Question of Design Philosophy: Magical and Non-Magical Characters

[VoxRationis]

It takes little research into this forum to know that people believe wholeheartedly—and not without reason—in caster supremacy. One may cite the countless problems easily solved with a particular spell easily attained with little effort. People talk about how unbalancing this is, and how much "hate" the game designers must have had for mundane characters. I notice that a lot of solutions to this, however, are not so much to make better mundane characters as they are to give magic or some equivalent to characters intended to fill different roles in the party (i.e., the Tome of Battle for the warriors). Furthermore, the very attempt to do so brings up a quote from Vaarsuvius:
:vaarsuvius: "It's almost like the universe is trying to deliberately force some sort of arbitrary equality between those of us who can reshape matter with out thoughts and those who cannot."

This is a pretty good point with regards to attempting to balance those with magical powers and those who don't. When you really think about it, the concept kind of seems silly.

At the same time, I LIKE having nonmagical characters in my stories, settings, and campaigns, and I like playing nonmagical characters as well as wizards. So I'm wondering: What are your thoughts on the matter? How would you include purely mundane, no-magic characters on a level somehow approaching equality with people who can break all the rules of the universe?

[NichG]

At the same time, I LIKE having nonmagical characters in my stories, settings, and campaigns, and I like playing nonmagical characters as well as wizards. So I'm wondering: What are your thoughts on the matter? How would you include purely mundane, no-magic characters on a level somehow approaching equality with people who can break all the rules of the universe?

You don't, at least not in a game that is ostensibly about fighting mythical creatures. 'Purely mundane' is a loaded term. Film action heroes aren't 'purely mundane' - they have what amounts to supernatural luck in the form of plot armor, the ability to survive wounds without debilitation or harm that would kill most people, etc. Its a problem of mind-set: if you're going to have people fighting 10-ton giant firebreathing lizard as a matter of course, they need some sort of advantage beyond 'what a realistic human in medieval gear can do'.

Now, 'tech character versus magic character' is something you can work with thematically. Both push the abilities of those people beyond the norm and allow them to 'break' the rules of average human existence, but they're breaking different rules in each case. 'Innate power versus wielded power' is another thematic division you can work with reasonably - supernatural luck would be innate, whereas summoning and throwing fire would be wielded, for example.

Now in a game that isn't about fighting, you have a bit more leeway. In some sort of city-building game where 'a powerful industrialist' is an over-powered character because of the construction crews he can wield, you might be able to pull something off. But I expect that in general the mundane side of things will feel flat or clash.