whose just looking to make some gold in the same campaign. The former doesnt know my ED is evil, and has an open mind, in addition his life was saved by my ED from a 10th lvl Swordsage/Shadowlord when he was just lvl 3 in a bar fight; he would definitely help him out if he asked. The latter doesnt have any compunctions about working for anybody if the money's right.

The more I lvl up, the less interested I am in run of the mill dungeon crawling, and the more intrigued I am in spending my GP in other ways than gear. The other players feel similarly. There's more 'typical' adventure work out there for lower level characters too, so the higher lvl PCs do more looking into conspiracies or personal interests. Someone actually hiring them on to do anything happens much less often.


(IIRC Robilar who became a Lord at Name Level had a buttload of soldiers/retainers he sent into The Tomb of Horrors, most of them which died.)

I cant say either of my other characters a throways though, even though I love my ED-I still care about the other ones too.

3. Is it meant to play as a mixture where magic users and mundanes can go on a journey side by side, each managing to help the other in some way and NEITHER one able to go it alone without the other, each having their strengths and weaknesses?

I certainly think SOMETHING like this is possible, although as I said a while back in another thread, they will never be 100%. My monk cant make demi-planes, and I never expect him to- nor do I (the mun/player) envy the 17th level wizard who can, although my character may be (as expected) be astounded by it.

 

[Ariosto]

I'd like to point out that the point I was making was one based on narrative power, not combat power.

I'd like to point out that the point I was making was one based on the difference between reaping the rewards of skilled play of an especially challenging strategy (risk:reward) and having a cake walk handed to you on a silver platter to eat with the silver spoon you get just for picking Monte Cook's pet piece.

Put WotC in charge of ice hockey, and ten years from now people will be complaining that the game is dominated by the Zamboni.

 

[rounser]

I call BS on your new "narrative control" buzzword, Cirno.

A railroad stays a railroad, wizard or no. And the "narrative control" is no different to a fighter breaking locked doors or chests with an axe, burning down the tavern or setting up an ambush and leading monsters into it through trickery, rather than walking up to them as the DM planned.

And you do realise that you're actively harming 4E's cause by attacking classic D&D, here? People _know_ that wizards aren't gods and can't create demiplanes except by fiat, because they've, err..._played_ D&D, so you're not fooling anybody with your hyperbole except for preaching to the 4E choir.

 

[Beginning of the End]

See, casters have all the narrative power. If you want to effect the campaign or the setting itself, you need a spell caster to do so. The fighter is limited to...well, look at the name. He's limited to things he can fight.

Problem #1: Assuming that combat isn't narrative power. For example, if you believe that John McClane wields no influence over the narrative of Die Hard then you've obviously seen a very different movie I have.

Problem #2: Assuming that people will play a fighter if they don't want to wield their narrative power through combat. Such people would obviously be addlepated. I mean... well, look at the name.

The [level one] wizard can put people to sleep, detect magic, charm others, use minor telekinesis, summon fog, or animals, or invisible servants, comprehend all languages, hypnotize, create a magical floating cargo disk, move twice as fast, etc, etc.

Problem #3: The perennial problem of assuming that the wizard always has the perfect set of spells prepared.

Spellcasters have all the narrative power. For every problem that exists, there's a spell to fix it. if you can think of a long, overreaching campaign, then the wizard could theoretically do all of it on his own.

Problem #4: Assuming that the spellcasters always have infinite time and/or that the campaign world will conveniently space out its problems into nova-sized chunks.

D&D is trying to be two games, but they're contradictory.

Problem #5: Assuming that D&D is a game of low-magic. It isn't. Never has been.

And so forth. It's masturbatory faux theory mixed with dysfunctional gameplay. It's the guy who always brings his queen out on the second move and then complains that Chess is a lousy game.

 

[korjik]

The main fallacy in this whole thread is that narrative power come from the end of a spell. It comes from the player and what the player can do.

The last campaign I played and finished had the fighter:
Crown a King (without getting paid first!!!)
Create a country
Wrestled a were-tiger in half form
Saved a (different) kingdom
Killed an Evil God
Destroyed his Evil Empire
Saved the Girl

The Wizard, on the other hand:
Killed things
Took their stuff
Unsuccessfully tried to keep the fighter from doing things before we got paid for doing said things

Yeah, along the way I got back to the capitol first and was the one to start the counter attack cause I teleported directly there. They had to use the mirror-gates that I made.

But it was the fighter who went toe-to-toe with demons and dragons and gods while I covered his back and wasted the henchminions.

We remember the Fighter fighting the shadowdancer for a bunch of rounds but only needing to hit him once as much as the rogue taking on a pit fiend with nothing but a rapier, literally as much as the wiz disintigrating the beholder cause he blew a hole in the wizards house.

Making a demi-plane is not controlling the narrative if it isnt part of the narrative. All it is is a special effect then.

 

[rounser]

(IIRC Robilar who became a Lord at Name Level had a buttload of soldiers/retainers he sent into The Tomb of Horrors, most of them which died.)

I also don't think it's a coincidence that Sir Robilar, a mostly solo character (save for unlucky henchmen) is a fighter. Despite Cirno's Monday morning quarterbacking on the uberness of mages, fighters are my "go to" class for solo character games like Neverwinter Nights, because they're best able to look after themselves at any level (with the cleric a close second place, and sometimes superior if healing potions aren't abundant). Another hole in the boat of an argument already half sunk, IMO.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I call BS on your new "narrative control" buzzword, Cirno.

A railroad stays a railroad, wizard or no. And the "narrative control" is no different to a fighter breaking locked doors or chests with an axe, burning down the tavern or setting up an ambush and leading monsters into it through trickery, rather than walking up to them as the DM planned.

And you do realise that you're actively harming 4E's cause by attacking classic D&D, here? People _know_ that wizards aren't gods and can't create demiplanes except by fiat, because they've, err..._played_ D&D, so you're not fooling anybody with your hyperbole except for preaching to the 4E choir.

Yes, I, who have openly stated I enjoy Pathfinder and 3e on multipe occasions, clearly only love 4e and hate everything else!

Cut the edition warring garbage out.

The railroad doesn't stay a railroad when the wizard can fly, teleport, or just completely disintegrate the rails.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The main fallacy in this whole thread is that narrative power come from the end of a spell. It comes from the player and what the player can do.

*snip*

My problem is this: nothing stated here were things wizards cannot do.

On the other hand, fighters cannot do any of the things wizards can.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that Sir Robilar, a mostly solo character (save for unlucky henchmen) is a fighter. Despite Cirno's Monday morning quarterbacking on the uberness of mages, fighters are my "go to" class for solo character games like Neverwinter Nights, because they're best able to look after themselves at any level (with the cleric a close second place, and sometimes superior if healing potions aren't abundant). Another hole in the boat of an argument already half sunk, IMO.

I also don't think that's coincidence, as the vast majority of Sir Robilar's narrative power was the GM just making things up.

Also, can you post without being insulting? I'm just wondering.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Problem #1: Assuming that combat isn't narrative power. For example, if you believe that John McClane wields no influence over the narrative of Die Hard then you've obviously seen a very different movie I have.

Because I actually feel D&D should be more then just a series of combat encounters. Do you disagree?

Problem #2: Assuming that people will play a fighter if they don't want to wield their narrative power through combat. Such people would obviously be addlepated. I mean... well, look at the name.

Yes, who on earth would pick the most classic archtype of a mythological or fictional hero if they wanted to be a mythological or fictional hero?

Problem #3: The perennial problem of assuming that the wizard always has the perfect set of spells prepared.

Because I'm assuming for smart wizard tactics, and smart wizards leave spell slots open. They also have a large number of spells that let them hole up and rest without fear of being attacked.

Problem #4: Assuming that the spellcasters always have infinite time and/or that the campaign world will conveniently space out its problems into nova-sized chunks.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The only one that's been talking about novaing has been you.

Problem #5: Assuming that D&D is a game of low-magic. It isn't. Never has been.

Oh, but it has been...if you aren't playing a caster.

And so forth. It's masturbatory faux theory mixed with dysfunctional gameplay. It's the guy who always brings his queen out on the second move and then complains that Chess is a lousy game.

Hey look more insults aimed at me.