# why the attraction to "low magic"?



## GlassJaw (Aug 4, 2004)

Let me preface this post by saying that I've had some bad experiences with DM's "forcing" restrictions on the group and justifying under the guise of "low magic".  In attempt to curb (in his view) min/maxing and encourage role-playing, options were taken away from the players.

So right off the bat I'm a little biased when I read posts about people making correlations between min/maxing and bad role-playing or bad-mouthing "high" magic settings like Forgotten Realms.  I've also seen low-magic referred to as a "better" style of play because the players aren't concerned with roll-playing or some such nonsense.

I'll also be the first to admit that I've never played in a low-magic campaign "done right" either.  I'm not passing judgement on those that run low-magic campaigns, I would just like to know a little about why you decided to go that route and perhaps some details as to how you go went about doing it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 4, 2004)

The biggest lure for low magic campaigns isn't necessarily min/maxing. It's people trying to recreate the fiction that they grew up with. Conan, Fafrd, Gray Mouser, Bran Mac Morn, and others are almost zero magic, while others like Corum, Hawkmoon, and even Elric, have magic, but not magic as its represented in the d20 system where fireballs are more common than charm person.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 4, 2004)

I think it has to do with "traditional" fantasy and with magic dominating  and directing gameplay pretty much in D&D at higher levels (this includes magic items, so also fighter-types, for example, whose abilities are surpassed by the abilities of their magic items at some point).

 Slightly exaggerating, in D&D your character is what he or she owns. A character without any magic is basically completely worthless at higher levels (again, this is a slight exaggeration).

 Pushing the setting to a lower magic level (which means less magic items (no VoP ) and highly limited and restricted access to spellcasting classes) results in an emphasis on the character's other abilities instead of his or her spells and items. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

 It's just a different style, altho it's probably better to pick a different system then, which might work better with that style. For example, another fantasy RPG I personally like a lot (Midgard, a german RPG, which also is around for a few decades already) is pretty much low level, when it comes to magic. Magic has a bit more of a "traditional" feel to it, magic items are scarce and highly valued (even a puny +1 sword, but even moreso the equivalent of wondrous items), spellcasters are much, much weaker and spells in general have less impact on the game. Stuff like flying is a high level spell there, for example.

 OTOH, D&D works well as the sort of high-powered heroic fantasy game, which it usually evolves into at higher levels. Many DMs have problems to keep up with the scope of the game then, however. I've seen that happen more than once.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## diaglo (Aug 4, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Let me preface this post by saying that I've had some bad experiences with DM's "forcing" restrictions on the group and justifying under the guise of "low magic".  In attempt to curb (in his view) min/maxing and encourage role-playing, options were taken away from the players.




does the DM in your situation also take options away from the monsters/NPCs?


you may not notice it but he may be balancing things in your favor too.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 4, 2004)

I've seen more than my fair share of "high magic versus low magic" threads, and "_roll_playing versus _role_playing" has never been a major theme.  (Perhaps many of the same _people_ make that argument though.)  As JoeGKushner pointed out, most traditional fantasy worlds have little magic compared to a typical D&D campaign -- it's often quite powerful when it is used, but it's rare and comes at a price.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Aug 4, 2004)

One reason to play low magic is to avoid the mage-tech, which ruins the feel of a medieval world. It also makes real world problems such as food, traveling and the enviornment more urgent.  In a very high magical setting the DM has to spend a lot of time worrying about the effects of teleport on international trade, magical defenses on all castles (which magic/monsters should have made obsolete) etc, etc, etc... 

My world has lower magic than listed in the core due to several factors - 
low population and few Large cities/metros reduces the number of enormously powerfull casters.  Wizards are not trained in every country, or from every race.  Clerics are reduced by affiliation. IE the only priest in this town is good enough to raise dead not of your religion, and will only raise worshipers of thier god/or race.  

I don't limit the PC's as much.  Most of it is limited by background, and if the player has a good story reason then my limitations are flexable. 

My basic reasoning falls back to wanting a world that is internally consistant 
and close to a medeival society.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 4, 2004)

JoeGKushner is exactly right -- most classic fantasy novels have been "low magic" in nature (and I'm surprised he didn't mention the goliath -- Tolkien -- in his list of classic fantasy authors).  It is a desire to recreate the feel of those novels -- as opposed to the "common magic" worlds found in contemporary video games -- that leads many DMs to pursue this approach to campaign design.

(As an aside, the term "low magic" is IMO too vague -- there is a difference between a "low power" magic world, and "low frequency" magic world.  E.g. magic is quite subtle and 'weak' in Tolkien's Middle-Earth, whereas in Vance's Lyonnesse novels it is very powerful but quite rare.)

DnD campaigns in which magic is pervasive and commonly available can feel more like science fiction worlds (where magic just plays the role of technology) than true fantasy settings.  This is not meant as an insult -- such settings can be very fun to play in.  But they don't resemble the fantasy worlds described in most classic fantasy novels.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Let me preface this post by saying that I've had some bad experiences with DM's "forcing" restrictions on the group and justifying under the guise of "low magic".  In attempt to curb (in his view) min/maxing and encourage role-playing, options were taken away from the players.  ...




Well, if a DM justifies his decision ahead of time, with reference to features of his/her campaign world, then I think that this is perfectly fine.  There is absolutely NO reason why everything in the DnD books needs to be included in a given campaign (e.g. if I am running a campaign based on Medieval European cultures, and monks do not fit, then it should be perfectly fine for that class not to be available to players).  In my campaign setting, for example, there is no Astral Plane, and hence no spells associated with it.  I thankfully have never had players whine about such restrictions in my campaign -- they are more concerned with developing the unfolding plots in the world -- and would not want to play with players who did.  (Creating an interesting campaign setting involves knowing what to leave OUT as much as it involves knowing what to include.)


----------



## Umbran (Aug 4, 2004)

I'm mostly going to reiterate things others have said.

A great deal of fantasy literature has fairly little overt magic, especially in the hands of the protagonists, and there's somehtignto be said for emulating that fiction.

Also, standard D&D relies pretty heavily on magical equipment.  Many feel that what the PCs do is less important than what they've got on them while they do it.  If having less magic makes them feel like the PCs choices are more important, then that's a good thing.

Having less magic also tends to make adventure design simpler, and leaves open certain story options that are closed by magical solutions.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Aug 4, 2004)

For me, it's not really about "low magic" as much as it's about "low loot."  I think that applies to my player and DMing mentalities.  I'll give some examples.

The paladin I've been playing for the past two years has never garnered a plethora of magic items.  This is due in part to the nature of the game world (the chance to "loot" comes up rarely) and the nature of the character.  He's had the same _+1 cold iron longsword_ since 5th level which recently became a _+2 holy cold iron longsword_.  He's now 12th level, just got his mount, _+2 full plate_, and a masterwork steel shield.  His mount is heavily barded, which probably puts him right around the average monetary value for his level.  But it's been pretty slim pickings up to this point.  My DM has a problem rationalizing valuabe loot in every single encounter, a problem with which I can empathize and commiserate.  But I believe he's made adjustments to his game to alleviate the problems low loot can bring.

DMing a game of _Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed_, I recently gave my players a bunch of items that somehow related to their characters.  Some of these were minorly magical, some were not.  But due to the relationships of True Names in AU, my players will be given the chance to upgrade these items by learning its True Name.  Rather than throwing in a new _+2 keen rapier_ for our Unfettered, I'd rather give the character the opportunity to have the weapon grow as he grows.  By adjusting the amount of loot I give out, I can give my players 3 or 4 items each that become part of their characters and learn as they learn, and grow as they grow.  I think it adds a level of identity to each character.  Everyone can be an Arthur with Excalibur, or Aragorn with Anduril, and so on.

I think these ideas are related to the "low magic" setting we often see and hear about (and in some cases, play in).  DMs in low magic games want their characters to stand out, to be a cut above the rest, just like in the novels and movies.  You never saw Gandalf running around with a huge backpack and a horde of scrolls, ioun stones, a headband, brooches, cloaks, gloves, belts, and so forth.  He had his hat, his robes, his staff, and Glamdring.  Everything he did he did with those items and his wits.

There's a packrat mentality in 3.x that makes traditional fantasy just plain strange.  I think DMs try and alleviate that strangeness, focus on characters, and steer clear of "the warg cave with 2d4x100 gold pieces, 1d3 minor magical items, and 2d4 pieces of valuable artwork."  Unfortunately, DnD is balanced with the idea that characters have lots of items and wealth at their disposal.  Remove this and balance is gone:  BAB quickly outstrips AC, characters cannot damage high-level foes, spellcasters outstrip everyone in power, skill checks become difficult to impossible, and so on.

If these factors aren't taken into consideration, low magic games can go horribly awry.  Making a campaign into a low magic game isn't a minor design note; it requires a serious overhaul of the system.  That's where the problems seem to come from.  I wouldn't say low magic is any better or worse than standard 3.x.  If anything, it's just more work that moves the game further and further from the core rules.

Read the world building articles over at Giant in the Playground.  They do an excellent job of not only detailing world-building, but showing the thought process that went from a "low magic game" to a "radically different game."  Also, check out Joshua Dyal's campaign setting.  I've only read the website, but it seems like he put a lot of work and effort into creating a setting with very little magic but a high fantasy feel.

So, to answer your question, I'm not really a low magic player.  I consider myself a DnD player, and I've done my best to understand how the core rules mesh together to create 3.x.  That includes the premise "PC power comes from magic items."  But I've played in low magic games and I understand the appeal.  I would enjoy both running and playing one.  However, I think it requires a lot of work to properly balance a low magic setting, and you may not find yourself playing DnD after you're done.


----------



## Insight (Aug 4, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> (As an aside, the term "low magic" is IMO too vague -- there is a difference between a "low power" magic world, and "low frequency" magic world.  E.g. magic is quite subtle and 'weak' in Tolkien's Middle-Earth, whereas in Vance's Lyonnesse novels it is very powerful but quite rare.)
> 
> DnD campaigns in which magic is pervasive and commonly available can feel more like science fiction worlds (where magic just plays the role of technology) than true fantasy settings.  This is not meant as an insult -- such settings can be very fun to play in.  But they don't resemble the fantasy worlds described in most classic fantasy novels.




This is completely true.  There is a huge difference between low-powered magic and low-frequency magic.  I lean toward low-frequency, but high-powered magic in my fantasy worlds.  Spellcasters are very powerful and rare, and are usually feared or revered by the populace (depending on their reputation and the populace in question).

I prefer magic items to be rare and powerful as well.  I find the magic items in the standard DMG far too catalog-ish.  It seems to make more sense to me to have the PCs running around with a few powerful items than a laundry list of weak items.  I also like unique magic items, and especially those I can use for adventure hooks, or can play a part in a future campaign component.



			
				Belegbeth said:
			
		

> Well, if a DM justifies his decision ahead of time, with reference to features of his/her campaign world, then I think that this is perfectly fine.  There is absolutely NO reason why everything in the DnD books needs to be included in a given campaign (e.g. if I am running a campaign based on Medieval European cultures, and monks do not fit, then it should be perfectly fine for that class not to be available to players).  In my campaign setting, for example, there is no Astral Plane, and hence no spells associated with it.  I thankfully have never had players whine about such restrictions in my campaign -- they are more concerned with developing the unfolding plots in the world -- and would not want to play with players who did.  (Creating an interesting campaign setting involves knowing what to leave OUT as much as it involves knowing what to include.)




Creating your own campaign world is a challenge, but with the right group of players, you can 'get away' with a lot more in terms of what you restrict than in a published setting.  In my experience, players are far more likely to accept restrictions if they understand that these limitations are in place to enforce a certain feel to the game world, and not just something at the whim of the DM.

A flavor, something discernable to the players as something concrete and tangible, is a platform that is much easier upon which to base your campaign setting decisions.  As in the example above, if you want to create a fairly representative Medieval European setting, Monks as presented in the D&D books would not fit in.  Franciscan Monks were not martial artists, and almost never left their monasteries.  Justifying the removal of other 'standards' is as easily done, given the right set of circumstances.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 4, 2004)

There are some other aspects of low-magic campaigns that many players and DM's find appealing.

With high-magic campagins:

- If you take the existence of common magic to its logical conclusion, you end up with a magic-as-technology world, which a lot of people don't like. 

- You end up with situations that require DM fiat to prevent the players from turning difficult encounters into trivial ones  (see the perennial scry/buff/teleport discussions) 

- The game can become more about the gear than the character.

- In settings where raise dead, etc., are common-place, death becomes meaningless, and that means that it becomes significantly harder to challenge the PCs (in combat, anyway) without risking TPKs

I think a reason high-magic and powergaming tend to get lumped together is because your munchkiny power-gamers (the bad ones, anyway) are more interested in phat lewt and kicking ass than they are in situations where risk is balanced with reward.  It's not that you have to be one of that kind to enjoy a high-magic games, it's just that high-magic games tend to attract people with that mindset.  At least in my experience.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Aug 4, 2004)

It's also easier to design adventures when you don't have to worry about _teleport_, _true ressurection_, etc.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 4, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Let me preface this post by saying that I've had some bad experiences with DM's "forcing" restrictions on the group and justifying under the guise of "low magic".  In attempt to curb (in his view) min/maxing and encourage role-playing, options were taken away from the players.




I've just been reading several threads (including the article about "What's Wrong With D&D") wherein someone claims that D&D doesn't meet his or her expectations for a workable fantasy world, and then a plethora of posters tell him/her to just add some limitations and homebrew a little.  Usually, the problem is the overwhelming amount of magic available to D&D characters, and the powerful, overt nature of that magic even at low levels.

I have also read threads that argued that players balk at being restricted when anything less than the "throw everything in" aspect of the Core Rules is used.

While I have read lots of replies to threads that seemed to discourage changes to the overwhelming power of magic in the game, this is only the second thread I've read which began specifically for the purpose of claiming that a DM *should not* make changes specific to the feel of his or her world.

You are correct in thinking that high magic is not necessarily bad.  Neither is low magic.  I happen to prefer a sort of mid-magic.  None of those types of magic determines how much "roll" vs "role" you're going to use in a game.  Frankly, a character who has been designed to best use the rules to his advantage is as likely to be well played as one who has been devised otherwise.



> I'll also be the first to admit that I've never played in a low-magic campaign "done right" either.  I'm not passing judgement on those that run low-magic campaigns, I would just like to know a little about why you decided to go that route and perhaps some details as to how you go went about doing it.




1)  I give out only 1/2 core rules XP.  That means that spells which burn XP, and magic items, are much more rare.

2)  I provided alternate routes to magical power.

RC


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 4, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I would just like to know a little about why you decided to go that route and perhaps some details as to how you go went about doing it.




Because I've done over-the-top-magic-everywhere (conventional D&D) to death, over and over.  I also have grown quite bored with conventional setting assumptions.  I want to do some low-magic, low-tech (as in before Hittite split off from proto-Indo-European) stuff for a while.  I want the characters to be more than just platforms for the latest munchkin magic item.  I want them to have to rely entirely upon what they can do if stripped down to their skivvies, because skivvies is pretty much all there will be in this setting.

Yes, I DO know that this means that conventional "can only be hit by magic items" monsters won't work in this campaign like they do in ordinary campaigns.  So what?  It's an INTENTIONAL DESIGN FEATURE.  I fully expect some yoyo to automatically assume that I'll be throwing 10,000 vampires at first level characters, having admitted to the design feature.


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 4, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Slightly exaggerating, in D&D your character is what he or she owns. A character without any magic is basically completely worthless at higher levels (again, this is a slight exaggeration).





Gamers' lore has it that RuneQuest was written specifically after a PC in either Stafford or Perrin's D&D campaign introduced himself as "Hi, I'm a Holy Avenger, and this is my wielder."


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

I was about to type my comments when I decided to read the replies already posted so far, and naturally, the very first one hits the nail right on the head.

One item that hasn't been mentioned yet, of course, is that D&D changes significantly as you advance in level and magic.  Low level games are completely different games, with little in common, with high level ones.  Even the settings stop making sense after a while as you progress in level.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> I want to do some low-magic, low-tech (as in before Hittite split off from proto-Indo-European) stuff for a while.



I don't want to derail the thread, but man, I'm interested in hearing more about this.  The amateur linguist/archeologist in my just got majorly buzzed by that sentence.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 4, 2004)

*Regarding magic items.*

Over time and experience, I've found the only problem I have is players who put together a "wish list" of items they want their characters to have. This takes away from the immersive qualities of the game when a person makes out a list of things they want their character to _find_. I think that when these lists are made it raises the expectations of the players that they'll actually find these things and makes it hard for the DM to insert the items in appropriate places. I completely ignore these lists and insert items that I think they'd find useful either in the immediate or future of the campaign and its up to them to decide to use them or sell them. My players have found that selling an item that appears worthless at the time is one that they wish they'd have hung onto at the least convienient moment.  On the other side of that coin, and to be fair I also make sure that I provide enough fodder/gold and gems for them to sell or use to trade for the items they want.


----------



## Psion (Aug 4, 2004)

I suspect some of it is an over-reaction to campaigns and settings wherein magic is an all too convenient answer to evey problem, and the presence of easily available magic can often interfere with the creation of interesting scenarios by making them devolve into magical arms races and start contemplation about why with X magic, people don't do Y, etc.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 4, 2004)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> For me, it's not really about "low magic" as much as it's about "low loot."  I think that applies to my player and DMing mentalities.  I'll give some examples.
> 
> The paladin I've been playing for the past two years has never garnered a plethora of magic items.  This is due in part to the nature of the game world (the chance to "loot" comes up rarely) and the nature of the character.  He's had the same _+1 cold iron longsword_ since 5th level which recently became a _+2 holy cold iron longsword_.  He's now 12th level, just got his mount, _+2 full plate_, and a masterwork steel shield.  His mount is heavily barded, which probably puts him right around the average monetary value for his level.  But it's been pretty slim pickings up to this point.  My DM has a problem rationalizing valuabe loot in every single encounter, a problem with which I can empathize and commiserate.  But I believe he's made adjustments to his game to alleviate the problems low loot can bring.




Yeah! This is exactly my feeling!

According to some GMing articles, you're not supposed to do this:

DM: "Okay, you killed the orcs. Upon identifying the items, you find their leader had a +1 greataxe."

Players: "We've already got a +2 greataxe. Nothing to see here. We'll put it in our bag of holding and sell it, along with all those twelve +1 rings of protection we pulled off of the last twelve NPCs we faced."

The opposite, of course, is also ridiculous.

DM: "Okay, after you bind your winds soothe your burns, you identify a +3 flaming greataxe."

Players: "Sweet! Um... aren't you going to have a hard time challenging us after this?"

DM: "Nah. I'll just give every NPC bigger and badder weapons."


The hunt for items leads to "grinding". This is what made me quit playing Baldur's Gate and Angband (and why I'll never play Diablo for more than a few minutes). Because so much of your character's power is item-dependent, you spend a lot of time scrounging through dungeons looking for gold (to buy items) or loot (to sell for cash, to buy items) or the occasional good item - you rarely find better items in treasure than what you have after the first few levels, and because NPCs have less gear than you do they also have worse items... and if they put all their money into a beefy magical sword, they skimp on other areas.

PCs who have successfully "grinded" are now a Christmas tree of magic items. I'll dig up someone's character sheet and post it one day.

Higher level NPCs, due to lower gear, especially fighter-types, are a lot weaker than players of their level. NPC spellcasters are often _more_= powerful because they're less item-dependent than other characters and their items suck more, too, and they have the NPC advantage of having to worry about spell slots less than the heroes. Even so, getting an NPC to have saves and DCs competitive with the heroes is very difficult. Players often have a real hard time boosting their low saves, and for NPCs it's even worse.

Converting to low-magic is hard, however; I'd like to see a low-magic setting that does all the work for me  Midnight, for instance, does the classes for you but, unfortunately, doesn't give much advice on heirloom items (one of the best things in the book) and only has a few monsters. It has suggestions on how to convert monsters for low-magic, which amounts to "boost the CR". IMO this doesn't work - you can't just boost a monster's CR because it's DR is now unbreakable... it's hit points, AC, saving throws, attack bonuses (no magic armor), damage bonuses (likewise... no magic healing, no Con-boosting items, etc) haven't changed.


I prefer D20 Modern for a lot of reasons:

Mental classes can do things other than making skill checks (looks at the Expert) without magic.

The spellcasters are _not_ overly nerfed. I wouldn't want to play in a low-magic setting where I have to make a spellcasting check to cast a spell. You're better off making the spells of an appropriate power level - in D20 Modern, the max spell level is 5th - this is just my opinion, however. There are lots of fantasy novels where casting spells is risky or really costly.

You learn how to dodge and parry. Even non-combative characters can make a flying leap (or dive) away from an opponent's weapon. The ever-present (and very tiresome) rings of protection and amulets of natural armor aren't present. You gain a bonus to class Defense instead, and there are even a few defensive feats.


----------



## hong (Aug 4, 2004)

A lot of D&D gamers are innately conservative.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The biggest lure for low magic campaigns isn't necessarily min/maxing. It's people trying to recreate the fiction that they grew up with.




Case in point.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> A lot of D&D gamers are innately conservative.



Is that why we're making radical reworkings of the system instead of playing traditional, conservative, standard D&D?


----------



## dren (Aug 4, 2004)

Issue # 1 for me:
Magic item creep is the biggest problem I have with 3.X games.  I have replaced all creation feats with equivalents that allow temporary versions of rings, wands, etc. They last a few weeks, have a finite amount of spells or charges. Players have the items they need, and create them quickly, and as a plus for them, I have removed XP cost for creating items. So far, my players seem to like the change.

Issue # 2 for me:
High level spells can ruin a badly designed game, and it's much easier to nerf the spells than to change your game or module. I have tweaked a few spells so they fit my style, but I also want to encourage my players and not ruin their creativity or fun so will never simply ban a spell. They know (well in advance) what works and how it works...that way they can begin making plans. 

There's nothing wrong with high powered gamestyles, but, like anything else they get boring after awhile. If your aim is to defeat enemies, sure, a rod of blasting to that end works great. But, after the 20th time you've used the same tactic it starts to get get boring...and this, I believe is the problem with ultra high magic games. It becomes too convenient not to solve your dilemas, and you can't rationalize it as a character,"Well, I know this works but won't use it because...well, just because I won't."
The trick, is not to give a player too muich power so the adventure gets boring, but not enough to make them feel overwhelmed and helpless. One of the great things about this game is the feel of a challenge, and overcoming it with your wits, or your strength...not just the rod of blasting. This is what is appealing for many of us. Give us too much magic, too many high level spells, or too much magic items, and you feel like it's the equipment/spells that is wining not you.


----------



## hong (Aug 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Is that why we're making radical reworkings of the system instead of playing traditional, conservative, standard D&D?



 D00d, there's nothing radical about banning stuff.

Unless I do it, of course.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 4, 2004)

I havent met a DM yet who hasn't banned _something_. If you havent yet banned anything, you've just not played long enough.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Is that why we're making radical reworkings of the system instead of playing traditional, conservative, standard D&D?




I think you can be nostalgic/conservative in regards to settings, and still be interested in new mechanics.  We're not all Diaglo  

I prefer the 'magic is rare, mysterious, and powerful' type stuff because it was LotR, Amber, Lankhmar, etc, that pulled my attention away from history and biography towards fantasy literature, and then to gaming.  When I played them more often, I preferred wargames with historical settings (ie Caeser Alesia) because of my other interests.

OTOH, I love learning new rules systems, and I've played more different ones than I can count.


----------



## Kerrick (Aug 4, 2004)

I like it because it's more challenging. If I have a few resurrects at my disposal, where's the fear in charging into the dragon's lair? Sure, I'll probably get fried, but hey - I've got three more lives! Kind of takes the shine off your accomplishments when you can waltz through the adventure with little effort. Now, we play in a high-magic, high-power campaign world, and our DM is brutal - if we do something stupid, he's not afraid to kill us - and I do enjoy it... but I'd still rather play low-power, low-magic. *shrug*


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Aug 4, 2004)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> If I have a few resurrects at my disposal, where's the fear in charging into the dragon's lair? Sure, I'll probably get fried, but hey - I've got three more lives!




That's my problem:  it ultimately devolves into a game of Diablo II.


----------



## Wombat (Aug 4, 2004)

There are a lot of reasons I prefer less frequent (and less powerful) magic in my games.

The first point has been covered many times already -- such magics are much closer to the fantasy novels I have loved in my life:  Tolkein, Leiber, Le Guin, Kay, de Lint, etc.  Since the reason I got into gaming in the first place was the combination of running away from miniatures wargames and wanting to play in a world that felt roughly like the books I read.  High magic worlds, such as Moorcock, were less appealing to me.

The second point has been covered less often, but bears repeating -- lots of magic means having to really think about the implications of those magics even with beginning characters.  Certainly a 1st level character does not have the ability to teleport or to raise the dead, but there are other characters in the same world (NPC) who _do _ have those powers, especially BBEGs.  This means having to think in terms of those powers early in a campaign.  If such powers only come into play when the characters reach "higher" levels, then you are not being true to the game world.  This includes, of course, the concept of "magical technology" (which also bleeds over into another non-magical complaint, the overly capitalistic feel of such games, when the basic world is supposedly feudal/pre-capitalism) and the ease with which simple magical items for the masses.  

Both of these factors lead to magic-as-physics and magic-as-ordinary, rather than magic-as-sense-of-wonder and magic-as-terrifying-power.  Lose that sense of wonder and, I feel, much of what I love in fantasy literature is lost.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 4, 2004)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> The paladin I've been playing for the past two years has never garnered a plethora of magic items.  This is due in part to the nature of the game world (the chance to "loot" comes up rarely) and the nature of the character.  He's had the same _+1 cold iron longsword_ since 5th level which recently became a _+2 holy cold iron longsword_.  He's now 12th level, just got his mount, _+2 full plate_, and a masterwork steel shield.



I don't know if this is your intent, GoodKingJayIII, but that passage sounds a bit like the kind of "my campaign is even grittier than yours" boasting that turns off many players -- it doesn't sound like fun, even to me, and I'm in the "low magic" camp.


			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Everyone can be an Arthur with Excalibur, or Aragorn with Anduril, and so on.



But Excalibur isn't a +1 or +2 sword, and it doesn't grow in power as Arthur grows in wisdom -- it cuts through rock and steel.


			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> You never saw Gandalf running around with a huge backpack and a horde of scrolls, ioun stones, a headband, brooches, cloaks, gloves, belts, and so forth.  He had his hat, his robes, his staff, and Glamdring.  Everything he did he did with those items and his wits.



As you point out, there's a packrat mentality to D&D.  Most fictional characters have a few signature magic items, not dozens of +1 and +2 items -- or a few +3 items they bought with gold from all the +1 and +2 items they sold.  Arthur has Excalibur and its scabbard.  That's it.

Of course, when it comes to Gandalf, or Merlin, or any other mysterious advisor, who knows what they've got hidden away somewhere?  We don't get to see it, use it, and understand it in minute detail.  (Doesn't Gandalf arguably have one of the rings of power through the whole trilogy?)


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> D00d, there's nothing radical about banning stuff.
> 
> Unless I do it, of course.



Quite true.  Of course, some of the more vocal proponents of low magic advocate a more radical reinvisioning of the rules than simply banning a few spells or magic items, too.  And if you're used to slumming over in the wastelands of rpg.net, you'll see a lot of people with that affectation just play entirely different games altogether.  In fact, it'd be a generalization, but not too far from the truth, to say that just about every other rpg in existence is the anti-D&D in some way or another, and a reversal from the magicking up of D&D is what drove a lot of them to exist in the first place.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Doesn't Gandalf arguably have one of the rings of power through the whole trilogy?



That's not really arguable; it's stated quite plainly that he did.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Aug 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's not really arguable; it's stated quite plainly that he did.




I didn't know that.

So, like, when Frodo put the ring on and turned invisible, could he have made Gandalf do a little dance or something?

(yes, this is a tangent.  sorry)


----------



## Campbell (Aug 4, 2004)

While most of what I'd like to say has already been said, it's also worth noting in my case specifically that the spells per day mechanism is antithetical to style of high powered heroics I like to be part of when I play at higher levels. The assumed standard of facing a number of encounters a day doesn't fit in to well with the sorts of epic struggles to the death I see as a staple of high-powered play.

Edit: Alright, I realize that the language I used was a little strong, but dog nabbit a huge part of the issues I have had with running a 3.x game are the 'assumptions' built into the DMG's meta-rules systems.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 4, 2004)

If you have a party of high level magicked up pc's fighting same, or even high CR monsters and take away all the magic items etc wouldn't it sort of even itself out? They'd still be able to wail on each other with impunity. 
Granted, I've never tried but often wondered. It would seem to be sort of the same with less paper work and calculators.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Aug 4, 2004)

So for my high-story medium magic campaign, here's why I clipped magic:

Because sometimes amazing things are really just amazingly amazing, no matter how high your spellcraft check is.

Because sometimes demons and such that come from alternate dimensions to kick your @$$ are really freakin' scary, despite having a relatively low CR in the book.

Because sometimes the best magic items are the ones the DM specifically puts in the adventure as plot devices instead of whatever's on blue-light special at Wonder-Mart.

Because sometimes the villian needs a bit of time to give his side of the story, no matter how much safer and more tactically sound a B-S-T combo is for the party.

And because sometimes a DM just looks at the default 3.5e spellcasting and decides that it just doesn't work as written with the world being built and the storyline being crafted -- because if any high-level yokel can cast _Summon Monster MCMXCIV_ and conjure up Tharizdun to destroy the world on a whim, then what's in it for the players?

::Mr Kaze (is 2 sessions from the end of the first "season" of the campaign and it's been an incredibly rewarding mix of role-playing and brutal slaughter)


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I didn't know that.
> 
> So, like, when Frodo put the ring on and turned invisible, could he have made Gandalf do a little dance or something?
> 
> (yes, this is a tangent.  sorry)



I'm going to get all pedantic and fanboyish here, if you'll excuse me for just a moment.  Gandalf is noted (and shown, and says) that he has the ring at the end of the trilogy.  In the appendices, it's said that Cirdan, the original holder of the ring, gave it to him _when he arrived in Middle-earth_ thousands of years ago, stating that he'd have more need of it in his travels that Cirdan himself would (Cirdan being quite possibly one of the most passive characters Tolkien ever created.)  As for Frodo making Gandalf do the moonwalk for fun, unlikely.  It's also stated somewhere (although I don't remember exactly where) that Frodo doesn't have enough native talent to compel anyone to do anything with the One Ring.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Aug 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> As for Frodo making Gandalf do the moonwalk for fun, unlikely.




Bummer.   Thanks though!

[/tangent]


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Aug 4, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is your intent, GoodKingJayIII, but that passage sounds a bit like the kind of "my campaign is even grittier than yours" boasting that turns off many players -- it doesn't like fun, even to me, and I'm in the "low magic" camp.




Wasn't my intent at all.  Merely listing the items my 12th-level character has, which appears to be far lower than the typical adventurer.  Perhaps you missed it, but as I already said I don't feel one type of game is better than the other and I enjoy all types of fantasy.  I made a point of referencing two websites that provide examples of very different campaign settings.  I'd travel far and wide to play in settings as detailed and thorough as those.  Sorry if anyone thought I was flaunting my game, just trying to give examples to address the initial poster's concern.  I believed I made that clear, but apparently not.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> But Excalibur isn't a +1 or +2 sword, and it doesn't grow in power as Arthur grows in wisdom -- it cuts through rock and steel.




I was providing a loose metaphor, not an exact one.  Those fictional characters are easily identified by those items.  I'd prefer my characters identify themselves with one or two items their entire career rather than ditch the old model in favor of the upgrade.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> (Doesn't Gandalf arguably have one of the rings of power through the whole trilogy?)




Indeed he does, but it's arguable whether or not he actually uses it.  That's also completely off topic, so that's as far as I'll go with that.

_edited for clarity_


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 4, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> I havent met a DM yet who hasn't banned _something_. If you havent yet banned anything, you've just not played long enough.



Been playing for 25 years and I can think of nothing I've ever banned. Does relaxing the requirements on raise dead/resurrect count? Does ignoring the aging effects of 1e/2e haste count?

If anything, I've encouraged my players to use anything and everything at their disposal to outwit my BBEGs. I've had final battles shortened unexpectedly by a vial of soverign glue I'd forgotten the party had received 3 years ago (real time). Bully for the player who found a use for it.

My problem is that I agree, I must have banned something by now. Does it count that I've never introduced a sphere of annihilation to the party so they couldn't get their hands on it?


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 4, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Been playing for 25 years and I can think of nothing I've ever banned. Does relaxing the requirements on raise dead/resurrect count? Does ignoring the aging effects of 1e/2e haste count?



I would say so yeah.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 4, 2004)

In addition to many of the above good points, I'll add a few more:

1 - *Been there, done that * : I've gamed for 25 years. I've done the power gamer thing and seen campagin after campaign end in boring *nothingness* as the whole challenge and wonder of magic become de rigeur.  So while you may not have played  "low power" right, I've done high power to death - and often enough to know that it's ultimately boring.  Been there, done that.

2 - *Low to mid level power is like foreplay; high power is a fleeting orgasm*.  There is nothing wrong in preserving the foreplay for a long time to enrich the experience for all.  It's not that I LOVE 2nd level. I don't.  My players don't either. But I REALLY love 5th to 10th.  Mid level is where the game really lives, where the most options are open for challenges. The aim of my low power campaigns is to preserve this "sweet spot" in the campaign for as long as I can while still making it challenging AND providing perceptible progress to players.

The best way to do this is to limit magic loot and power to the party.

3 - *Magic loses its thrill when its common*.  Look at Peter Jackson.  He, like Tolkien saw that magic loses its ability to cause wonder when its so common its run on the mill.

So I just don't give it out very often. The bad guys don't have it very often either. There is no raise dead - no resurrection.  A +2 sword becomes a PRIZED magic item - especially when you don't CALL it a +2 Sword but give it an appropriate lengendary history and all sorts of rumored powers and deeds, and identify never works 100% reliably.

It reintroduces mystery into the game and minimizes the effect of just *looking it up in a book*. This, in turn, reduces metagaming.

Magic is so much more of a carrot and a reward when it is truly rare, mysterious and you can never really be sure how it works, what it is or what it can do. It's...more _magical_.

The contrary practice, like a high power Forgotten Realms setting, reduces magic to run of the mill pseudo-tech. There are whole guilds and orders of Wizads, archmages in every town and MULTIPLE magic shops in large cities. Gold becomes magic and magic gold. Magic is not legendary - it's just equipment, with magic substituting for technology.  

Want a magic item? Go make one.

There is no such thing as the legendary Stormblade of Rhylieh reputed to have demon slaying powers  - and its just a +2 short sword that glows only sometimes and people don't know why.  Instead it's all a commodity. Just another piece of equipment whose powers are precisely known and whose value you can find in a column in the DMG.

*MEH*

4 - *Old Gamers tend to  bore easiily of High Power*: While not universally true by any means, I do suggest there is a correlation between length of time playing RPGs and a preference for power gaming. IF this style of play entertains you it doesn't mean your taste is bad and mine good.  But I do suggest it is prevalent in newer gamers as opposed to gamers who have been playing a long while. The wonder of it for newer gamers has not worn off; for the grognards, its a road we've been down before and know exactly where it ends.

Sorry. I've tried your way and done it for years. It does satisfy for a time, but ultimatley, its empty, hollow and unfulfilling; it's empty calories, for *ME*. Give me low power, low magic and high medieval fanstasy any day.


----------



## ledded (Aug 4, 2004)

Just wanted to add my 2 cents.

A lot of good discussion here on low-magic/high-magic, and I just wanted to add a few points coming from someone who went from traditional D&D to a low-magic modern setting, and what we got out of the experience.

1)  Like said before, the characters instantly become more about what they are, more than what they have.  Even in a game where you can have highly destructive firearms/technology, this still holds true.  The group is no longer focused on looting and selling everything they come across, and being really good at something is a lot harder than spending a few thousand coins on the latest do-dad magical thingy.  The few odd magical items you come across are much cooler and niftier by comparison, and the focus is on the story not the treasure.

2)  Magic became, once again, well, 'magic'.  Mysterious.  Powerful.  Not to be easily trifled with.  We used a magic system that you learn about *as you go along* instead of being able to read the entire thing from the book.  Magic costs the player to cast, sometimes just a few hit points, sometimes more, sometimes temporary ability damage or other strange stuff, but with no spell slots/spells per day.  Find spells as you go, learn them, and try to find ways to cast them more often without killing yourself .  We have no idea what the big bad guy, spirit, demon, etc is totally capable of, though through some research and knowledge may gain some hints or solid ideas about it.  Now, when a magical effect happens, people are actually awed by it.  If a guy waves his hands and a tree falls down, you can be sure that someone will go "Holy CRAP!  What was THAT?!?"

There is still powerful magic, but it is neither easy, nor commonplace.  When it happens, you know it, it frightens/excites you in one way or another, and it's something you talk about for a long time afterwards.

3)  Most importantly, it has a more tense, invested feel.  Call it 'grittier' or whatever you like, but the end effect is that players tend to make better choices with their characters like taking cover, running away from the big nasty six-armed grapple-beast, etc.  But people often still do incredibly heroic (read: "stupid") things like jump through windows into the middle of a crowd of heavily armed and hostile men or fend off the hulking demon trying to throw them off of the edge of a 29 storey building with nothing but a bible and their faith, just to save their buddy... and when they survive it, it means that much more in the end.  No ressurection and raise dead makes us invest a bit more in our character, because, well, nobody wants to die.  And when a character does, it often *means* something, other than loading them up to take to the nearest cleric so they can be fresh as daisies the next day.  It makes the choice whether to do something that has a good chance of getting you killed feel a bit more like a choice, and less of a inconvenience.  We have actually had characters get whacked *less* with this style of play.   

I'm in no way saying it's better; I loved our D&D campaign in all of it's magic-packed and I've-filled-every-item-slot glory, but this way has satisfied our roleplaying needs much, much deeper, so it works for us.  When we get back to a D&D campaign, we have plans for balancing the fantastic/fantasy aspect with more of this feel, and I'm very much looking forward to it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Low to mid level power is like foreplay; high power is a fleeting orgasm.



I love it!  If my sig wasn't already fairly cluttered, that'd end up right there.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 4, 2004)

> While I have read lots of replies to threads that seemed to discourage changes to the overwhelming power of magic in the game, this is only the second thread I've read which began specifically for the purpose of claiming that a DM should not make changes specific to the feel of his or her world.




Hmm, I'm not sure I made any "claims" that a DM shouldn't make changes for their world and if it came across that way, it wasn't my intention.

What I was trying to say was that my one brush with a "low-magic" campaign left a very bad taste in my mouth.  It wasn't so much a low-magic campaign as it was the DM telling us "no" to everything character concept presented to him.  He seemed to have some kind of vendetta against what he thought was min/maxing or powergaming or whatever he wanted to call it at the time.  

Anyway, going into detail isn't really important.  My point was that I wanted some reasons and philosophies for running low-magic campaigns and how to do it "properly".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 4, 2004)

I'm reading the Liveship Traders by Robin Hobb now. There is magic in the setting, but its often connected to the Liveships themselves. Creatures of Wizardwood.

Anyway, while I'm reading it, I'm noticing a few things. First, this is the second trilogy by Robin Hobb in the same universe. The characters in this book are aware of the places and events of those things happening far and away from them, but aren't really connected.

That strikes me. With even standard magics, gates, teleportation, and other factors come into play and if we assume that there are NPCs of any worth in the setting, ala Forgotten Realms, than the real questions are why isn't the whole more cohesive? Why are there still viking like lands while others soar onto higher platueas? Magic use at those levels either requires you to hope your players don't abuse it and simply shrug their shoulders at the inconsistencies, or requires the GM to police it.

"Well, we're going to sue Gate 1 to take spices and herbs from the Isles of Wa to the Moonsea and make another easy 10K."

"Well, the Gatekeeper comes and says you've been very bad!"

Gets weak after a while.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 4, 2004)

As a DM and as a player I prefer low-magic games. There are a few reasons why, and most have been discussed already.

The main one is power level. Its quite amazing how the addition of a single item can throw the CR/balance issue out the window.

I ban item creation feats other than scribe scroll & bre potion, because if a party can make their own items what the point of a DM including them as treasure?

Under the 3.5 rules, theres no need for a +5 weapon as DR now is a blanket X/magic. So thats one way of limiting magic that kind of appeals to me.

As the game reaches higher levels, thats when the power of some spells breaches the magic issue. Whether thats teleport, ressurection or something else. When magic of this "level" becomes commonplace then it loses feeling.

Ultimately it comes down to the individual game, its DM and players, but the standard as presented in the 3.5 corebooks is a bit too high powered for my tastes, hence the reason why its gets toned down.

Whatever happened to D&D being a pseudo-medieval world, rather than contempoary world with magic?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to D&D being a pseudo-medieval world, rather than contempoary world with magic?



To be honest with you, I'm not sure it ever was a pseudo-medieval world.  Now, if Kaptain_Kantrip were here, he could launch into an expose of how aw3s0me!!!1111one1!! Hârn is in comparison to D&D... 

But seriously, I don't think D&D was really ever about pseudo-medievalism, even back in the early Gygax days.


----------



## Janx (Aug 4, 2004)

Note, it's not D&D 3/3.5 that causes this "items define the character" problem.  That's been in D&D since the beginning.  heck my old 2e character felt lost when he lost his vorpal longsword of killing.  Thank the gods he got it back...

Heroes wouldn't need gear if they had powers that did all the things gear lets you do.

Janx


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 4, 2004)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> That's my problem:  it ultimately devolves into a game of Diablo II.




WotC already claimed that Diablo was the "ultimate D&D setting" a few years ago.


----------



## sledged (Aug 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But seriously, I don't think D&D was really ever about pseudo-medievalism, even back in the early Gygax days.



 No, it was pseudo-Middle Earth.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> To be honest with you, I'm not sure it ever was a pseudo-medieval world.  Now, if Kaptain_Kantrip were here, he could launch into an expose of how aw3s0me!!!1111one1!! Hârn is in comparison to D&D...
> 
> But seriously, I don't think D&D was really ever about pseudo-medievalism, even back in the early Gygax days.




Yes, your correct. However, I think that in prior editions the feel that was generated by reading through it was of a world that we would recognise from European medieval history, except with the addition of magic and monsters. 

The so called "DungeonPunk" look of the 3rd ed rules (all odd leathers, spikes, buckles and a look that isn't close to medieval) has changed from prior editions. I was re-reading the DMG the other day and saw an example of a sign above a tavern that read "No castings or detections." That throws suspension of disbelief out the window for me. Thats too contempoary IMO.

Also I think the change in the nature of D&D has come about because of an increasing desire (I guess the word is) for everything in the game to make sense, have an ecology, and come across more real.
I prefer a game that seems real but doesn't require all that much thought from either the players, the DM, or a third party reading it. I think thats a part of the low-magic setting as well.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 4, 2004)

sledged said:
			
		

> No, it was pseudo-Middle Earth.




Ok, but then even looking at Middle Earth, that world is still pseudo-medieval.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 4, 2004)

*what about options?*

Ok, here's another question for you "low-magickers".  

How do you establish the low-magic framework of your campaign while still allowing the players to create the characters they want to play?  I'm starting to understand the low-magic concept a bit better but I still have this complex that low-magic is associated with taking away options from the players.

Trust me when I say that I haven't been too thrilled with the amount of crunchy stuff lately and I certainly understand that a DM doesn't have to allow everything under the sun in his campaign (I certainly don't I run a more "traditional" campaign right now).

But my short-lived experience with a low-magic campaign amounted to the DM saying "no" to most of the character concepts presented.  It seemed more about control to me than trying to establish the flavor of the campaign.

That might be an extreme (and bad) example but my question remains.  How much do you have to limit or restrict the character creation process without being an overlord DM?


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 4, 2004)

Give us an idea of a character concept or two that was rejected in a low-magic game?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 4, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Ok, here's another question for you "low-magickers".
> 
> How do you establish the low-magic framework of your campaign while still allowing the players to create the characters they want to play?  I'm starting to understand the low-magic concept a bit better but I still have this complex that low-magic is associated with taking away options from the players.
> 
> ...





You're thinking too adversarially here. As far as I'm concerned, the DM can do whatever he wants with his campaign setting, changing or limiting whatever he wants, as long as he explains why. Players should be willing to accept that explanation and run with it (as long as it's not an entirely unhelpful "Because I said so, that's why" from the DM). 
Not all character concepts are right for all campaigns. While an adversarial approach might call that DM control freaking or taking away player options, good players will accept it and come up with a character concept that works with the setting. If they really want to play something out of bounds for that campaign, then they should shelve the idea for another campaign or find another game.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 4, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> How do you establish the low-magic framework of your campaign while still allowing the players to create the characters they want to play?



Define "the characters they want to play".

If you want to play a character like, say, Gandalf, in my Barsoom campaign setting, well, I'm sorry but you'll have to find either another concept or another campaign. There are no wizards on Barsoom. If you want to play an elf, well, too bad. There are no elves on Barsoom.

It's my campaign. If you want to play in it, you need to come up with a character concept that fits into it.

Now, I'll work with you to figure out something that's fun for you -- if you're willing to respect my setting and the ideas that go into it. But if you're going to pout and whine about how it's not fair that I won't let you play a halfling sorcerer, well, get yourself a different campaign.


			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> It seemed more about control to me than trying to establish the flavor of the campaign.



Here's the test: I don't let my players pitch concepts and THEN shoot them down. I lay out the setting FIRST, then let my players come up with concepts. When I was starting Barsoom I told my potential players: "Dinosaurs, no non-human races, no spellcasting classes, flintlock pistols, no magic, no gods, red guys and a pink sky."

People who said, "Ew, not for me," didn't join. People who said, "Okay, sounds cool," signed up and created characters that fit with what I'd explained.

And then found out I was lying about pretty much everything. Hee.

The point is, a campaign is the product of a DM's desire and any DM is going to insist on whatever conditions they think will bring forth the kind of stories they're hoping to create. Players can accept those conditions or not. Questions of fairness don't enter into it.

Think of it as a marketplace -- DM's hawk their campaigns and hope to find enough players to make it fun. Players shop around, looking for campaigns that will let them play the kinds of characters they want to play. Not every campaign will please every player, and not every character concept will fit every campaign. Nobody's trying to control anyone here. People are just trying out different ideas as to what's fun.

This is a good thing.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 4, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> How do you establish the low-magic framework of your campaign while still allowing the players to create the characters they want to play?



When you, as DM, say "I'm planning on running a campaign more in the style of Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_," your players, I hope, don't say, "OK, I'll play an Ogre Magi Ninja Cleric!"  Certain concepts fit the campaign; certain concepts don't.


----------



## Kalendraf (Aug 4, 2004)

When I run a campaign, I want the emphasis to be on the characters and their abilities, rather than on their items.

In a high magic world, the characters don't matter, and it simply boils down to who has the bigger & better magic items.  Players could care less if their characters get killed, since the abundant magic allows them to get raised immediately.  But they will do everything in their power to protect their precious items.  That alone should illustrate the problem.

In a low magic world, the characters do matter.  In battles, magic items should not make a huge difference.  Players should try to save their characters from death, even if it costs them their only few magical items to do so.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 5, 2004)

Not giving certain options is not the same as taking away these options.
You never had them, so they cannot be taken away from you.

Campaigns are by their very nature restrictions upon the whole of options available in the core rules plus expansions. Everything, that doesn't fit into the setting, isn't available. It's that simple.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Wombat (Aug 5, 2004)

I know several campaigns out there were one of the house rules is that for every level you take in a magic-using class, you must take the next level in a non-magic-using class.  This effectively cuts the available magic in half.

Don't put magical shops into your campaign.  No magic is for sale at any price.

But, as has been said above, lay this out ahead of time.  Just like one person can say, "I am running a Forgotten Realms campaign set in the Dales" and another can say, "I am running a Planescape campaign", you know ahead of time with these that you are getting two very different flavours of gaming.  So, too, with the games I have hosted -- in one campaign there was a known social stigma against all magic users; in another there was no access to the gods, so no divine magic and/or powers; in another, only non-humans could harness magical powers.  In none of them were psionics allowed.

In all these cases, my gaming group had a great time and no one complained about the "lack" of magic.  Instead the campaigns were looked upon a deeply flavourful and exciting.

OTOH, I have met other gamers who cringe at the notion of having characters who do not all have magical arms, armour and equipment by the time they have reached 6th level.

Diff'rent strokes is all.


----------



## DeadlyUematsu (Aug 5, 2004)

Janx said:
			
		

> Heroes wouldn't need gear if they had powers that did all the things gear lets you do.




Because this needs to be repeated.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Aug 5, 2004)

Because Achilles didn't wear a pair of magical gauntlets, a magical cloak, a magical pair of boots, a magical sword, a magical suit of armor, a magical shield, a magical spear, a magical tunic, 2 magical rings, a magical neckalce and 2 ioun stones.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 5, 2004)

Janx said:
			
		

> Heroes wouldn't need gear if they had powers that did all the things gear lets you do.




And players wouldn't need any of either if they learned to think more and react less.


----------



## Serps (Aug 5, 2004)

Four pages of replies, and nobody's mentioned Grim Tales yet?


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 5, 2004)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Because Achilles didn't wear a pair of magical gauntlets, a magical cloak, a magical pair of boots, a magical sword, a magical suit of armor, a magical shield, a magical spear, a magical tunic, 2 magical rings, a magical neckalce and 2 ioun stones.




No, but he was dipped in the River Styx, which I imagine gave him the capabilities of half of the things you mentioned. He was also a "giant among men".

Most of what I'm reading boils down to "I don't like it when the character is defined by his items rather than who he is." And that's fine with me. I do prefer an epic level of play, which I find very challenging as a DM. I find that providing custom items, few if any purchasable items beyond scrolls/potions, and recurring villans tied into the game world lends a lot to the player's enjoyment. My campaign is "high-magic", and the players are well aware of it from the get-go.

Baron Opal


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 5, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I didn't know that.
> 
> So, like, when Frodo put the ring on and turned invisible, could he have made Gandalf do a little dance or something?
> 
> (yes, this is a tangent.  sorry)





From The Mirror of Galadrial (The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 2):

"I would ask one thing before we go," said Frodo, "a thing which I often meant to ask Gandalf in Rivendell.  I am permitted to wear the One Ring:  why cannot I see all the others and know the thoughts of those that wear them?"

"You have not tried," she said.  "Only thrice have you set the Ring upon your finger since you knew what you possessed.  Do not try!  It would destroy you.  Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor?  Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the dominion of others.  Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener.  You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise.  You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine.  And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger?  Did you see my ring?" she asked turning again to Sam.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 5, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Hmm, I'm not sure I made any "claims" that a DM shouldn't make changes for their world and if it came across that way, it wasn't my intention.




Glad to hear it.  "Low magic" shouldn't equate to "low fun".



> What I was trying to say was that my one brush with a "low-magic" campaign left a very bad taste in my mouth.  It wasn't so much a low-magic campaign as it was the DM telling us "no" to everything character concept presented to him.  He seemed to have some kind of vendetta against what he thought was min/maxing or powergaming or whatever he wanted to call it at the time.




Did the DM in question give some clear idea of the type of characters he would find acceptable?  And, if so, was is possible within these guidelines to make a character you would have enjoyed playing?  If yes, then there should have been no problem with the character design part of the game.  If no, then you probably would not have been a good player/DM match anyway.



> Anyway, going into detail isn't really important.  My point was that I wanted some reasons and philosophies for running low-magic campaigns and how to do it "properly".




I would claim that my game is roughly mid-magic.  There are a lot of faerie elements, a lot of neat magic, but enough of the more powerful items have drawbacks to make the characters unsure about what is (or isn't) safe.  I give only 1/2 book XP, so making magic items and casting certain spells is a bit more pricey than in a standard campaign.  On the other hand, I use the Heroes of High Favor:  Elves ley line system, allowing characters to enhance their spellcasting, and some other variants that might allow you to circumvent some of the XP costs.  Power components are an obvious one.

The PCs in my campaign currently run from 1st to 5th level, and I am using a character tree that allows players to use XP to advance several characters.  Gods are very real, and divine politics color much of what occurs in the world.  Faerie Lords are literally quasi-deities or better, and the PCs have now encountered deities at least twice.

I find the XP change works well to keep magic in check.  I also assume that spellcasters are fairly rare, making PC spellcasters the exception rather than the rule.  Thus, they have fewer magic items to find randomly, and the "big name" spellcasters that they have heard of are not necessarily high level.

RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 5, 2004)

> Because Achilles didn't wear a pair of magical gauntlets, a magical cloak, a magical pair of boots, a magical sword, a magical suit of armor, a magical shield, a magical spear, a magical tunic, 2 magical rings, a magical neckalce and 2 ioun stones.



Yes, but if your player game to you and said "I want to be the child of a god, and here's my 40 strength and 30 Con, because I'm the child of a god, and I can beat the snot out of a river and never get hit" it'd be acceptable?

My campaign is high magic, but low-loot. The characters choose a patron (a deity, a dragon, an ancestor, an animal spirit), and they gain powers related to that patron instead of magical items. I don't reduce the GP, I just give them 'treasure' in the form of powers rather than magic items, same cost. The exception is the artificer, but even he gets magic powers from his patron when he's not constructing items.  Basically, my solution is Janx's: the players don't need items if I give them powers that the items were meant to do.



> And players wouldn't need any of either if they learned to think more and react less.



And this is pretty insulting, man. Just because people groove on powerful characters doesn't mean their characters are devoid of thought...heck, high-level D&D almost mandates more thought and planning, because one wrong step, and you're the subject of a save-or-die spell, and done for, for long enough to make sure your enemies can succeed. When all your marbles hinge on your careful actions, you have to think a LOT more about what to do.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 5, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Don't put magical shops into your campaign.  No magic is for sale at any price.




I don't use magic shops, but I _do_ use individual _craftsmen_ who will make magic items for the right person, if their demands are met.  For example, there is a goblin smith out in the woods who lives in a hidden house and who makes superior (and sometimes magical) arms and armor.  Find him, convince him to make something for you (and it'll take more than money!    ) and you can be sure to get something good.  Well, as good as he can make it, because he doesn't have access to every enchantment you might want.....

Low magic because these are individuals you have to find.  Mid-magic because you can find them.  And, since a number of magical (or masterwork) swords bear these individual's smith-marks, you can at least learn that they exist....

RC


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 5, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> So, like, when Frodo put the ring on and turned invisible, could he have made Gandalf do a little dance or something?




No. The One Ring had no power over the elven rings, one of which was worn by Gandalf. (The Ring of Fire, in fact. Ever wonder why Gandalf was so good at fire magic?)



			
				Mystery Man said:
			
		

> If you have a party of high level magicked up pc's fighting same, or even high CR monsters and take away all the magic items etc wouldn't it sort of even itself out? They'd still be able to wail on each other with impunity.




No they wouldn't. They would hardly ever miss in combat, and treasure means a lot less to monsters than to classed characters. Plus, the save DCs of monster abilities...



> Granted, I've never tried but often wondered. It would seem to be sort of the same with less paper work and calculators.




Believe me, I've tried it and been on the receiving end of it. I can only conclude that a proper low-magic setting has to have it's own non-classed monsters.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Note, it's not D&D 3/3.5 that causes this "items define the character" problem. That's been in D&D since the beginning. heck my old 2e character felt lost when he lost his vorpal longsword of killing. Thank the gods he got it back...
> 
> Heroes wouldn't need gear if they had powers that did all the things gear lets you do.



Maybe, but 3e made it worse by quantifying how much magic you had to carry on you. I recall trying to run low-magic 2e; there were no balance guidelines (not that this was a good thing), and I only called it low-magic because I had so few other campaigns to compare it to.



			
				Wombat said:
			
		

> Don't put magical shops into your campaign. No magic is for sale at any price.




If you do this without making large changes, then the non-spellcasting classes will get shafted though. This is why a few game companies produce low-magic settings, where the work of changing the classes is (hopefully) done for you already.

Has anyone read any Forgotten Realms novels? _Maybe_ Elminster in Myth Drannor had 3e levels of magic, but in no other novel could I find characters so covered in magic items. Not in the Erevis Cale Trilogy, not in any of the Drizzt books, not in most of Ed Greenwood's books, not in the Danilo books... none of them. Never mind saying DnD doesn't match the old fiction, it doesn't even match it's _own_ fiction!


----------



## Ed Cha (Aug 5, 2004)

I like to run my campaign starting with very low magic (no magic items until say 3rd-level, even then just potions or scrolls) and then gradually going up to higher power magic. Most magic weapons and devices are unique and possess several qualities, usually unlocking at higher levels or when something happens like if a hero does a good deed or finds enlightenment. Magic should be rare and... "magical".


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 5, 2004)

> Did the DM in question give some clear idea of the type of characters he would find acceptable? And, if so, was is possible within these guidelines to make a character you would have enjoyed playing?  If yes, then there should have been no problem with the character design part of the game. If no, then you probably would not have been a good player/DM match anyway.




This is what it really came down to.  A lot of these campaign changes (we had played a more traditional campaign previously) were made with a "it's my way or the highway" ultimatum.  I chose the latter.  Unfortunately, the departure wasn't as smooth as I would have liked.  Oh well.  Live and learn.



> Don't put magical shops into your campaign. No magic is for sale at any price.




I do like the idea of magic shops but I prefer them to be more like "trinket" shops.  Shops that sell low-level potions and scrolls I have no problem with.  The players might be able to find a low-level wand from time to time.  Items above that just aren't sold in towns and villages and even if you are in a huge city, you have to find some "connections" before you can find where they are sold.

I do play in the Realms but I make the Red Wizards a bit more mysterious and shrouded.  Most of the players in my campaign are somewhat new to FR so I can keep a lot of things secret.  They don't know who the Red Wizards are yet (even though they've seen some of their markings).  They certainly don't know that they sell magic items.  I don't treat the Red Wizards as the Wal-Mart of the Realms.  The enclaves are only in the shadier cities of the Realms and they don't operate out in the open.  They usually have political or guild protection and most certainly have the local politicians in their pockets.  On top of all of that, membership or permission is required to enter the enclaves and to purchase items.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 5, 2004)

I have reworked many of the rules to support the style of campaign we're building now. I don't think it would be fair to call it a low magic setting per se, but certainly a _lower_ magic one.

When changing the rules I always did so with an eye on...

1. Improving high level play. We all _love_ the *idea* of high level play, however, the style of play core 3e presents, the tactics, and so on didn't reflect the kind of cinematic style that we wanted to see at those levels.

2. Game balance, particularly inter-party balance and *especially* high level gaming balance. A lot of power disparities between characters and classes I wanted to address. Many changes were geared towards making it easier to predict PC levels of power at all levels.

3. Fun. Every group is different but we didn't want to go low, _low_ magic route because casting spells is fun. If one of our a players wants to play a spellcaster he doesn't want to go through 30 levels wielding unreliable, possibly self-destructive power. I've paired back or altered a great deal of the magic in the game, but where I've done so, I've always _given back_ in other ways. For example, the wizards IMC (called Talists) are far more warrior-like and far better equiped to be in the front lines. Most of their offensive magic requires some sort of attack roll to be successful or to be the most effective. Most damaging spells have the option of being used in conjunction with a melee attack as well. That gets the player more involved and combat a little more exciting - even though they don't wield quite the same raw power (magically) as their 3e counterparts. Magic items are certainly more rare (PCs can't make permanent items, but can find those lost from Ragnarok), but they tend to have more flavor and they are all unique. I like to create magic items that have several small functions that relate in some way to it's history, rather than just one function or one big function. That said, for the very powerful, you can certainly acquire singularly powerful items - but I try to tie those into the storyline.

4. Rules that not only support the style of the setting but keep the setting from imploding on itself. We love flying mounts, ships, exploration, exotic locations for cities (cliffsides, tree-towns, nomadic mobile towns, etc.) so a lot of magic that would not support this style of setting went away - Teleport-style magic, magical flight, most scrying and powerful divinations are largely gone or at least removed from easy PC access. There are now specific magical (portals) / holy sites and unique individuals (seers) PCs would have to go to in order to have access to at least some this kind of magic - not easy. I also wanted to reduce role-crossovers, especially between magic and rogue abilities. Stealth and subterfuge should be the forte (but not necessarily the exclusive province) of the rogue alone, so, we made adjustments to accomodate that. 

This is really just the tip of the iceberg, but gives you some insight as to the thought process going on here.

Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 5, 2004)

Its not just characters having magical treasures. Its how magic is shwon in the setting played.

---
Wizards paid by the city watch to wander around casting detect invisiblity to find invisible thieves.

Clerics casting Speak with Dead on every murder victim.

Continual Light spells acting as street lamps.

Every army is going to have dozens of powerful mages or clerics, thus making castles and defences pointless.

Need that nifty +5 longsword? Lets go down to the market and pick a couple up cheap.
---

The list can go on quite a way. This sort of average-high magic destroys the fantasy illusion IMO. Thats why I prefer low-magic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 5, 2004)

Serps said:
			
		

> Four pages of replies, and nobody's mentioned Grim Tales yet?




You wouldn't believe the amount of self-control it's taken so far, neither.   

Wulf


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 5, 2004)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Because Achilles didn't wear a pair of magical gauntlets, a magical cloak, a magical pair of boots, a magical sword, a magical suit of armor, a magical shield, a magical spear, a magical tunic, 2 magical rings, a magical neckalce and 2 ioun stones.





			
				Baron Opal said:
			
		

> No, but he was dipped in the River Styx, which I imagine gave him the capabilities of half of the things you mentioned. He was also a "giant among men".



That's just it; a mythic character can be powerful and can even have a handful of powerful magic items, but he doesn't have a laundry list of magic items -- and he certainly doesn't have a list of items that he sells, then replaces with better items.

Even the most "wahoo" of mythic characters have only a few items.  Perseus, for instance, has a mirrored shield, a sharp sickle, winged sandals, a helmet of invisibility, and a magic sack (to hold Medusa's head).  Thor, a Norse god, has a magic hammer, belt, and glove -- and some magic goats to pull his chariot.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 5, 2004)

I'm a fan of low-magic because I've played enough high-level adventures where spellcasters turn every combat into a superheroes RPG leaving little for rogues and warriors to do.  Nearly every combat at that level of the game with base D&D is turned into "which side's spellcaster gets the spell off first."

For all of D20's cachet that it was a system that was balanced, high-level play certainly was not given enough attention.  I remember the conversations at the GenCon debut by all of WotC's R&D designers that "wizards weakness at early levels and power at high levels" did not count as balance as it did in early editions.  Well, they didn't fix it either.

I can't recount how many times I've seen PCs encounter "Save or Die" spells or spell-like abilities.  That ain't low-magic.

What D&D most needs is someone to give good guidelines on how to do high-level but low-magic adventures in D&D.


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 5, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Need that nifty +5 longsword? Lets go down to the market and pick a couple up cheap.



I despise the whole concept of the "magic shop" for anything beyond spell components, and even those would only be in large cities. But when I try to do the setting like that I get complaints from those weened on the various FR CRPGs. They think a village of 400-800 should have a store that sells magic swords and armor, wands of fireballs, etc. And they get pissy and say I'm trying to screw them when I say that isn't the way things work. It makes me yearn for a setting or game that doesn't have those assumptions built in. Even now that we are playing 1e I find the assumptions of D&D are still there, hell they have always been there it's just more ingraned into the way the system works now.  Magic items out the wazoo and they are for sale at the local Wiz-Mart. Maybe I'll look at Conan D20 or a GURPS fantasy mini-campaign and see how it works. My brother is the worst offender. He's the only other long time D&D player in the group and he has always been a power gamer because every campaign has been set that way that he has played in. He looks back on his first AD&D gaming with rose colored glasses when the DM allowed everyone to wear chainmail under platemail and everyone had an AC of -8 by 7th level, and +4 swords were falling from the sky. He thinks I should do things like that as well. How do you break someone who thinks power gaming is the only way to play?


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 5, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Don't put magical shops into your campaign.  No magic is for sale at any price.



If you look at the prices of magic items and the wages of common folk, it's clear that no normal person can afford magic.  Only wealthy aristocrats and plutocrats have the wealth to buy magic items, and it's not clear that they'd pay that kind of money for what they get.  Certainly healing magic would find a market.  And warrior-aristocrats would buy magical arms and armor for themselves, even if hiring more soldiers would be a better use of that money.

But who's going to go to the magic shop with _thousands_ of gold pieces to buy whatever's on hand?  And who's going to run a shop full of _millions_ of gold pieces' worth of merchandise?  All of it just sitting there, getting no use.  Really, a magic shop is an arsenal, requiring its own magically protected castle full of soldiers to protect it from theft.


----------



## rbingham2000 (Aug 5, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> What D&D most needs is someone to give good guidelines on how to do high-level but low-magic adventures in D&D.



Word.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 5, 2004)

All this being said I still prefer to run and play in a high magic/high fantasy game. The arguments against are nice but still, no thanks.  



> What D&D most needs is someone to give good guidelines on how to do high-level but low-magic adventures in D&D.



1. time.
2. patience.
3. don't give up.


----------



## Cheerful Coffin (Aug 5, 2004)

At low levels magic can be fun, but as levels progress magic becomes gods man. DMs get annoyed at thier one time friendly neighborhood wizard using Floating disk as a kiddy ride to make a quick silver peice now is using meator swarm to incenerate a lich army.

Meanwhile the fighter is still hacking away with his trusty sword, the sword just got bigger.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> All this being said I still prefer to run and play in a high magic/high fantasy game. The arguments against are nice but still, no thanks.



Bully for you.  I don't.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Aug 5, 2004)

> Because Achilles didn't wear a pair of magical gauntlets, a magical cloak, a magical pair of boots, a magical sword, a magical suit of armor, a magical shield, a magical spear, a magical tunic, 2 magical rings, a magical neckalce and 2 ioun stones.




It also never explicitly stated that Achilles ever went to the toilet, much like 95% of fictional characters... It's just not normally important to their story to know they had a poop before the final showdown, doesn't mean they don't do it.

It could be that he had a bunch of minor trinkets that weren't really worth focusing on. Perhaps his gear was a cut better than that of the average soldier? In DnD terms it might well have been that above list - just none of it was nearly as important or interesting as the actions of Achilles?

Same applies to many fictional heros - they may have had a few bits of anonymous but well made equipment - does it matter to the story? 


One option I used was to make most weapons and armour 'non magical' - they're just more extreme versions of masterwork... that suprisingly cost about the same as their magical equivalents. Some enchantments can also be treated this way - keen, ghost touch, vorpal and other non visual stuff is easy. Some are harder to work in, but even 'showy' stuff like elemental types could be the result of strange materials rather than magic?

We coupled this with some 'items' as innate powers - stat, ac and save boosts mostly.  

Reserve special history backgrounds for the one or two powerful genuinely magical treasures each hero has. 

Removing some of the more physics warping effects can help with the imagery. Ioun stones = cloak pins. Make bags of holding, flying boots and the like rather rare. Etc. Etc.

They still work much the same as the 'suggested wealth' characters, but the all important descriptive aspect of the game is subtly different?

YMMV but I found this made the game feel much less 'about the items' and far more about the powers of the PCs, while changing very little of the mechanics (apart from craft rules) or encounter balance.

Has some slight effects in that you can't supress some items with antimagic/dispel any more and most 'magic item' creation was done by craftsmen instead of wizards. But nothing really problematic.

If the problem is with the PCs having powers at all, rather than the source of them, then this really isn't going to help!


As far as the magical changes to society. 

Likewise, from a descriptive angle again, cutting down the number of magic users from the DMG guidelines can make for a less magical feeling world. Instead of few % of the population being spellcasters, perhaps there are only a handful in each kingdom? Just happens that some of these are PCs.

Perhaps the gods only bestow powers on a few 'miracle workers' (clerics) rather than most of the clergy. Maybe these powers only work on chosen individuals (players, villans and major npcs) - no mass curing of plagues or clerical army units? Things are exactly the same for PCs, but it changes the backdrop?

Possibly apply something like Sephulcrave did in his excellent story hour. Mages don't meddle in politics - it causes way too many problems. If they get caught, then other mages will band together to stop them... again this would massively lessen the impact of magic on society, but still keep it with very minimal rules changes?


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Aug 5, 2004)

Double post.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

AL, that's pretty interesting actually.  Although not specifically called out, I've done something very similar, borrowing the concept from _The Wheel of Time RPG_ that introduces a Mastercraft class of item that's a step above Masterwork (yeah, I realize that terms are kinda silly; I usually just call it masterwork and give a bonus anywhere from +1 to +3 depending on the quality of craftsmanship).  I hadn't thought about adding some of the other "magical" effects as non-magical descriptions, though.  I'll almost certainly be yoinking that for my low magic campaign.  

I've also already integrated some of those other ideas; for example most 'clerics' in my campaign are experts, aristocrats, or even commoners who take a feat to make knowledge (religion) a class skill and maybe the Skill Focus (Knowledge (religion)) feat.  I also use the Treat Injury rules from d20 Modern in place of the Heal rules from D&D, so the PC's butler is actually a relatively skillful medic who can replace (to a large extent) some of their missing healing magic, especially with a little healing downtime here and there.

I haven't had any problem with the CRs of creatures, either -- all in all, it's not nearly as hard to make a low magic campaign as a lot of folks who are really jittery about the legendary 'balance' of d20 seem to think.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 5, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Bully for you. I don't.



Bully for you too!


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 5, 2004)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> No, but he was dipped in the River Styx, which I imagine gave him the capabilities of half of the things you mentioned. He was also a "giant among men".




What magic items did Odysseus run around with all the time.  Can you prove that Odysseus did not have epic adventures?


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 5, 2004)

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> It also never explicitly stated that Achilles ever went to the toilet, much like 95% of fictional characters... It's just not normally important to their story to know they had a poop before the final showdown, doesn't mean they don't do it.
> 
> It could be that he had a bunch of minor trinkets




This is called "grasping at straws", a common cheap rhetorical trick to be pulled out when there is no substantive rebuttal possible.


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 5, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> But who's going to go to the magic shop with _thousands_ of gold pieces to buy whatever's on hand?  And who's going to run a shop full of _millions_ of gold pieces' worth of merchandise?  All of it just sitting there, getting no use.




http://www.donsguns.com/


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 5, 2004)

One of the primary reasons for the focus on items in D&D is because it's SIMPLE. One part of the fun of playing this game is watching your character get more powerful, and acquire new abilities (or improvements to old abilities) -- these give you more options in play as the game goes on.

Rules on making items customized for individual characters will be more complicated than a simple list of progressively more powerful items. It's easier to just hand out +1, +2, +3 weapons than it is to come up with a weapon personalized to a character and figure out how THIS one is going to increase in power.

I'm not saying it's impossible (heck, that's exactly what I do), but it's more work. And for lots of people, it's a bunch of work that is tangential to what's fun about the game.

Items are simple way to "power-up". They're a finite bunch of slots that a player can plug new abilities into. They're a measurable, discrete way for DMs to hand out new goodies.

Items are good for lots of games. You can pretty easily come up with logical holes in a setting that includes lots of them, but okay, if you can't tear logical holes in ANY fantasy setting, you aren't really trying. For lots of people, the magic item holes aren't very important.

Not all games need the "power-up" mechanic, and even those that do can find other ways of going about it.

I went low-magic for Barsoom in a couple of ways. There are almost no magic items on Barsoom. Those that do exist are artifact-level power, and generally in the possession of really powerful individuals. Likewise, there are almost no spellcasters -- one of the key conceits of Barsoom is that the best course of action for any spellcaster is total paranoia. Kill every other living thing that knows anything about magic, and you become unstoppable. So such spellcasters as exist are extraordinarily powerful (on a par with deities in other campaigns), and usually completely insane to boot.

The result is a campaign that's sort of a cross between Edgar Rice Burroughs, with swashbuckling action that depends more on derring-do than magic assistance, and HP Lovecraft, with massively powerful forces that care nothing for "mere mortals".

With the PCs squarely in the middle of it all. They hate me.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 5, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> One of the key conceits of Barsoom is that the best course of action for any spellcaster is total paranoia. Kill every other living thing that knows anything about magic, and you become unstoppable.





THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 5, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> http://www.donsguns.com/



Dogbrain, I'll assume you just thought that was amusing.  Obviously the analogy is quite flawed.  A modern gun is expensive, but not _expensive_; it's a few hundred bucks, a week's wages for the common man -- the equivalent of less than one gold piece in D&D.  And, of course, a modern gun store in the US is well protected by the modern state.

Imagine Don's Guns in Africa or the Middle East, full of not just handguns and hunting rifles, but fully automatic assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, surface-to-air missiles, heavy artillery, armored fighting vehicles, and main battle tanks -- and you still don't have something as ludicrous as D&D's magic shops.  Anyone with the military might of a state will either _be_ the state or have that power appropriated by the state.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Bully for you too!



Thanks!


----------



## Numion (Aug 5, 2004)

High-level magic in D&D has great destructive powers. It also has great protective powers. Whats the use, then? 

I find it really intresting to use the right mix of protective and offensive magics with my cleric. It requires tactical thinking and anticipating the problems (don't tell me preparing to cast blindness on the beholder when it closes the AM eye isn't great tactics). I like that. I understand that some people wouldn't like it. 

Some think that magic is totally unbalanced at higher levels. I think it's not. Only time the my game was thrown out of whack was because of 3.0E Sun Elf Archmage. Too powerful. But that was the PrC, not the rules.

In literary sources many magics are quite destructive against unprotected targets (heck, even the emperors lightning in Star Wars). So it is in D&D. You just have to find the right counters for the right situation. Spells like anti-life shell are really good, but can also be devastating in the wrong situation. Death Ward is your friend.


----------



## Chimera (Aug 5, 2004)

In a High Magic world, everyone expects to be able to roll into the neighborhood Magic shop and pick up just about anything.  As if the proprietor has millions of GPs to spend on inventory *just in case* someone want a Mithril Widget +4.

We also assume that he has mountains of cash sitting around to purchase any old +2 Sword or Wand of Fireball that we care to sell.  (And strangely, they all seem to take our word for what these items do, rather than insisting on doing their own Identify spells to ensure they get what they paid for!)

We also tend to assume too much that he isn't being constantly robbed blind by the local thieves, who surely can't pass up such valuables or such piles of gold.

You also have to keep in mind that each magic item required a lot of time and money for someone to make, and they were made for a purpose, for a specific buyer.  Seems extremely unlikely that Wally the Wizard spends all his time and hard earned money cranking out those Magic Widgets on spec(ulation).

Your average 18th level Wizard isn't going to waste his valuable time and hard earned gold manufacturing a +6 item just to have it sit on the store shelf _just in case_ some guy comes along wanting one of those things.  He has better things to do with his time and money.  When and If someone comes along that wants such an item...then he can negotiate.  Assuming that he has the time and inclination to do such things.

Potions, Scrolls and other expendable items, perhaps.  At least the most highly desirable such.  Hardly worthwhile to have a lot of Scrolls of Jump sitting idle in your shop.  Better to make such things on demand than waste time, money and experience just to have them sit in stock for a couple of years.

IMCW, there aren't that many higher level characters in the first place.  And those who are higher level, have better things to do with their time.  There also isn't this huge long history of people making magic items.  So of course, there aren't these massive numbers of magic items.

There also aren't too many Wizards rich enough and prepared enough to buy and sell magic items the way many players want to see.  It takes a lot of work, a lot of money, and a lot of security.

So...you find a better sword and want to sell your old magic sword.  You don't just amble down to Don's Magic Shop and trade it in for 1,000gp.  

First, you have to find a buyer.

Then he has to be sure of what he's buying.

Then you have to work out payment.  You might have to take it in trade.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Aug 5, 2004)

Well that's an interesting contention. I assume you've seen the opening bazaar scenes in Blackhawk down where the delta force soldier is walking through a bazaar that is chock full of assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades and probably has a few surface to air missiles in there as well. My understanding is that, throughout much of the middle east, Asia, and Africa, that kind of a market, while not exactly common isn't unheard of.

Historically, full-grade military hardware was not a state monopoly either until the late 19th century at the latest. The British and Dutch East India companies maintained their own armies and navies though they were practically states in themselves in some regards. In general, however, merchant ships were able to buy top grade military weaponry for defense against pirates. The distinction between a merchantman and a man of war was not always clear cut and where it was, it generally had more to do with the amount of space dedicated to cargo vs. the amount dedicated to weaponry and the training of the crew than the quality of their weapons. I seem to recall reading of at least one private army in the American West as well.

That is not to say that the "Magic Shoppe" is a viable economic model (personally, I think it reflects DM and a lack of player interest in the economics of adventuring more than anything else). However, it is to say that this particular argument against it is flawed:



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Dogbrain, I'll assume you just thought that was amusing.  Obviously the analogy is quite flawed.  A modern gun is expensive, but not _expensive_; it's a few hundred bucks, a week's wages for the common man -- the equivalent of less than one gold piece in D&D.  And, of course, a modern gun store in the US is well protected by the modern state.
> 
> Imagine Don's Guns in Africa or the Middle East, full of not just handguns and hunting rifles, but fully automatic assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, surface-to-air missiles, heavy artillery, armored fighting vehicles, and main battle tanks -- and you still don't have something as ludicrous as D&D's magic shops.  Anyone with the military might of a state will either _be_ the state or have that power appropriated by the state.




And as to the "Achilles didn't have a magical grab bag..." argument, well, according to the Illiad, Ajax or Diomedes (I forget who) killed himself when Odysseus got Achilles' armor instead of him. So there was obviously something special about, at the very least, Achilles' armor and shield. However, if you read the Norse sagas, it seems that most characters have at least one item that is special or magical and Beowulf goes into a lot of detail about all of the arms and armor of the hero at the various points of the story. There are entire Arthurian tales about questing for various bits of loot (Cuwllych and Olwen comes to mind).

For that matter, if Tolkein went into any more detail about the various gear his characters got, the poetic sections would be nothing but laundry lists of "eyes were sharp/spear was keen/shining helm afar was seen." To take just one example, by the end of the book, Pippin had the following:
Helm of the tower of the guard, mail of the tower of the guard, blade of westernesse, cloak of Lorien, belt from Lorien, lasting effects of the waters of the ents, a horn given to him by the king, and I think he had a shield from somewhere. For fiction, where minor items don't merit mentioning because that would take too long and make the story read more like a character sheet or a treatise on the various components of ancient armors, that's quite a bit. On the other hand, it's not exactly unusual for a LotR character either.

The idea that the literary and legendary roots of D&D aren't full of items doesn't bear up to scrutiny.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Aug 6, 2004)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Because Achilles didn't wear a pair of magical gauntlets, a magical cloak, a magical pair of boots, a magical sword, a magical suit of armor, a magical shield, a magical spear, a magical tunic, 2 magical rings, a magical neckalce and 2 ioun stones.





No, just magic armour, magic shield, magic sword, and magic spear.
The other items weren't important enough to have legends about them.

Geoff.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Aug 6, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> In a High Magic world, everyone expects to be able to roll into the neighborhood Magic shop and pick up just about anything.  As if the proprietor has millions of GPs to spend on inventory *just in case* someone want a Mithril Widget +4.




No, they expect to be able to _commision_ just about anything. 

Geoff.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 6, 2004)

Dogbrain said:
			
		

> What magic items did Odysseus run around with all the time.




The Argonauts, including Hercules, IIRC. Who needs a magic shield when you have a demigod and your own personal army? Granted, most of them leave or die over the course of the Odyssey, but then Odysseus is higher level by then.

Actually, now that I think about it, that's Jason, not Odysseus. But the argument still holds. Also, Odysseus was stronger than most men. The scene in his hall after he strings his bow and fires through the ten axes shows that he is a cut above most men. Much like Achillies, above.

So, perhaps that's a solution for some people. Have a "hero" template, something which increases the character's power up front and as they go up in level. Their added capabilities make up for, mechaincally, the assumptions in the system. Which, I believe, is just what the Midnight setting does.

Baron Opal


----------



## drothgery (Aug 6, 2004)

I've always had a problem with the generic term "high magic", because there are just too many things that affect the level of magic in a fantasy setting.

There's the power of magic -- if Gandalf is one of the most powerful spellcasters in your universe, magic is far less powerful than a universe where Pug of Stardock is. It doesn't seem like most people object to the existence of powerful, world-altering magic in their games; 3rd-Age Middle Earth is a decidedly low-magic setting on this axis.

There's the commonality of magic -- how likely is it that a given person is a spellcaster? Are even minor spellcasters rare, like they are in the world of Glenn Cook's _Black Company_, or can almost anyone manage a few basic spells, like they can in Steven Brust's Dragaera at the time of the Vlad Taltos books. Standard D&D demographics say that less than 1% of the population are spellcasters -- and most of that less than 1% are adepts, which doesn't seem excessively high or low by the standards of modern fantasy.

There's the versatility of magic - Elmister, working within the confines of D&D magic, can accomplish almost anything; Melanie Rawn's sunrunners are excellent with communication, illusion, and fire, but don't have much else to go on. This is one area where D&D is definitely at a "higher" level than most fantasy; it's hard to think of something that _couldn't_ be done with a spell, given a sufficiently powerful caster.

There's the distribution of magic power -- in Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ there's everyone from the barely magic-capable Morgase Trakand to the heights of the Forsaken and a handful of others, with a cluster at the lower-midrange; the wizards of Terry Pratchett's _Discworld_ don't seem to have much variation in power among themselves. Standard D&D demographics say there are half as many second level wizards as first level, half as many third as second, etc, which implies a pretty steep, but climbable slope.

And then there's the commonality of magic items, which is the thing that most people complain about when they say that D&D is too much of a high-magic game. And the high availability of magic items in standard D&D are almost unique. But I really think it's there for a good reason; D&D is a game, not a novel. If you've decided that powerful magic exists and is easily accessable by PC magic-users, then you either accept that PC magic-users dominate the game (_Ars Magica_), make quasi-magical abilities common (_Earthdawn_), or make magic items very common (_Dungeons & Dragons_). I think D&D's choice (to balance the wizard's spells with the fighter's magic sword and armor) is probably the best one for a quasi-medieval fantasy game.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Aug 6, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yes, but if your player game to you and said "I want to be the child of a god, and here's my 40 strength and 30 Con, because I'm the child of a god, and I can beat the snot out of a river and never get hit" it'd be acceptable?




There were plenty of non god related greek heroes (or if there was a god he was a few generations back) and in other mythologys heroes didn't have crap loads of gear.  I don't know much except greek heroes but I think Gilgamesh wasn't related to any gods (though he himself posseses near god like power).

In any case magic wan't common place in any mythological type setting (heck I have a hard time thinking of any magic users other than Circe in greek myths).


----------



## Dogbrain (Aug 6, 2004)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Actually, now that I think about it, that's Jason, not Odysseus. But the argument still holds.




No, because Odysseus's hapless companions were a bunch of poor schmucks who all got killed.



> Also, Odysseus was stronger than most men. The scene in his hall after he strings his bow and fires through the ten axes shows that he is a cut above most men. Much like Achillies, above.




So he has a ST of 17 or so and he's a skilled archer.  That would be enough.



> So, perhaps that's a solution for some people. Have a "hero" template




That's called "being high level".


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

I think there's emulating sword and sorcery, and then there's emulating myth.  For whatever reason that's been lumped together in this discussion, but really -- Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser was nothing like Achilles or Oddyseus.  Personally, I prefer something more along the lines of the former than the latter.

Interestingly enough, in my session tonight, we talked a bit about this thread, and how my melange of low magic house rules is working.  I think, perhaps to the surprise of my players, who are all also DMs at times, that the rules are working out very well, and they're all having tons of fun.  At least they say they are, and I'm very happy (with the exception of a few tweaks here and there) with the performance of my crazy house rules.  The idea that low magic can't be fun, or doesn't work in the confines of d20, or something like that, quite simply is not jiving with our experience.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Aug 6, 2004)

I always run "low magic" campaigns because of the consequences on society that magic of any real abundance will have.  My take on this in my current campaign is attached.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## drothgery (Aug 6, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The idea that low magic can't be fun, or doesn't work in the confines of d20, or something like that, quite simply is not jiving with our experience.



I wouldn't argue with that. I would argue that radically reducing the availability of magic items (and changing nothing else) doesn't work well at mid to high levels in unmodified _D&D_, but that's hardly saying that low magic & d20 don't mix.


----------



## Chimera (Aug 6, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> No, they expect to be able to _commision_ just about anything.




Guess that hasn't been my experience.  They don't want to wait for it, they don't want to have to find the necessary Wizard and negotiate.

And it would certainly be true that they want to be able to _sell_ anything, anytime.  Without any hassle.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 6, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> And it would certainly be true that they want to be able to _sell_ anything, anytime.  Without any hassle.




Well, they _could_ do that, but they might not get the price they are looking for...


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 6, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Guess that hasn't been my experience.  They don't want to wait for it, they don't want to have to find the necessary Wizard and negotiate.
> 
> And it would certainly be true that they want to be able to _sell_ anything, anytime.  Without any hassle.



It's not D&D's fault that your players are stubborn.

The fact that there are "market prices" listed for magic items in the DMG does not mean that there are markets where magic items are sold. For one thing, I've never seen a DM who doesn't compare the item requested by a player with the demographics of spellcasters in the town - are there NPCs in town who *could* make it, never mind the question of whether or not they *would*? You might make an exception for a potion or scroll, which an item crafter might have traded for in the past and kept around to sell later, but not a _+2 holy flaming longbow_.

I think it's very much the DM's responsibility to establish the availability of magic items, and to communicate this to her players.


----------



## Wombat (Aug 6, 2004)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> I don't know much except greek heroes but I think Gilgamesh wasn't related to any gods (though he himself posseses near god like power).




Actually, Gilgamesh is interesting in that he was, according to at least a couple translations I have seen of the tablets, 2/3 god, which makes for an interesting spin.  I have no idea how that particular figure was arrived at, but maybe his parents were oddly compliant...  

Be all that as may be, we seem to be covering several different notions in this thread.

1)  How many magical items should a character have?

2)  How common are magic wielders in a campagin?

3)  Are magical dingi available for purchase?

4)  What are the implications in a low level campaign of high level wizards?  Does this same criteria affect the world in the same manner as in a high level campaign?

5)  How ubiquitous is magic?  Does everyone in the world, including Joe Farmer, accept it?

6)  Does the magic available appreciably alter the social, economic, and/or political structure of the world?

In many campaigns I have seen, there is little or no acknowledgement of high level spells at the beginning of a campaign, unless said spells are used to save the party's collective tuckus.  This seems short-sighted to me.  If big magics are going to be there in the world, acknowledge the fact from the beginning and have the world alter accordingly; conversely, if you have a world you really want and the magics would throw this out of alignment, alter the magic.  It just depends with which end of the equation you takes as being "vital".

A few incoherent thoughts before I go to bed...


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 6, 2004)

Hong limited _teleport_ in his game in an interesting way; one can transport oneself *from* anywhere, but one must travel *to* one of a limited number of places, the locations of which are known.

Prevents _teleport_-raiding, allows for "Get the Hell out of here!" butt-saving. Kinda cool.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 6, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ... all in all, it's not nearly as hard to make a low magic campaign as a lot of folks who are really jittery about the legendary 'balance' of d20 seem to think.




Exactly right.  I am endlessly amazed at how obsessed some people are with maintaining "balance" in their campaigns, and this is why fighters must be allowed tons of magical gear, etc.

Ensuring that all the PCs play an important role is not rocket science -- any decent DM can tweak his campaign, low magic or not, to ensure "balance."


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 6, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> Ensuring that all the PCs play an important role is not rocket science



Exactly.

There's no golden set of rules that will ensure your campaign never gets unbalanced. Nor is there any value a priori in a campaign where magic's economic and social effects are carefully thought out.

I came up with a set of rules once that went something like this:

It's okay that not everybody likes the same thing.
It's not a bad idea to try something new every now and then.
The fact that somebody doesn't like what you like doesn't make either of you stupid or bad.

Keep those in mind. Life gets much simpler.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Aug 6, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've also already integrated some of those other ideas; for example most 'clerics' in my campaign are experts, aristocrats, or even commoners who take a feat to make knowledge (religion) a class skill and maybe the Skill Focus (Knowledge (religion)) feat.  I also use the Treat Injury rules from d20 Modern in place of the Heal rules from D&D, so the PC's butler is actually a relatively skillful medic who can replace (to a large extent) some of their missing healing magic, especially with a little healing downtime here and there.
> 
> I haven't had any problem with the CRs of creatures, either -- all in all, it's not nearly as hard to make a low magic campaign as a lot of folks who are really jittery about the legendary 'balance' of d20 seem to think.




Glad you like the non magical effects idea... I prefer the 'magic' arms/armour creators IMC to be craftsmen, rather than only spellcasters. It kind of panned out from there... 

I went much the same way with clergy being normal people. Most are Experts... For some reason I hadn't even considered the aristocrat class, but that makes a lot of sense for the senior ranks - a good steal! Cleric class is for miracle workers or saints, in my view. 

I hadn't thought of the Treat Injury idea - will have to see if I can steal it from the modern SRD - makes a lot of sense for the heal skill. Can you restore a reasonable number of hit points with it?

I took the idea of vitality points another GM used for a Star Wars game. Basically a nights rest, downtime or a logical 'scene break' sees the characters restored to full hitpoints. Figured it was less bookeeping that way and helped with the more cinema style we were trying to hit.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Aug 6, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> In many campaigns I have seen, there is little or no acknowledgement of high level spells at the beginning of a campaign, unless said spells are used to save the party's collective tuckus.  This seems short-sighted to me.  If big magics are going to be there in the world, acknowledge the fact from the beginning and have the world alter accordingly; conversely, if you have a world you really want and the magics would throw this out of alignment, alter the magic.  It just depends with which end of the equation you takes as being "vital".




A very interesting thought. Something I've definitely been guilty of before...

I'd prefer to leave the magic system fairly well alone as I'm rather fond of it. Although, I prefer less magic users than the 'default' 1%. 

So what would be good ways to demonstrate the impact of the powerful magic to the players? 

I feel the 'right way' for me would be to let them know it's there without throwing it in their faces or letting it take over the game.




			
				Wombat said:
			
		

> 5) How ubiquitous is magic? Does everyone in the world, including Joe Farmer, accept it?




Mistrust, fear, hatred or a healthy slice of jelousy... It's Medieval X-Men!


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 6, 2004)

Because "high-magic" is completely a construct of the D&D system itself, from the very early days, and is dumb? At least, that's my answer as far as "why low-magic".


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> I hadn't thought of the Treat Injury idea - will have to see if I can steal it from the modern SRD - makes a lot of sense for the heal skill. Can you restore a reasonable number of hit points with it?



Depends on what you mean a reasonable number.  My PCs just graduated from 3rd to 4th level, so they aren't losing a hundred hit points an encounter yet, or anything like that.  It can be equivalent to a potion of cure moderate wounds or so to someone who's actually good at it, though.  There's a feat (Surgery, I think it's called) also from the Modern SRD that improves it as well.

The other rule that I use in conjunction with this is the Damage conversion rule from _Unearthed Arcana_.  Basically an amount of damage for each attack equal to the characters armor value (2 points for the two leather-wearing guys) is converted to subdual damage rather than normal damage.  So they still go down at the same point in the fight, but afterwards, a few hours of resting up after getting battered around means you're in good shape without having to heal or rest for days and days.  It accomplishes sort of the same thing as Vitality points in Star Wars, but it's a bit simpler and runs without sitting uncomfortably on the D&D system of critical hits and all that.  The only challenge we have with this rule is remembering to apply it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I wouldn't argue with that. I would argue that radically reducing the availability of magic items (and changing nothing else) doesn't work well at mid to high levels in unmodified _D&D_, but that's hardly saying that low magic & d20 don't mix.



Right; I'm not saying you (or anyone else in this thread) has said that explicitly, simply that it's a common position to take in discussions of this nature.  I'm speaking generically, not specifically.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 6, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's okay that not everybody likes the same thing..




No it's not.




			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's not a bad idea to try something new every now and then.




Yes it is.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The fact that somebody doesn't like what you like doesn't make either of you stupid or bad.




Yes it does!  I am stupid and bad! 

err... hold on a second...


----------



## Stockdale (Aug 6, 2004)

I've been entertained by this discussion of high magic v low magic campaigns. This is really just a personal preference and mindset issue. 

I recently played in a Greyhawk campaign that was high magic. In that game, access to magic items was not an issue. There was a flousihing trade in magical items in larger cities, but cost (it seems my character was always short on cash) was prohibitive. Despite its high magic feel, the wonder of magical items, new spells, etc. was kept alive through good story telling and character interaction. ScyldSceafing, the DM, in the Concerning Celene story kept the wonder alive with "you have never seen [insert character name] do this before. [interest description of action/spell/whatever]." The fact there was access to high magic didn't reduce roleplay or alter the game whatsoever. 

I current play in JoshDyal's Dark Heritage game which, as you all know, is low magic. Limited access to magic spells and items (as though you'd really want to use them considering saniety loss) and no access to magical healing. The players' approach to tactical situation has to change between the high and low magic, and the DM must reconsider the appropriate encounter level considering the low magic setting. The play is still enjoyable.

While a low magic campaign changes player strategy, it doesn't, IMO, limited character options. The options remain the same - class, feat and skill selection. Like the Rogue/Wizard I played in Concerning Celene and the Wildlander/Fighter I play in Dark Heritage, character options all boil down to what you choose and what you do with those choices.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> No it's not.
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> ...



Alright, you crazy Canadians; keep it down up there!

P.S.  Hey, you know we love you!


----------



## Chimera (Aug 6, 2004)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> It's not D&D's fault that your players are stubborn.




Ahem. :\ 



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> The fact that there are "market prices" listed for magic items in the DMG does not mean that there are markets where magic items are sold. For one thing, I've never seen a DM who doesn't compare the item requested by a player with the demographics of spellcasters in the town - are there NPCs in town who *could* make it, never mind the question of whether or not they *would*? You might make an exception for a potion or scroll, which an item crafter might have traded for in the past and kept around to sell later, but not a _+2 holy flaming longbow_.
> 
> I think it's very much the DM's responsibility to establish the availability of magic items, and to communicate this to her players.




No kidding?  What part of this didn't I say earlier?


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 6, 2004)

This thread has surpassed even my wildest dreams!     Thanks to all so far.  I definitely have a new understanding (and a lot of cool ideas!) about different campaign styles.

I know more than a few people here run low-magic (or whatever you want to call it) campaigns.  What I'd like to see is what you actually _give _ to the players when you are starting the campaign.  I'm talking about low-magic campaign CRUNCH here.

I know you posted some info on your campaign Al'Kelhar (very nice) but it didn't contain much crunch.  A lot of talk has been about maintaining "balance" when you start adjusting the magic level in the game.  I want to see how that translates into actual rules.  Some say it's not rocket science?  Great.  SHOW ME THE LOW-MAGIC!!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Aug 6, 2004)

A few suggestions have been made.  Here are the sites I mentioned in my first post.

Giant in the Playground - go to the Forms section on the sidebar then scroll down to the world-building articles.  It's a general overview on how to build a world, but it shows how 3.5's magic and equipment did not fit his worldview.

I'd also recommend reading Josh Dyal's campaign website.  It offers a lot of material you could use in a rare magic setting.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of "crunch" you're looking for that hasn't already been offered.  Some posters mentioned handing out powers rather than magic items, equal in value to their magical counterparts.  Others suggested increasing CR for monsters with powerful spell-like abilities, damage reduction, and so on.  You could also lower a party's ECL when calculating XP, which would amount to the same thing, really.  Maybe you could emphasis the rarity of spellcasters by disallowing them as a PC classes.  Change Craft Magic Arms and Armor to Mastercraft Arms and Armor, use normal item pricing methods, and set crafting DCs relative to how easy or difficult you want item crafting to be.

Or maybe make more direct changes to the PCs.  Give an ability increase every two levels instead of four, create some heroic paths a la Midnight to grant extraordinary powers to the characters.  Or maybe give the characters each one or two magic items that are priceless.

There are a lot of things you could do.  I think it just depends on exactly what you want when it comes to "low magic."


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 6, 2004)

Interesting thread.

My theory is that we are no longer 16 years old.

When I was in high school, and DM'd my first real campaign, the game ended with multiple players having artifacts, and them fighting "towns" of people.  Very crazy.

We're older now.  We don't do that sort of stuff (well, most of us, I guess).  Henceforth, we begin looking for a simpler game where we can cultivate better role-playing, and a more gritty feel.

An observation - 

I am currently DM'ing a 14th level game.  The party is really powerful, and has a broad array of magic items at their disposal.  They routinely handle ELs above their level, and a difficult combat encounter can easily last all evening.  I started this campaign at 9th level, and our intention was to play to level 20, because none of us had ever done that.  In my observations of my group over the last 3 years (started my game in 2003, and we started gaming together in 2000), most of them are more tactical and strategy-oriented.  Only a few of them are really, what I would consider, heavily role-playing oriented.  Most of them were happy rolling lots of dice, rather than parlaying with NPCs.  So, I structured my game to appeal to tactics and crunchy goodness.  It worked.

We were missing several players last weekend, and we did a one-shot adlibed game with characters of 3rd level.  We "hard-core" rolled them with 3d6 in order, and the highest score in the group was a 15, of which one character had two of them.  It was a great game.  We used our wits, and the level of role-playing was very high.  And because the role of the DM rotated throughout the game, everyone paid close attention, and we never knew what to expect.  I think more people in my generation (30-something) are looking to capture this feeling.  It's not something that is easily found in a high level game, where the wizard spends most of his time figuring out where to strategically place his next wall of force.


As for low-level crunch, I'm all for magic items.  I love 'em.  I've found that things like bags of holding, portable holes, and "utility" items like these are way more unbalancing than a +3 sword ever was.  A party with magic weapons will do more damage, and hit more often - sure, but they won't destroy your dungeon by walking through walls you didn't intend.  Like the above example with sovereign glue - another great "oh crap" item that will often bite the DM in the rear.


*Low level crunch*
Low level items that can add a lot of flavor are skill enhancing items, or things with story flavor.  Like, items that grant +'s to skills.  Could even be an item that grants a +2/+2 to a set of skills.  That's like granting a free feat, if you think about, but at face value, sounds like a weak magic item.  Potions and scrolls are great, because they only have one charge.  Armor and weapons can be magical, and not have pluses.  Like, an armor can grant a slight increase in movement, or grant a skill or ability increase (even if it's just a +1).  Most low level characters will trade out a higher AC for a suit of armor that was +1 charisma, +5 to bluff.  That's pretty weak armor in my book, but if it was the only significant magic item in the group, I'd bet they'd find a way to make good use of it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I'd also recommend reading Josh Dyal's campaign website.  It offers a lot of material you could use in a rare magic setting.



Now, with a new entry, new better organization, and it's own messageboard courtesy of ezboard!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The new index is right here.


----------



## hong (Aug 6, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Guess that hasn't been my experience.  They don't want to wait for it, they don't want to have to find the necessary Wizard and negotiate.
> 
> And it would certainly be true that they want to be able to _sell_ anything, anytime.  Without any hassle.




D00d, are you playing Dungeons and Dragons, or d20 Shopkeeper: the Haggling? Let them finesse their inventory off-stage, so you and they can get back to the fun stuff: solving problems, travelling to exotic locations, talking to people, maybe even killing them and taking their stuff. You know, _adventuring_.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 6, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I know more than a few people here run low-magic (or whatever you want to call it) campaigns.  What I'd like to see is what you actually _give _ to the players when you are starting the campaign.  I'm talking about low-magic campaign CRUNCH here.




Okay.  Here's the short form for my "low magic" game.  FYI, it's heavily modified Krynn after the Chaos War when the gods went AWOL and took their magic with them.The world has lots of low level casters but few non-artificers bother to get past 5th or 6th level.  

Magic is common but it doesn't have a massive impact on society because there are no teleports, sendings, or major creation spells. 

Many high level caster adventurers are multiclass and the PrCs without full casting progression see a lot more use.  

-Only spells of 0-2nd level function
This elminates res/raise, remove blindness/deafness, regenerate, and only paladins get cure disease.  Paladins are far more cultivated by the nobility and have a more hospitaler feel. Nations with rulers that dislike paladins have to keep them around to try and stop plagues before they happen.  

-Heighten Spell can be used to qualify for PrCs that require the ability to cast spells of 3rd level or higher but does not eliminate the "need 7 divinations" type of requirement.  

-Defensive and stat buff spells abound as do minor divinations.  

-Item creation is surprisingly unaffected.  75-80% of the non-charged items in the DMG are available.  This means I don't have twiddle with the cashflow or eliminate most DR-laden creatures.  It does mean that the elemental subtypes (fire, cold, etc) are a bit tougher because you don't have a caster who can drop 10d6 (doubled to 20d6) of elemental pain on them and are generally CR+1.  

-Supernatural (Su) and Spell-like (Sp) powers still function, giving some creatures a power boost.  I don't use a hard and fast system but it's generally no more than a +1 CR but I haven't had them encounter a Balor or Pitfiend so it could be higher.  

-Healing tends to be slow since high level clerics are limited to 2d8+10 CMW.  

-Relics, left over magic items from the previous times, are increased in cost by ~ x(spell level^2).  So a wand of fireballs costs 9x more than normal.  (This isn't a hard/fast, if a player would never consider paying that much neither would NPCs)

-Dragons have taken over.  Sorry, but they are just too powerful. The sudden loss of GMW let them attack more or less with impunity since they could just hover high above, breathing on entire communities and decimating the armies.  

-Turning undead still works and with the lack of necromantic creation spells, only creatures with Sp have skeletons or zombies.  This means that only the mid- to high-level characters ever see undead.  

So far this has worked for about 3 years.  The players are, of course, discovering the secrets to restore magic to the world (hey, they're heroes, don'cha know) but the setting doesn't seem to wander too far from what you would expect of fantasy.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 6, 2004)

For me, I use D20 Modern. The base (and advanced) classes all have their own useful abilities, including class Defense.

No other crunch is really needed.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 6, 2004)

> I think it's very much the DM's responsibility to establish the availability of magic items, and to communicate this to her players.




Since nothing is mentioned in the 3e DMG about the the way magic items are bought and sold (IIRC...), it is SOLELY the DM's responsibility to establish it for their milieu.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 7, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> D00d, are you playing Dungeons and Dragons, or d20 Shopkeeper: the Haggling?




Strangely enough, that was my WotC setting submission.  I'm still surprised I didn't win over Eberron...


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 7, 2004)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> My theory is that we are no longer 16 years old.



Almost by definition, your theory is wrong for some of us. Depending on how narrowly you define "us", I suppose.


			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> SHOW ME THE LOW-MAGIC!!



I got your low-magic, your crunch, your fluff, your holy crap that's a HUGE freakin' website about a place that doesn't even exist outside of my imagination:

Barsoom, my low-magic/loads-of-fun campaign

I sent the link out to the players when I was first recruiting (the site was significantly smaller then, of course). I guess I've had a lot of time on my hands since then...


----------



## Sir Elton (Aug 7, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I'll also be the first to admit that I've never played in a low-magic campaign "done right" either. I'm not passing judgement on those that run low-magic campaigns, I would just like to know a little about why you decided to go that route and perhaps some details as to how you go went about doing it.



 Prehistoric Campaigns are all about survival and ingenuity in building something, not dependence on an outside energy source.  My partner in business and I are doing a Prehistoric campaign in the grand tradition of Edgar Rice Burroughs and to a lesser extent, Robert E. Howard.

 Low magic for this world is the massive reduction in magic items. By reducing magic items, we can maintain it's interesting flavor.  High Magic (lots of magic items, easy access to high level spells) destroys it's unique flavor in more ways than one.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 7, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> ... I got your low-magic, your crunch, your fluff, your holy crap that's a HUGE freakin' website about a place that doesn't even exist outside of my imagination:
> 
> Barsoom, my low-magic/loads-of-fun campaign
> 
> ...




Very cool site!  Your barsoom looks like a lot of fun (though not really like the original Barsoom, as far as I can tell -- but who cares?).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 7, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I got your low-magic, your crunch, your fluff, your holy crap that's a HUGE freakin' website about a place that doesn't even exist outside of my imagination:
> 
> Barsoom, my low-magic/loads-of-fun campaign




Swashbuckling Cards!     Consider them swiped!  These are absolutely brilliant!

RC


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 7, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> not really like the original Barsoom



Not at all. Except for a pink sky, red dudes, white apes (well, undead vampiric white apes) and a general sense that things aren't quite as... flourishing... as they once was.

And I stole a lot of names. Matai Shang. Tars Tarkas. How can you not? But otherwise there's no connection. ERB's Barsoom is great as is, but insufficiently peopled with dinosaurs, flintlock pistols, dueling Spaniard-types, wild desert nomads, psychotic vampire lesbian goddesses (what place isn't, really?), giant googly Lovecraftian horrors from beyond time, Aztecs riding velociraptors and were-leopards.

I AM a huge fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs in general, and the Barsoom novels in particular -- I just didn't want to run that campaign setting. But I really love that name.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Swashbuckling Cards! Consider them swiped!  These are absolutely brilliant!



Glad you like them. They are an ENWorld project that were developed in a massive thread. I'm happy to be hosting them and please feel free to redistribute them as you see fit. They're free.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 8, 2004)

*Gut Check*

First off, I'm a die-hard "high magic" kinda guy. I'm finding this thread rather interesting, and the recient compaion thread. There are several variations of "low-magic" that I would not care to play in, but that's cool its just not my "cup of tea", as it were.

One thing, though, is I would like your opinions on the following character:

14th level wizard, spell access as per RAW
9 magic items
- Staff, 4-5 functions, strongest power 4th level spell at 12th level effect
- +2 Ring
- Book that absorbs spell scrolls
- 6 ioun stones, 2 dead, others with a variety of powers

The staff and book were made by the character. Ring was found, ioun stones were researched and quested for. The character did have several minor magic items that were consumed in the making of the staff.

I realize that this is sketchy, but were does this character rate in your views of magic? Would it fit in your campaigns? As we have access to the Player's Guide for Barsoomcore's and Joshua Dyal's campaigns I know the answer there, but what about the rest of you? Need more info? I'm trying to get a better feel for definitions.

Baron Opal


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 8, 2004)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> First off, I'm a die-hard "high magic" kinda guy. <snip>  One thing, though, is I would like your opinions on the following character: <snip> I realize that this is sketchy, but were does this character rate in your views of magic? Would it fit in your campaigns? As we have access to the Player's Guide for Barsoomcore's and Joshua Dyal's campaigns I know the answer there, but what about the rest of you? Need more info? I'm trying to get a better feel for definitions.




Sorry to disappoint, but this would fall well within the "mid-magic" feel I try for, as described.  Some spell selection might alter that...ie, if the character's spells are all "flash" and no "subtle".  

RC


----------



## JDowling (Aug 8, 2004)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> ... Would it fit in your campaigns? ...




it's more gizmos than I'd really want in my campaign.  However, I'm just setting the stage and as I mentioned in the other thread mine isn't "low magic" so much as "new magic".

That said (that I'm really just setting the stage) if a PC wants to be an artificer in my campaign, I'll probably allow it and see what consequences it brings to the world.  The whole backstory is that "life is hell" for humans because of their past abuses of power, they were exiled to a magicless world, but "the veil has lifted" et cetera.

If the players want to turn my world into "magic as technology taken all the way" they can do so, but I'd rather they didn't .


----------



## shadow (Aug 8, 2004)

I prefer low magic because it gives the campaign a sense of mystery, and emulates the myths and stories that I grew up with.  When magic becomes too common, it becomes simply another technology.  I've seen campaigns where the prevalence of magic got to the point of being silly.  Not that such campaigns can't be fun, but in the long run they lack consistancy and "believability".  I prefer campaigns where magic is rare, but powerful.  In my campaign worlds mages aren't penalized, but they aren't a dime a dozen like in so many other worlds.  They are likely to be mysterious figures that are both reveared and feared by the people (don't meddle in the affairs of wizards...).  This style of campaign emulates many of the fantasy stories and myths that I grew up with better than the "magic as technology" paradigm found in many D&D campaigns.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 8, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> > It's not D&D's fault that your players are stubborn.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem. :\



Well, it isn't.

I mean, I assume that your players who kick and scream when they can't just tell you what they want and deduct the cost from their treasure are stubbornly insisting on this despite your having repeatedly told them you don't want to run it that way.

In other words, if they whine, it's either your fault for not communicating it effectively or it's their fault for being jerks.

It's got nothing to do with the magic level assumed by D&D.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 8, 2004)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> 14th level wizard, spell access as per RAW
> 9 magic items
> - Staff, 4-5 functions, strongest power 4th level spell at 12th level effect
> - +2 Ring
> ...




I think thats about right for that character and level. I would be happy with that in a low-mid average game. But it would also depend on what everyone else in the party had.

Low-magic isn't just about items, its about how magic is seen and used in the game society. I dislike the idea of the teleport circles between cities, anti-scry spells in the king's chambers...etc. That sort of thing destroys the suspension of disbelief and is far too high-fantasy for my tastes.


----------



## JDowling (Aug 8, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> ...I dislike the idea of the teleport circles between cities, anti-scry spells in the king's chambers...etc. That sort of thing destroys the suspension of disbelief and is far too high-fantasy for my tastes.




I agree with you that it's not the flavor I prefer, but it just begs for someone to say something along the lines of: "If there aren't anti-scry spells in place, or anti-magic spells in place, couldn't a powerful wizard just scry-buff-port assassinate anyone they wanted?  wouldn't there be no military secret plans as soon as an enemy wizard scryed?  If you say they don't scry, why not?  are they dumb?" et cetera.

I think in a way lacking those protections (while having the same magic) destroys the suspension of disbelief as much as having them ruins the "feel" that you may prefer for magic.

That's the crux of the issues with magic that I don't like... sort of a "rock and a hard place" the way the magic is in game.  Taken with: "if you can do it, someone will" so it's hard to imagine that no one thought to scry into the king's chambers.

If I were a king - I'd have my court mage setting all the magical protections and traps i could.


----------



## Chimera (Aug 8, 2004)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> In other words, if they whine, it's either your fault for not communicating it effectively or it's their fault for being jerks.




Given that I quit running that game cold turkey and no longer speak to those people, I'll go with the second one.  

But seriously, it's an attitude I've seen often enough.  Players whining to the GM that "You gave us this item, why won't you let us sell it?"


Getting back to the Arms Bazaar issue that others have mentioned...

In these foreign open markets, you're talking about an RPG for $25 or an AK-47 for $150 and stuff like that.  Well, at $50 per GP (I use $200 IMC, with different economics), that's 5sp for the RPG and 3gp for the AK-47.  In other words, these are equivalent to common weapons you find at any arms market or blacksmith's shop in Faerun, Greyhawk, etc.  Come back and talk to me when you see $100,000 (2,000gp) missiles and $1.8 million (36,000gp) tanks and aircraft lying around in these open markets.

Think about that conversion for a minute.  Would you pay $37,500 for a Potion of Rage?  How hard would you think about it before using it?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 8, 2004)

The idea I'm going with at the moment for the DnD world I'm working on is that the world is in a sense high magic. There's tons of weird monsters out there for the PCs to fight, lots of dungeons with magic items. However human society doesn't currently have access to it because almost all the magic is locked up in the tombs and lairs. I see there as being very few high level NPCs out there, maybe none at all.

So in a way the world will progress as the PCs do. They start at 1st level and the society around them will be quite low power/low magic. The world itself will contain many bizarre wonders though - living mountains, cloud castles, glass fortresses, stone forests, etc - but they're not particular useful like teleport circles. Most are likely to be somewhat distant from the human lands also.

As the PCs go up levels and delve in dungeons they will be unlocking the secrets of earlier, more advanced times and will be personally moving from low to high magic. If they choose to use the secrets they've uncovered to benefit society then that's fine, the world around them will change. If they don't, it won't.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 8, 2004)

JDowling said:
			
		

> I agree with you that it's not the flavor I prefer, but it just begs for someone to say something along the lines of: "If there aren't anti-scry spells in place, or anti-magic spells in place, couldn't a powerful wizard just scry-buff-port assassinate anyone they wanted?  wouldn't there be no military secret plans as soon as an enemy wizard scryed?  If you say they don't scry, why not?  are they dumb?" et cetera.
> 
> I think in a way lacking those protections (while having the same magic) destroys the suspension of disbelief as much as having them ruins the "feel" that you may prefer for magic.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, not every villain likes having his mobility restricted like that - and eventually, it just becomes a hidden nerf.

"Sorry player sorcerer, you can't scry on him. I decided to give everyone you wanted to scry on an item that negates your scrying."


----------



## Taneel BrightBlade (Aug 8, 2004)

low magic soulds fun I want to play a low magic game


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 8, 2004)

Largely using mythological heroes as your basis for a 'mythic' flavor you want to emulate specifically is deeply flawed.

The reason Odysseus survived his epic quest? DM fiat. Same reason he went on it.

The reason Achilles stayed in Troy? DM fiat. Same reason he went there in the first place. 

The reason Frodo could chuck the ring into Mount Doom without getting spotted? DM fiat.

Can you capture the *feel* of Odysseus in D&D's RAW? Absolutely. Your items are bronze. The adventures you went on helped you uncover the items you need because of the Gods' intervention. You are heroic in statistics, in level, and in power. True, it depends upon your items, but so what? If you never take off your +2 codpiece, then no one needs to know that's what's giving you +2 to your saving throws vs. 'shots to teh junk.' Introduce sailing adventuers, and a bunch of 1st level mooks to compare yourself with, and perhaps a vengeful deity, and you're golden.

Can you capture Odysseus himself? Pheh. This is a game, not poetry, I don't want my character's life to hinge on weather the DM decides arbitrarily that Possiedon is having a bad day or not. It might make for an interesting epic poem, but it is crap for a D&D game.

I think my own house rules that keep the high-magic feel, but add low-loot to the pile work especially well for mythological-style battles, because even those who weren't the spawn of gods were their favored. Gilgamesh had Inana, Odysseus had Athena, Achilles had Thetis and Zeus, Heracles had Zeus, Paris had Aphrodite....my rules allow them to gain a bit of loot, and still have powers that depend on the gods that take an interest in them...Gilgamesh would've had the powers of a Belt of Giant Strength even if he didn't wear the belt. 

In addition, I think those who see magic as horribly logic-destroying in D&D have either had crappy DM's, or have had a nigh-impossible level of metropolises in their campaign. Heck, even then, the maximum GP you can buy in magic shops is 3,000. You can keep the DMG-recommended level of magic, but make it more useful...look at Eberron: the low-level magic in this campaign is readily available, but that doesn't ruin the scary and intimidating feel of high-level magic at all. The reason is because most people are NPC classes, most people are low level, and only a select few (the PC's, and a few powerful NPC's) have class levels above 10 at all. And Eberron in no way limits the power of magic in it's setting...it just uses the setting to keep everyday magic common, but weak. Read the rules, see how others are doing it, and then maybe your complaints about too much magic will at least be informed with what is actually suggested, rather than the inflated boogeyman of everyone getting cheap +5 swords.


----------



## JDowling (Aug 8, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, not every villain likes having his mobility restricted like that - and eventually, it just becomes a hidden nerf.
> 
> "Sorry player sorcerer, you can't scry on him. I decided to give everyone you wanted to scry on an item that negates your scrying."




I agree.

I was just saying: "If you are powerful and have something a wizard would want, why wouldn't you have anti-scrying devices and anti-teleport devices set up around you?"

-I can't think of a reason that someone would purposefully leave such a wide avenue of danger open if they could close it.
-I don't like the effects that has on the game.
-I don't want to just "DM Fiat" it away b/c i want to have a reasonable world.
-Therefore - I either need to change the setting from the standard, or change the magic.

Basically i was just explaining why i like low / rare / new magic setting ideas, that's all


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 8, 2004)

JDowling said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> I was just saying: "If you are powerful and have something a wizard would want, why wouldn't you have anti-scrying devices and anti-teleport devices set up around you?"
> 
> ...




Sorry 'bout that.



			
				Baron Opal said:
			
		

> 14th level wizard, spell access as per RAW
> 9 magic items
> - Staff, 4-5 functions, strongest power 4th level spell at 12th level effect
> - +2 Ring
> ...




I'm not about to do the math; probably accurate in terms of gp value but amazingly underpowered, IMO.

Why do you have a +2 ring? You should have gotten a +1 ring, +1 amulet of natural armor and you'd still have some cash left over.

Or get a weaker staff and an Amulet of Con. Why didn't you get a _scarab of protection_ instead? Trade the ring and amulet for _bracers of armor_ (or better yet, if your DM let's you use a non-core spell that's better than _mage armor_...)

Your character looks more fun than most 14th-level laundry-list characters that I've seen, but you'd get stomped more easily than a more min-maxed wizard.

It's easier for your wizard, though, since, unlike a fighter, he's not _dependent_ on his magical equivalent.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 9, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Why do you have a +2 ring? You should have gotten a +1 ring, +1 amulet of natural armor and you'd still have some cash left over.
> 
> Or get a weaker staff and an Amulet of Con. Why didn't you get a _scarab of protection_ instead? Trade the ring and amulet for _bracers of armor_ (or better yet, if your DM let's you use a non-core spell that's better than _mage armor_...)




The character found the ring. Most of the items in this campaign were either found or made. Items that are bought are usually limited to one-use or charged. Theoretically, any item was available if they could find a wizard to make it for them. At this point in the campaign, my character was one of the movers and shakers in the magical arena. Most of the middling items were either made by me or found.

As far as loot and such, our adventures consisted of goal-oriented missions or archeological digs. If there was a particular item that we were interested in that couldn't be made by the local wizard (me), we could research legends about said item. I found a record of a fallen star for my ioun stones, an ancient menhir grove for the druid, Tales of a general weilding a lightning brand, etc.

Although, one assumption that our DM carried over from RL is that at the higher levels of wealth there is a seperate luxury economy. There are a few jewelry stores in NYC where you can drop $1.2 million on a nice necklace and earring set "off the rack". If you want something specific, it can be ordered, you pay half up front, and you wait until the designer / jeweler can make it for you. These stores don't advertise and are often second floor converted apartments with plain doors. If you can afford it, you can find it. In game, these shops had select items from other royals, high clergy, and advanced adventurers. It was a small, select and expensive list. Unfortunatly, these dealers rarely had what we needed.

I think the key to the campaign, why it was so memorable and enjoyable, was that we had distinctive characters in memorable events. One of the main problems with 1e D&D (sorry, Dialgo) is that each member of a given class was the same. What made you distinctive was the items and quirks that you picked up during play. As games progressed more options became available. Now, with 3e, it is very easy to have a unique 1st level character from a mechanical standpoint. At 2nd level, even more so. Now, items no longer necesarily define the character they enhance their capabilities. However, items can and do add to the distinctiveness of a character. It's cool to have the blade Stormwatch, last wielded by General Fofannen in the Great Troll War. It's also cool to have the Staff of Tower Mist that you made yourself.

I guess where my ramblings take me is thus: with the game as it stands, I can make my character individual enough that I don't need items to define it. And, I get enough choices with advanced level that I don't need the items either. Items become sought after for their flair or prestige rather than for a needed ability boost.

Baron Opal


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2004)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I guess where my ramblings take me is thus: with the game as it stands, I can make my character individual enough that I don't need items to define it. And, I get enough choices with advanced level that I don't need the items either. Items become sought after for their flair or prestige rather than for a needed ability boost.




But can you do this with a fighter? Because I think you would have a much harder time doing this for a fighter than for a mage, and still having a character who can survive.

On the issue of items that grow with you, I assume other characters can't use them? Good. This means an NPC can have the same amount of power, without worries of boosting treasure way too much.


----------



## Ogre Mage (Aug 9, 2004)

Mechanically, I think one of the attractions of a low magic world is that it makes high level play easier to manage for the DM.  In typical D&D, 12th+ level characters are running around with extremely powerful items and class/PrC abilities.  This makes it very difficult for many DMs to maintain balance and plan adventures because PC abilities may shoot the plot right out the water.  Balancing encounters becomes very challenging and if the DM errs in assessing their abilities, a total cakewalk or horrible slaughter of the PCs may be the result.  In a low-magic campaign, high level characters are much more manageable.  IMO, this makes low magic an attractive choice for a long term campaign or a high-level game.

I think the reason low magic has a bad name in some circles is for two reasons.  One is that some players don't like restrictions which limit choices, esp. if it infringes upon the core rules.  Second, some DMs run a world where it is low magic for the PCs, but high magic for NPCs and monsters.  When beholders are floating around your low-magic world, something strange is going on.


----------



## shilsen (Aug 9, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Largely using mythological heroes as your basis for a 'mythic' flavor you want to emulate specifically is deeply flawed.
> 
> The reason Odysseus survived his epic quest? DM fiat. Same reason he went on it.
> 
> ...



 What he said.


----------



## nopantsyet (Aug 9, 2004)

_De gustibus non disputandum est._
_Variety is the spice of life._

Need I spout of any more inane cliches?

How about this one, _You say tomato, I say tomato; you say potato, I say potato._

No matter how you combine the different elements, it's still a game. And low magic D&D resembles high magic D&D far more than it resembles, say--golf. I like D&D. I like high magic. I like low magic. I like no magic. I like alternate magic systems. I don't like everything that's D&D or compatible with D&D, but I try to run an interesting game whatever it may be. I have run high magic; I have run low magic. My current campaign has both, if you can get your mind around that! ;-)  Why? Because it's interesting, it's fun, it adds variety. There is certainly plenty of basis for low-magic in fantasy literature. Granted, that is not the same milieu as OD&D, but D&D has evolved for the very reason that people like variety, people like new challenges. And last but not least, *Rule Zero* says I can play low magic, high magic, or naked rollerblading whisky magic and it's still D&D and it's still correct.

Point is, when it comes down to quibbling about _how_ people play D&D, the argument has gone way too far. If the community has reached a point where we can't understand why people would play a game any differently than it's been written *this time around,* we've lost sight of what it's all about.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2004)

Keep in mind that I don't mind low magic....it's just that in my mind, there are good, valid reasons for choosing a low-magic campaign, and then there are reasons of spite and misconceptions.

Good reasons: you want a gritty style, you want a 'low fantasy' setting (where every goblin is truly a monster out of nightmares), you want a world where magic operates on rules that destroy most things of magic, etc, etc, ad infinum.

Bad reasons: PC's don't have to think in high magic campaigns!!!, I don't want +5 swords to be valueless!!!!, Plane shift is overpowered!!!, I can't think of how to challenge a party with Teleport!!!, I want epic quests/mysteries/dangerous journeys and there are no epic quests/mysteries/dangerous journeys with high magic!!!

They're still reasons, and if they work for you, fine, have fun. But I believe if they're your main reasons, you're riding the tide of bad DM's/severe misconceptions about the rules. High magic is not a campaign-obliterating bogeyman that only exists because people don't put enough thought into their games. It's a valid, strong campaign style choice. Just like low magic can be. But I guess just as low magic has it's share of "WTF, Fireball is waaay too powerful!", high magic has it's share of "Okay, you've killed God, what do you want to kill next?"


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 9, 2004)

Good post, Kamikaze Midget.  I, myself, don't care much for "low magic, grim & gritty" because every time I've sampled that play style it just plain wasn't fun for me, not to mention that many LMGG fanboys can be downright elitist in their attitudes; believing that they are somehow more mature and enlightened than people who play regular or high magic games.  I've also never understood the mindset "If I limit spells and the availability of magic items, it will instantly make my group more interested in roleplaying rather than rollplaying.  Damn, I'm smart!"

I don't have anything against people who enjoy low magic games, I'm just not very enthusiastic about that type of play myself (although I might make an exception for the Conan D20 RPG, but that's a D20 System RPG rather than Dungeons & Dragons).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2004)

The most low magic I've done is "Okay, you know the magewright? You know the adept? Those are your spellcasters. Enjoy." 

Since that's lasted basically two weeks, it was fun, but I'm actively going for a different feel, where goblins really are monsters from nightmares and not just short fuzzy guys who like wolves.


----------



## Sado (Aug 9, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "Okay, you know the magewright?




What's that from?


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 9, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> ... I've also never understood the mindset "If I limit spells and the availability of magic items, it will instantly make my group more interested in roleplaying rather than rollplaying. ...




Well, it is not so much that a low magic setting will CAUSE a group of players to be better role-players.  If a group of players only want to engage in hack'n'slash activities, no amount of rules-tweaking is going to get them to enjoy an immersive, plot-focused style of play.  Rather, the appeal of low magic for some is that the kinds of plots and stories that engage people who like to focus on role-playing -- especially if their inspiration for playing fantasy RPGs, to some extent, comes from fantasy literature -- can often be realized better in a low magic setting.  (This is not to say that there aren't high magic settings that are role-playing focused, or that low magic settings cannot be mindless hack'n'slash.  My point is only that this is one reason why some people are attracted to low magic settings.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2004)

The Magewright is an NPC class from Eberron, which is part of the reason it's been so short.  They're basically arcane casters, max spell level 5, focus on 'utility' type spells that they'd like to make into minor magical items.

IMXP, there is no setting that encourages roleplaying, only a setting that encourages a particular *type* of roleplaying. It's not that low magic encourages roleplaying in general, it may be, though, that if your character is based more off of Frodo that it's not exactly *encouraged* in regular, high-magic D&D (due to there being no real great pathos to lugging around an intelligent ring of invisibility ).

But IMHO, someone who is good at roleplaying will do it regardless of setting or even genre of game. If it doesn't encourage Frodo, they'll be Kenshin Himura or Achilles or Batman or whatever. Or, they'll find a way that Frodo does work (lugging around an artifact-level sword imbued with the corrupted soul of your ancestors that re-animates everything it kills as undead has plenty of pathos....), and do that.

Low magic encourages certain types of characters that high magic doesn't, true. But I'd say someone who CAN'T role-play a different type probably isn't that great of a role-player to begin with. But I speak as an actor, so perhaps switching roles is easy for me and those I game with.


----------



## Sado (Aug 9, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The Magewright is an NPC class from Eberron, which is part of the reason it's been so short.  They're basically arcane casters, max spell level 5, focus on 'utility' type spells that they'd like to make into minor magical items.




Got it. Like an adept but with arcane spells.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 9, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> Rather, the appeal of low magic for some is that the kinds of plots and stories that engage people who like to focus on role-playing -- especially if their inspiration for playing fantasy RPGs, to some extent, comes from fantasy literature -- can often be realized better in a low magic setting.



Explain to me how you _can't_ do this with a high magic type game? Because I can tell you that my games are mid-high(mostly high) magic type games and I just don't have this issue with roll v. role play. I think this is Dark J's problem as well although I'm hazarding a guess here.


----------



## Belegbeth (Aug 9, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Explain to me how you _can't_ do this with a high magic type game? Because I can tell you that my games are mid-high(mostly high) magic type games and I just don't have this issue with roll v. role play. I think this is Dark J's problem as well although I'm hazarding a guess here.




Why you can't simulate the kinds of adventures and plots found in classic fantasy literature in a high magic DnD setting is pretty obvious.  

But if you had actually read my entire message, you would have realized that I was not suggesting that you cannot have role-playing focused games in a high magic world.  Again:
"This is not to say that there aren't high magic settings that are role-playing focused, or that low magic settings cannot be mindless hack'n'slash..."

Such games can have interesting plots, compelling characters, etc.  I am sure that many are great fun!  They just will not resemble anything in Tolkien, Vance, Leiber, Howard, etc.  (Instead, my impression is that they are closer to "science fiction" games, but where magic simply replaces technology.)


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 9, 2004)

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> Why you can't simulate the kinds of adventures and plots found in classic fantasy literature in a high magic DnD setting is pretty obvious.
> 
> But if you had actually read my entire message, you would have realized that I was not suggesting that you cannot have role-playing focused games in a high magic world. Again:
> "This is not to say that there aren't high magic settings that are role-playing focused, or that low magic settings cannot be mindless hack'n'slash..."
> ...



Yeah I know I read the sentence. I was responding to the one after it, which is why I quoted it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Bad reasons: PC's don't have to think in high magic campaigns!!!, I don't want +5 swords to be valueless!!!!, Plane shift is overpowered!!!, I can't think of how to challenge a party with Teleport!!!, I want epic quests/mysteries/dangerous journeys and there are no epic quests/mysteries/dangerous journeys with high magic!!!



Just because you put lots of exclamation points after each of those to make it look silly doesn't mean those are all bad reasons to prefer low magic.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 9, 2004)

> Because I can tell you that my games are mid-high(mostly high) magic type games and I just don't have this issue with roll v. role play




Yes but I think it becomes more difficult in a high-magic game.  The items, spells, etc become a "distraction".  It's just inherently built-in to the default level of magic in the system.

I'm starting to see it in one of the campaigns I'm currently playing in.  We are all 15-16th level and the magic level is pretty high.  We are allowed to buy magic items at times in some of the cities.  Combat becomes a bear.  Everyone is sifting through pages of character sheets and rulebooks to read about their spells and item abilities.  It doesn't matter what level of roll vs role-playing you have in your campaign.  When you that much _stuff_ , things slow down and become more about accounting than story.

Last night we were fighting a dragon in his underwater lair.  We were buffed to high heaven.  Was it fun?  Absolutely.  Could I see myself getting tired of this type of game though?  Most definitely.  And it's probably starting to happen.  When your whole session is basically a couple of battles and not much role-playing or story progression or puzzle/problem-solving, it starts to wear on you.

I'm honestly not really sure if you can stave off this type of scenario in a high-magic game, no matter how good of a DM you are.



> I, myself, don't care much for "low magic, grim & gritty" because every time I've sampled that play style it just plain wasn't fun for me, not to mention that many LMGG fanboys can be downright elitist in their attitudes; believing that they are somehow more mature and enlightened than people who play regular or high magic games. I've also never understood the mindset "If I limit spells and the availability of magic items, it will instantly make my group more interested in roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Damn, I'm smart!"




Thanks for trying to explain my situation for me, and much clearer at that Jezter.  I think this is why I developed such a negative view of low-magic.  My first introduction to low-magic was such a campaign.  I had more of a problem with how the campaign was presented than the campaign itself.  I was to feel that every character idea I had was because I was a min/maxer or powergamer.  It wasn't a positive experience.

I've come to realize that high-magic vs low-magic has nothing to do with the quality or maturity of the players involved.  Knuckleheads play low and high-magic campaigns.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 9, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> This thread has surpassed even my wildest dreams!     Thanks to all so far.  I definitely have a new understanding (and a lot of cool ideas!) about different campaign styles.
> 
> I know more than a few people here run low-magic (or whatever you want to call it) campaigns.  What I'd like to see is what you actually _give _ to the players when you are starting the campaign.  I'm talking about low-magic campaign CRUNCH here.




Higher stats, for one. Since I presume that there will be far fewer items that will grant a +2 or +4 to the attribute of your choice (and in some cases, spells like fox's cunning and owl's wisdom didn't appear in the game), I grant players better stats at 1st level — if we're doing point-buy, this usually means being much higher than the recommended levels in the DMG. I've found, so far, that this means that right around the "sweet spot" of 5th-10th level the characters have stats that are roughly where they would be if they started with average stats and just added magical items. At lower levels, they have a definite edge over their foes, but that's good — it gently assuages the problem of survivability at low-level. 

Most everything else is not rule-based: it's judgment calls for how to enforce the idea that the player characters are special, and that they feel good about who they are and what they can do. A greatly lowered spellcaster density means that yes, there are fewer clerics to run to for healing and much fewer wizards to approach — but it also means that a PC cleric who can cast spells is, even at 1st level, really remarkable. Careful selection of opponents is also necessary, not just to make sure that you don't hurt the party overmuch by using monsters that presume the default level of magic, but also to showcase the PCs' abilities that they get from their class and race. If a fighter just picked up Great Cleave, it's time to hit him with a swarm of relatively low-HP monsters so that he can feel like a stud. (Actually, I'm prone to letting the PCs run into encounters that they can easily handle now and again simply so that they can really feel how they've improved over the years; sometimes you just wanna plow through some mooks.)



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I've come to realize that high-magic vs low-magic has nothing to do with the quality or maturity of the players involved.




This is exactly true. The quality and maturity of the players involved is usually better reflected in how well they agree on what sort of game they'd like to play, how respectful they are of each other's tastes, and how much fun they have around the table.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ogre Mage said:
			
		

> When beholders are floating around your low-magic world, something strange is going on.




Magical monsters aren't the issue, IMO. You can have magical creatures in your low-magic game. With low-magic, items should be rare and not easily purchasable, and some of the higher level spells that affect the game (teleport. teleport circle, ressurection, wish ...etc) are not all that prevalent. 

So long as the game being run, is not over-balanced in favour of the NPC's and monsters, magic-wise then the nature of the monster is irrelevant.

That make any sense?


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 9, 2004)

Ogre Mage said:
			
		

> Mechanically, I think one of the attractions of a low magic world is that it makes high level play easier to manage for the DM.
> ....Balancing encounters becomes very challenging and if the DM errs in assessing their abilities, a total cakewalk or horrible slaughter of the PCs may be the result.  In a low-magic campaign, high level characters are much more manageable.  IMO, this makes low magic an attractive choice for a long term campaign or a high-level game.




Very true.  I started a "low magic" campaignshortly after 3.0 came out simply because it meant I could introduce more advanced magics gently, without rocking the setting from an unused and (at the time) untested system.  I had a good instinct for balancing encounters in 1e and 2e but I didn't trust the CR system yet.  good in theory but the implementation could easily be "teh sux."  

My initial goal was to have zero impact on a campaign that lasted to 5th-7th level.  After that was up to the players since I dropped hints that higher magics were out the but only to secretive organizations.  



> I think the reason low magic has a bad name in some circles is for two reasons.  One is that some players don't like restrictions which limit choices, esp. if it infringes upon the core rules.  Second, some DMs run a world where it is low magic for the PCs, but high magic for NPCs and monsters.  When beholders are floating around your low-magic world, something strange is going on.




I'll agree with this too.  I was low-magic before any of the splat books so I had no idea what impact my changes would have on the PrCs.  I got lucky and guessed the right breakpoint so it really only affected a small list of PrCs that weren't compatible with my gaming group.  

I've also been in games where every third monster had DR or regen and nine times out of ten we ended up beating things to death using torches because nobody had a magic weapon yet.  

I will say my low magic game has beholders floating about because they don't have feet and would look rather being pulled about in a little red wagon.  Though there is only one beholder they are aware of (but have never seen) despite being 16th level.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Aug 9, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I suspect some of it is an over-reaction to campaigns and settings wherein magic is an all too convenient answer to evey problem, and the presence of easily available magic can often interfere with the creation of interesting scenarios by making them devolve into magical arms races and start contemplation about why with X magic, people don't do Y, etc.



 /raises hand

That's a big part of it for me.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 9, 2004)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> -Only spells of 0-2nd level function
> This elminates res/raise, remove blindness/deafness, regenerate, and only paladins get cure disease.  Paladins are far more cultivated by the nobility and have a more hospitaler feel. Nations with rulers that dislike paladins have to keep them around to try and stop plagues before they happen.





So, I'm curious.  What happens to a 5th level wizard?  Does his 0-2nd level spells only increase, and he gains nothing above 3rd?  Or does he gain 3rd level and above spells, but they have a chance for failure, or what?


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 9, 2004)

I think one of the reasons why I'd like to see low-magic is for a better economic system.  I'd like to see players actually raise funds for masterwork weapons.  I'd like to see the fighter beg, borrow, steal money for a set of mundane full plate armor.  I'd like to see the characters scrimp their money together to see if they can afford a room at the inn.

The closest I ever got was an Al-Qadim campaign where an NPC that was with the party had to bail them out from a restaurant because they quite literally didn't have any money with which to pay the tab.


I think all of this talk about low-magic encouraging more role-playing is true to a limited degree.  I don't think it necessarily promotes more role-playing, but I do believe that it encourages more outside-the-box thinking.  It encourages MacGyver-ism.  I mean, if the party faces a powerful foe, and they are 2nd level with only mundane equipment, they'll find a use for that grappling hook and a rope that might not have even been considered if they all have magic weapons and wondrous items.  The end result is that a better story is told.  IMHO, of course.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2004)

*U*



> If a fighter just picked up Great Cleave, it's time to hit him with a swarm of relatively low-HP monsters so that he can feel like a stud.



That's true regardless of the magic level, though. 



> Just because you put lots of exclamation points after each of those to make it look silly doesn't mean those are all bad reasons to prefer low magic.



IMHO, they are. They're misconceptions or misinterpretations of the rules as they're written. They're not accurate. If those are the main reasons, I'd argue you need a better DM before you need low-magic D&D. 

Don't let my opinion stop anyone from having fun, but to me, yeah, those are bad reasons, because they don't accurately reflect the true nature of default-magic D&D at all, and/or they are misconceptions of the nature of character power. If someone said "my campaign is low magic because in normal D&D you can't have an epic journey quest," I'd say that's a fallacy, the DM doesn't understand normal magic D&D, and I wouldn't trust them to DM a variant which, by it's very nature, is something that requires a caution and understanding of an almost collossal nature.


----------



## Ogre Mage (Aug 10, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Magical monsters aren't the issue, IMO. You can have magical creatures in your low-magic game. With low-magic, items should be rare and not easily purchasable, and some of the higher level spells that affect the game (teleport. teleport circle, ressurection, wish ...etc) are not all that prevalent.
> 
> So long as the game being run, is not over-balanced in favour of the NPC's and monsters, magic-wise then the nature of the monster is irrelevant.
> 
> That make any sense?



I could buy the idea of beholders or dragons in a low magic world if they were VERY unique entities, as in singular or very few exist.  They are creatures of legend.  If they are common as they are in, say, FR, that doesn't work.  That is an extreme violation of versimilitude.  If the world is low magic, how could an abundance of highly magical creatures exist?

As you alluded to, creatures with DR, regeneration, etc. are much more deadly in a low magic world where needed items are hard to get.  Remember that the Monster Manual assumes a certain level of magic and equipment.  Low magic alters CRs significantly in many cases.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 10, 2004)

In a low-magic setting, monsters even magical ones, would still exist. Perhaps not in the same numbers as most worlds, but would still exist. The idea of a low-magic world is one where magical treasures are not weilded by every farmer and warrior, where cities are not linked by teleport circles, and castles are not protected from magics. Its reducing the magical level from contemporary technology to regular pseudo-medieval.

Of course, different campaigns, different low-magic feel.


----------



## Chimera (Aug 10, 2004)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> If a fighter just picked up Great Cleave, it's time to hit him with a swarm of relatively low-HP monsters so that he can feel like a stud. (Actually, I'm prone to letting the PCs run into encounters that they can easily handle now and again simply so that they can really feel how they've improved over the years; sometimes you just wanna plow through some mooks.)




I agree.  Can be quite fun and satisfying.  But then again, with leveled monsters, having a 10th level party run into 30 normal Kobolds can be a lot of fun for a GM as the players shake in fear at the thought of Kobold Fighters and Sorcerers, not believing you'd simply let them mop up _30 regulation Kobolds_.


----------



## Chimera (Aug 10, 2004)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I've also been in games where every third monster had DR or regen and nine times out of ten we ended up beating things to death using torches because nobody had a magic weapon yet.




Ah yes.  One of the reasons I quit one of my game groups was because the GM wanted a "grim n' gritty" low-magic campaign that ended up being him killing us all off with monsters with DR when we had only one magic weapon in our group.  We reached a point where _every freaking monster we ran into_ (3.0) had damage reduction and it was simply no fun watching our characters die left and right while his favorite walked through them with his +2 holy hammer.

Stupid GM Trick.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Ah yes.  One of the reasons I quit one of my game groups was because the GM wanted a "grim n' gritty" low-magic campaign that ended up being him killing us all off with monsters with DR when we had only one magic weapon in our group.  We reached a point where _every freaking monster we ran into_ (3.0) had damage reduction and it was simply no fun watching our characters die left and right while his favorite walked through them with his +2 holy hammer.
> 
> Stupid GM Trick.




That's not grim-n-gritty, that's "slaughter the players" or munchkinism from behind the DM screen, and it gives grim-n-gritty a bad name.

Not that low-magic is always grim-n-gritty, those two adjectives just get tied at the hip.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 10, 2004)

I don't play low-magic settings because of any of the reasons you have presented.  I play them because I think they present a better story (which of course is subjective).  I like the feeling of epic struggle in my games, and to accomplish this, making the setting low-magic can be an important tool.  Spells like Find the Path, Commune, Locate Creature, Locate Object, Teleport, True Resurrection, Wish, etc. can really take away from the everyday struggle of heroism.

Most of these spells can be countered (or are only available to high level characters).  But that's like playing a cold war style arms race between the players and the NPCs.  I don't want to have the villains forced to think everyday about what divination spells are going to irrevocably bring down their plots.  Nor do I want the players to have to do the same everytime they run away from a fight that's too powerful, in fear of revenge.  I recently played a campaign where almost a third of the time was spent worrying about stopping divinations from "seeing" the party.  I did not play long.

Also, I like to be able to challenge the PCs with intelligent villains.  Kobolds are still appropriate for high level adventures if done right.  But not so with loads of magic, since the PCs can do things that make them invulnerable to lower levels encounters.

Basically, low magic settings makes the game more fun and tell a better story.

I have a counter-question.  Why do you prefer high-magic?


----------



## Xaov (Aug 10, 2004)

I agree with what is being said, altough I have hardly ever DMed I know the guy I play under gives us a lot of magic items but these items are in the form of potions and such, we sometimes get magic weaps and armor.  I think this adds a good amount of realism to the character.

Now for my two cents.  While Magic is always present something that has seem to really grow recently, in my experience are the Psionics.  While they have to cope with power points some of the abilities they have are a little bit over powered in my opinion.  In the group I play under we have a psion, now most spell casters sorcerers, wizards, clerics, druids, etc.  don't have very powerful spells until mid to high level.  This Psion however is only level 4 and has a power that is called Energy Missle, it attacks up to 5 separate targets and deals I think 3D6 to each.  Now that is crazy.  He can wipe out 5 targets within one round! Sometimes the game feels like it is strictly magic/power based and the others are just there for the ride.  I have yet to play a low-magic/power campaign but it might be a nice change.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 10, 2004)

> I have a counter-question. Why do you prefer high-magic?




I'm not sure I do anymore after this thread....  

Originally, the main reason was options.  I really liked the idea (and still do) of being able to play a wide range of characters.  I also liked being able to gain power within the campaign which allows the group to battle more powerful and interesting creatures.  Fighting beholders, dragons, mind flayers, etc IS fun.  Of course to do that, you need to be able to handle yourself.

This thread has really opened my eyes though.  I start playing 3ed since it came out (and 1ed/2ed back in the day) but never really had the opportunity to play in an immersive, well-run low-magic campaign.  Now that I'm older (and wiser?) and have much more gaming experience, the high-magic style is getting tired for me.  

I don't think it's a lesser style of play, I just want to try something new.  And that seems to be a common theme in many of these posts.  Character sheets that becoming magic item catalogues and spell lists longer than my arm start to wear you down.  Actual game-time becomes so heavily invested in combat that it's almost not has fun anymore.  To tell you the truth, saying that scares me because I know some of the other players in the group still enjoy it (this campaign has been going on for 2+ years) but I'm getting to the point where I need something else.

One guy in the group had a really cool idea for his homebrew where most of the existing magic items were made by elves and dwarves long ago.  There was a major war (with the elves being held largely responsible) and during which, many of the magic items, as well as the means to create them, were either destroyed or died with the participants.  Magic is still the same as it was but there are very powerful magic "schools" run by wizards who keep tabs on those that practice magic.  It's also unknown if the secrets to creating magic items has been rediscovered or perhaps these wizards know but aren't telling anyone else.  Needless to say, these wizards hold much power in the political structure.

Anyway, with just a paragraph description, I was hooked!  His idea had a logical campaign background that explained the lack of magic but it also allowed for a lot of discovery and role-playing with the structure. 

I might be rambling but I think my point is that both low-magic and high-magic have negative steroetypes associated with them.  Low-magic can be thought of as elitist or restrictive and high-magic is for munchkins and powergamers.  Fortunately, neither is the case if you have a good DM and good players.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 10, 2004)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Spells like Find the Path, Commune, Locate Creature, Locate Object, Teleport, True Resurrection, Wish, etc. can really take away from the everyday struggle of heroism.
> 
> Most of these spells can be countered (or are only available to high level characters).  But that's like playing a cold war style arms race between the players and the NPCs.  I don't want to have the villains forced to think everyday about what divination spells are going to irrevocably bring down their plots.  Nor do I want the players to have to do the same everytime they run away from a fight that's too powerful, in fear of revenge.




Absolutely. That’s another good reason why I prefer games to be more low-powered. Especially where you mention the arms race between the players and the DM.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2004)

Xaov said:
			
		

> I agree with what is being said, altough I have hardly ever DMed I know the guy I play under gives us a lot of magic items but these items are in the form of potions and such, we sometimes get magic weaps and armor.  I think this adds a good amount of realism to the character.
> 
> Now for my two cents.  While Magic is always present something that has seem to really grow recently, in my experience are the Psionics.  While they have to cope with power points some of the abilities they have are a little bit over powered in my opinion.  In the group I play under we have a psion, now most spell casters sorcerers, wizards, clerics, druids, etc.  don't have very powerful spells until mid to high level.  This Psion however is only level 4 and has a power that is called Energy Missle, it attacks up to 5 separate targets and deals I think 3D6 to each.  Now that is crazy.  He can wipe out 5 targets within one round! Sometimes the game feels like it is strictly magic/power based and the others are just there for the ride.  I have yet to play a low-magic/power campaign but it might be a nice change.




Yes, the Energy Missile power is broken, and it hasn't been errata'd yet. I really wish pisonics would get some better editing; it already has enough reputation problems as it is.

Having said that, it's not like wizards don't have ridiculously overpowered abilities either, it's just that DMs are usually more familiar with these abilities.

(DMs should also have standing orders to keep munchkins away from psionics. It's hard to do that, though, but it seems a lot of munchkins are taking advantage of a DM's lack of psionic knowledge to either abuse the rules or flat-out break them. The same thing happens with just about any other non-core book.)


----------



## The Great Bear King (Aug 10, 2004)

I consider arcane magic to be a random mutation in my campaign, OK. So how about this, 10% of the human poulation are "half-magicians", 5% are "full-magicians" and those born of normal humans have a 5% chance to be magicians (4% chance to be "half-magicians").

"Half-magicians" are only capable of joining arcane spell casting classes that can cast up to 6th level spells (Bard or Weaponsmith).

"Full-magicians" may join any arcane spell casting class they want.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 10, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I do anymore after this thread....
> Originally, the main reason was options.  I really liked the idea (and still do) of being able to play a wide range of characters.  I also liked being able to gain power within the campaign which allows the group to battle more powerful and interesting creatures.  Fighting beholders, dragons, mind flayers, etc IS fun.  Of course to do that, you need to be able to handle yourself.




I guess it's time for ole drifter bob to chime in here!

I have three comments.

1) One nice thing about high magic is having a lot of options.  I think one of the reasons a lot of people go to low magic is that the basic magic system of D&D is poorly organized, but this is difficult to change because the fan base of D&D has expectations going back to before 1E.  

Think of a spell like invisibility, whole fairy tales are built around that ability, it's incredibly powerful.  Instead of giving it false limitations for balance (what logical sense does it make that you blink into visibility if you attack somebody?) maybe it should be made the very high level spell that it really is?  There are numerous other spells which don't make sense as low or mid level spells.  My personal list includes detect-evil (most detection spell), fly, dimension door, passwall, find the path, (find anything) commune, teleport, raise dead, fireball, lightning bolt, silence, and numerous others.   If these spells were classified as high level spells (I think spell levels should go up to around 15 or 20!) as they probably should be the whole system would make a lot more sense, IMO.

The reason I say this, is because though I prefer low magic, as a DM I personally like to give the players a LOT of spell options, just not so many super powerful ones.  

One of the things i always hated about playing a wizard was how weak and limited 1st level mages were.   They got their one shot which was usually pretty lethal, and then they were essentially useless until they got a day to rest.   But if you give them more options that are a little less powerful, they can be contributing to the adventure the whole time.  Rather than the all or nothing of one instant kill spell, like say one fireball, I'd like to give them ten or fifteen low to mid- level spells, 0 level, 1/2 level, 1st level... which can do wierd things that a thinking player could take advantage of.  

I love the cantrips in 3E and spells like mage hand, and reduce, and rope trick.  
I put like 30 cantrips of this sort in a d20 book I wrote, to expand the repertoire of interesting low level spells.  A spell to summon a tiny fire elemental out of a bonfire or tiny water elemental from a stream; a spell to make somebody suddenly have to go take a leak (like that pesky guard standing in front of the gate); a spell to turn mice and toads into the likeness of fair maidens; a spell to drop yourself down to ant size to do some scouting; a spell to make pursuers change direction without realising; a spell to make somebody forget the last thing you said to them...

When running my own campaign I'll often give a low level spellcaster a ring of wizardry early on to double their 1st level spells, so they'll have more options, and yet, I don't like playing high magic games, for all the reasons described in this thread ... which brings me to my next point...

2) Almost everybody tinkers with the existing experience point bonus system, because it lets players level too quickly.  There seems to be a 'sweet spot' in D&D somewhere around 4-9th level.  Any lower and you are basically a speedbump, and much higher and you start to be a cartoonish super dude, more like "He Man masters of the universe" than a gritty character from Howard, or Leiber, or Moorcock, or Vance.  Not to reiterate what has already been said but the game becomes about collecting and matching up various items and powers.

Generally, I think (ducking shower of bricks) a little tinkering with the basic D&D rules would make the game a lot more fun.  Move a few spells around, up the xp point curve a good chunk, and make magic items much more expensive and rare, (and make magic item creation a bit harder) and suddenly you have a much more fun game people need to tinker with a lot less.  I think that would be an excellent start.

3) ON THE OTHER HAND, I must caution you glassjaw:  Over the years I have run across a lot of 'serious' people who push the low magic pendulum way, way too far in the other direction, to the point where in one campaign I know of (which one my players is in on the side) after three years of playing about once a month, they are all still second level.  Campaigns in which the players almost never get to fight, and are nearly powerless.  That can be really lame.  I think the idea is to give as many options as possible without overloading the game to where it becomes this spectacular farce.

just my $.02

DB


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2004)

*Uo*



> The idea of a low-magic world is one where magical treasures are not weilded by every farmer and warrior, where cities are not linked by teleport circles, and castles are not protected from magics. Its reducing the magical level from contemporary technology to regular pseudo-medieval.



This

And This:


> Also, I like to be able to challenge the PCs with intelligent villains. Kobolds are still appropriate for high level adventures if done right. But not so with loads of magic, since the PCs can do things that make them invulnerable to lower levels encounters.
> 
> Basically, low magic settings makes the game more fun and tell a better story.



Are false assumptions about normal magic D&D that are more symptomatic of bad DMing or lack of understanding than they are a cause of high magic. Normal magic does not mean every commoner wields a magic weapon, nor does it mean that magic is destructive to a semi-medieval feel. Normal magic does not remove low-level challenges, or tell a better story. 

They are, in my opinion, "Bad Reasons." And insulting to normal magic campaigns.

Don't let me stop you from having fun, but do realize that normal magic does not suffer from those ailments.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 10, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The biggest lure for low magic campaigns isn't necessarily min/maxing. It's people trying to recreate the fiction that they grew up with. Conan, Fafrd, Gray Mouser, Bran Mac Morn, and others




This is certainly the biggest lure for "low magic" campaigns for me - the fantasy fiction I grew up on had powerful magic but it was rare and often dangerous. The heroes typically had to rely on their own wits and talents rather than the nifty items they had accumulated, and you never saw anyone flying if they didn't have wings.

Cheers


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2004)

> This is certainly the biggest lure for "low magic" campaigns for me - the fantasy fiction I grew up on had powerful magic but it was rare and often dangerous. The heroes typically had to rely on their own wits and talents rather than the nifty items they had accumulated, and you never saw anyone flying if they didn't have wings.



And, conversely, this is what I would call a "good reason".


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 10, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Are false assumptions about normal magic D&D that are more symptomatic of bad DMing or lack of understanding than they are a cause of high magic. Normal magic does not mean every commoner wields a magic weapon, nor does it mean that magic is destructive to a semi-medieval feel. Normal magic does not remove low-level challenges, or tell a better story.
> 
> They are, in my opinion, "Bad Reasons." And insulting to normal magic campaigns.




Don't start throwing the "bad DM" card around, just because some people find a different game or view of it, more preferable. I call that insulting.  I know you didn't mean to be, so thats cool. The term "bad DM" gets banded about a bit too much.

I'll show you how low-magic fits into my campaign:

1. Monsters still exist in all the same numbers as they do in any normal campaign. Even magic-using ones such as Beholders.

2. Magical items are rare. Most date back thousands of years. Yes, casters can make them, but most don't unless there is a personal need. Permanet items are never for sale.

3. Wizards have no to little interest in the outside world. Their Order exists to protect magic and prevent it being abused (but if you are familiar with DL you know that). So no magical teleport circles, no magics designed to protect castle bedchambers, because casters are not going to waste their precious magic on such things.

All contained, this allows the world to retain its medieval feel whilst still having a controlable balance. I don't limit PC's with their spells as they choose what they want to do, but the world and its inhabitants are comfortable with their world, so theres distrust of anyone coming up and offering magical teleport'...etc.

Low-Magic is a sense of feeling, rather than a fiddling of the rules.


----------



## TheGemini (Aug 10, 2004)

It's human nature to become less fascinated by something the more comon it is.  It tehn becomes an expectation.  People start complaining that they're not stumbling across a "Necklace of +4 Dexterity."  A DM can do a lot, but he can't change human nature.  

I think I like the "Wow, cool!" aspect of a lower magic world.  I have been in too many situations where party members were cynical about the newly discovered generic +2 sword not being anything special compared to their Generic +2 Flaming Sword.  Jeeez, how droll.  No cool history or legends about the weapon.  Nothing particularly distinguishing.  It's just..."+2."  Inspired?  Me, neither.  

It's like the permissive vs. disciplined parenting styles.  The truth is that players sometimes have to choose between the reckless high power DM handing out magic items like player-appeasing candy and a more even keeled low power DM who doles out the goodies in his own sweet time.   There's a stereotypical contrast for a reason -- it actually happens that way for many of us.  In times where these are the available options, I choose the less inventory-oriented disciplined DM.

Lastly, the tricks necessary to create a real challenge for a bunch of high powered magic users tends to get repetitive in my experience.  I'm not saying it can't be done well -- it's just that there are a lot more DM's who think they're doing something cool and original than there actually are.  Hurrah to you if you're the exception.  "Oh, you mean we can't blast the bad guy because he's inhabited the body of a good guy?  Golly, what to do?"  

Again, just my experience and not a higher law etched into a stone on Mount Olympus.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 10, 2004)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> So, I'm curious.  What happens to a 5th level wizard?  Does his 0-2nd level spells only increase, and he gains nothing above 3rd?  Or does he gain 3rd level and above spells, but they have a chance for failure, or what?




I granted them the spell slots for use with metamagic or just prepping more spells in lieu of metamagic feats.  I wanted the metamagic to be available since it's a big part of 3.0.  Extend became a staple feat with the elemental replacements and shaping feats popular choices.  The setting concept assumed casters would multiclass unless they were crafters who needed the caster levels to qualify for item creation feats.  

Metamagicked wands became popular, particularly extended buffs, twinned 'hold persons', etc.  Staves were rare given the low spell levels available.  

While my initial plan did not survive contact with the players, they did become inducted/discover/found the secret organizations that have full spell access only a level or two behind the curve.  (meaning at about 6th level they got access to 3rd-5th level spells) Until they went public (so far only with divine magic, arcane is still a secret) they couldn't use their nifty spells with witnesses around to prevent being hunted down either by those threatened by the power or those who would torture them for the secrets.  They did get very good at using visually similar spell (always using the multi-orb version of Element Orb to simulate Lesser Element Orb) and the wizard uses the shaping feats to make his fireballs look very flamestrike-ish.  

FYI, this is a Krynn-based game just after the Chaos war when all the gods split but using nothing cannon other than DLA and the Atlas, so none of the weird card game.  I have yet to check out the 3.5 DL books but they're probably incompatible with my current storyline.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 10, 2004)

_Why do you prefer high-magic?_ 



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I do anymore after this thread....



Welcome to the dark (and gritty) side.

Mua-ha-ha-ha.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 10, 2004)

> Welcome to the dark (and gritty) side.
> 
> Mua-ha-ha-ha.




Nooooooooooo!!  Khaaaaaan!!!    



> Don't start throwing the "bad DM" card around, just because some people find a different game or view of it, more preferable. I call that insulting. I know you didn't mean to be, so thats cool. The term "bad DM" gets banded about a bit too much.




Well would people agree that it takes a "better" DM to run a low-magic campaign?  Or at least to run run well.  It seems to me that a low-magic campaign (however you make it low-magic) requires more "finesse" on the DM's part, including a solid understanding of CR's and balance issues.  You need to know the rules in order to bend them into low-magic.

My guess is that people think "bad DM's" play normal/high-magic campaigns is because most low-magic campaigns are run by more experienced ones.  Also, if you are what someone would consider a "bad DM", then you are probably just as interested in powergaming as that players are.  This is just my opinion of course.


----------



## molonel (Aug 10, 2004)

First off, I'd like to say that this is a good discussion, and fair points made by most sides. I've played in high magic, high fantasy settings, and low magic but high fantasy settings, and low magic/low-fantasy settings. I feel that I've played a fair mix of different campaign styles, and I've seen DMs do both high magic and low magic campaigns. I've seen both styles suck, and I've seen both styles soar.

Having said that, I've seen low magic campaigns suck more often than they soared. Most low magic campaigns I've seen start out with huge ambitions. The DM's almost always, to a person, think to themselves, "Okay, now that all that nasty math and all those cheesy magic items are gone, now we can focus on CHARACTER!" These are usually reactive DMs who've gotten sick of high fantasy, munchkinny, min-maxed monty haul campaigns. They always have horror stories to tell, too. They thumb through online variants of the grim-and-gritty rules. They talk about the good old days of fantasy, and Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser books, or Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Or the Illiad. Or Tolkien's novels.

There are a few problems with this thinking, conceptually, before we even get into game mechanics. I just reread all of Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Of course Conan didn't need magic items. He was stronger, faster, tougher, had more skills and greater fighting prowess than anyone he ever met. If a player came to me and said that he had soloed all the creatures that Conan killed single-handedly, my response would be to think he was enmeshed in the most fastidious ego masturbation I'd ever heard, or his big brother was running the games, and didn't have the heart to kill his little bro's favorite character.

A lot of fantasy novels are designed, in game terms, to have one character (or maybe two) as the primary focus of the story, and the characers are powerful enough and resilient enough to face all of the challenges they encounter. Most D&D adventures assume, and often have, at least 3 to 4 characters, all of whom deserve screen-time and all of whom depend on each other. Like it or not, there are plenty of guys who enjoy action movies, sit in a boring desk job 50 to 60 hours a week and WANT to kick the  out of a dragon on Saturday. I see no reason why I should always try to force such people to sit through the roleplaying equivalent of a Jane Austen novel. One person in this discussion asked, "How do you break someone who thinks power gaming is the only way to play?" The answer: you don't. You give them the opportunity to play in another style. If they like it, great. If not, then you let them do what they have fun doing. You don't break them of anything. If your playing style is incompatible, you go your separate ways. Anything else is sheer arrogance.

People have mentioned Achilles, Odysseus and characters from Tolkien as examples of people who weren't loaded down with magical gear. But this is also a false argument, as others have correctly observed. The Beowulf poet spends a lot of time describing the exact make and lineage of armor, weapons, shields, helms. A chain shirt might not be described as "A mithral +3 chain shirt" because those sorts of terms would have been meaningless to an Anglo-Saxon bard. Does that mean that it is all non-magical and mundane in D&D terms? No. Beowulf's mail shirt frequently stood up to damage that would rend average steel links into breakfast cereal. Mythic heroes are often demigods, or have the power, strength, speed and toughness far, far above anything attainable by mortals. They frequently have artifacts. They are most certainly not 1st level fighters with a 17 strength, a leather jerkin and a cudgel. Aragorn spent a lot of his onscreen career fighting orcs. Lots and lots and lots of orcs. And some trolls toward the end. And he spent a lot of time hiding and running away. Some comparisons are meaningless. If you want to make your players run away from everything and hide whenever they face something tougher than an orc, great. I prefer campaigns with a wider variety of encounters.

Low-level D&D play *is* low magic, even by the book. A lot of DMs with low magic ambitions seem to forget this. A lot of them also don't seem to realize that the CR system in standard D&D assumes a certain level of wealth. I've seen several low-magic campaigns disintegrate between 4th to 6th level simply because the DM is not willing to put the extra work into keeping a low-magic campaign interesting. I saw one DM who was simply SHOCKED when his party was creamed by a single orc barbarian. He'd been making the whole party crawl through the mud, begging for nonmagical weapons, paying through the nose for nonmagical masterwork leather armor. And he couldn't understand why they couldn't stand up to a standard encounter for their level.

Sooner or later, the purchase or construction of minor gear becomes a background process in a longterm campaign, and it should. Yes, crossing the river Styx to pluck a few feathers from the wings of the Ice Phoenix by the light of the full moon is a great adventure hook for the fighter to add an important bane enchantment to his greatsword. But if every magic item in the party is constructed in such a fashion, the campaign can slowly become a story about the characters's gear rather than the characters.

Someone mentioned low-magic one-shots as offering a richer opportunity for people to run new and different characters. But I've seen that happen in one-shots no matter what the style of play. People frequently take risks with one-shot characters that they can't or won't take with longterm characters. They try new things. They step out. That's nothing unique to low-magic one-shots. I've seen people do exactly the same thing in high-level epic one-shots.

A quote:

"What I was trying to say was that my one brush with a 'low-magic' campaign left a very bad taste in my mouth. It wasn't so much a low-magic campaign as it was the DM telling us 'no' to everything character concept presented to him. He seemed to have some kind of vendetta against what he thought was min/maxing or powergaming or whatever he wanted to call it at the time." - somebody

Dear God, yes. I've seen several self-proclaimed low-magic DMs whose attitudes can best be described as, "Me heap-big DM. You will fear my monsters, puny player-thing." There is a certain sort of DM who seems to enjoy making players run away from stuff. I have a strong suspicion that such DMs are simply the flipside of the munchiny player with the phallic greatsword who always has to be the toughest, the strongest and the most badass player in the group. I've seen such DMs through a hissy fit with their pet monsters are beaten - and this particular flaw has no relation whatsoever to high-magic or low-magic campaigns.

A few of the arguments in favor of low-magic campaigns, and my thoughts:

1. Magic items become more special, and players treasure them more.

My response: Yes, please. And players therefore learn to expect that their items are sacred, and cannot be sundered, stolen or destroyed. Some attachment between players and their characters is natural and good. But one of the dictums I give my players is, "Adventuring is an inherently dangerous occupation. If you want to live forever, then stay at home." I discourage players become too attached to their items, and personally I like the fact that character wealth is often divided between one or two special items, and a lot of smaller utility items. That way when they lose something, or it gets destroyed, it doesn't feel like I've killed their character.

There is another problem with "special" items: The improbability of DM treasure gifts ruins verisimilitude for me.

DM: You find ... *drum roll* ... a magical spiked chain. Doesn't that make you feel special?

Player: Oh, wow. Another magical spiked chain. And fancy that - it's only slightly more powerful than the last two spiked chains I've found in previous treasure hoards. Who woulda thunk? Someone up there must like me.

DM: ...

2. Roleplaying in a low-magic campaign is more character-focused.

My response: Baloney. Since low-magic and low-power campaigns often go together, I have rarely seen campaigns where people are able to emulate Odysseus, Achilles, Conan or the Grey Mouser. Such character, translated into D&D terms, would have all 18s across the board, or maybe a 16 as a dump stat. They are stronger, faster, tougher and better-looking than everyone they meet, and somehow always know the solution to every problem they encounter. Of course they don't need magic items. Grim-and-gritty rules, which often also get bundled into low-magic campaigns, do NOT encourage people to value their characters. They learn that their characters are disposable like tissue paper, and once gone, never return without DM fiat.

3. The absence of Raise Dead and Resurrection spells makes people not want to die. Death MEANS something.

My response: Yes, it means that the character is irrevocably dead. It means that short of DM fiat, there is no way to bring the character back. I've seen people slam their hand down on the table and swear when their high-level character died, even though they KNEW the cleric in the group had a True Resurrection ready. The absence of Raise Dead and Resurrection spells rewards cowardice, and since I like to encourage heroism, I make them possible though not univerally available.

One of my favorite quotes from this discussion:

"Largely using mythological heroes as your basis for a 'mythic' flavor you want to emulate specifically is deeply flawed. The reason Odysseus survived his epic quest? DM fiat. Same reason he went on it. The reason Achilles stayed in Troy? DM fiat. Same reason he went there in the first place.  The reason Frodo could chuck the ring into Mount Doom without getting spotted? DM fiat. Can you capture the *feel* of Odysseus in D&D's RAW? Absolutely. Your items are bronze. The adventures you went on helped you uncover the items you need because of the Gods' intervention. You are heroic in statistics, in level, and in power. True, it depends upon your items, but so what? If you never take off your +2 codpiece, then no one needs to know that's what's giving you +2 to your saving throws vs. 'shots to the junk.' Introduce sailing adventures, and a bunch of 1st level mooks to compare yourself with, and perhaps a vengeful deity, and you're golden. Can you capture Odysseus himself? Pheh. This is a game, not poetry, I don't want my character's life to hinge on weather the DM decides arbitrarily that Possiedon is having a bad day or not. It might make for an interesting epic poem, but it is crap for a D&D game."

For anyone who is interested, here is an article by Monte Cook on high-level game design:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html

Overall, I understand the push toward low magic games. The best designed low-magic campaign setting I've seen so far is Midnight, or Testament, although I've heard some VERY good things about d20 Conan from Mongoose. I don't run low magic campaigns for the same reason a lot of people claim they don't run high-magic games: I want to focus on the story. I like giving players rewards, and magic items are just plain cool. I prefer players not to attach everything to one or two particular "special" items, and I prefer not to bind them to choices early in their players's career. The problem with "special" items is that they don't allow a character to hit a certain level, and say, you know what, I'm tired of this weapon. I'd like to try something different. I prefer to let players choose the course of their career, rather than me determining it for them by seeding "special" items into treasure hoards which - wonder of wonders - just HAPPEN to mesh completely with the goals of that character. I _like_ being able to run parties against dragons and demons, eventually, and without the sort of gear that the CR system assumes and requires, that is almost impossible. I like characters sometimes running from a fight they can't win, but I don't want them to do it ALL the time. When a character can customize their gear, that simply adds one more dimension to their character.

EDIT: Spelling


----------



## molonel (Aug 11, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Nooooooooooo!!  Khaaaaaan!!!




http://www.khaaan.com/


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 11, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Well would people agree that it takes a "better" DM to run a low-magic campaign?  Or at least to run run well.  It seems to me that a low-magic campaign (however you make it low-magic) requires more "finesse" on the DM's part, including a solid understanding of CR's and balance issues.  You need to know the rules in order to bend them into low-magic.




I agree. The DM always needs to understand the balance between his game and the players abilities. I personally don't use the CR as a guide because the CR of a monster/opponent doesn't take into account the specific spells, feats or items that a party has. I look over the monster and comapre it to the characters to see how it would compare. 
But yes, they do need to understand the balance.



> My guess is that people think "bad DM's" play normal/high-magic campaigns is because most low-magic campaigns are run by more experienced ones.  Also, if you are what someone would consider a "bad DM", then you are probably just as interested in powergaming as that players are. This is just my opinion of course.




I don't like calling anyone a bad DM, at least not without a DAMN good reason. I'm not perfect, and I make mistakes. Some ideas haven't worked out all that well, and I readily admit that at present high level high magic campaigns are a little beyond my skill, but that doesn't make me a bad DM. Same with a lot of us I guess.

Its just a term that is thrown around these boards a little too often and with no real reason.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 11, 2004)

Damn, molonel.  That post was one of the best explainations I've ever seen about why people _wouldn't_ want to run a low-magic campaign, and it also does a good job of pointing out the fallacies in certain arguments used to promote low magic.  Good job!

Naturally, I can see why low magic might appeal to some people.  However, saying "low magic allows for more epic adventures" or "low magic will make my players more roleplay-oriented" aren't valid excuses; they're just signs of a lazy DM.


----------



## molonel (Aug 11, 2004)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Well would people agree that it takes a "better" DM to run a low-magic campaign? Or at least to run run well.  It seems to me that a low-magic campaign (however you make it low-magic) requires more "finesse" on the DM's part, including a solid understanding of CR's and balance issues.  You need to know the rules in order to bend them into low-magic. My guess is that people think "bad DM's" play normal/high-magic campaigns is because most low-magic campaigns are run by more experienced ones.




I don't think that DMs who run good low-magic campaigns are better DMs. I think that people who run such campaigns might like to think of themselves as special, just as people who use Macs like to think of themselves as smarter or more creative than people who use Windows, and people who drive Porsches like to think of themselves as better people than those who drive station wagons, and people who like to play White Wolf like to think of themselves as better roleplayers than people who play d20.

Running an interesting, longterm D&D campaign is a challenge no matter what type of game you run. You are competing with television, movies, incredibly intricate and well-crafted video games, books, sports and any number of a bazillion other things that someone else can do with their time.

All campaigns between 1st and 5th level are pretty much low magic campaigns anyway. If you can hold the attention of a group of people, week after week, and design interesting and challenging roleplaying and combat encounters, then you're a kickass DM. It doesn't matter if you shower your group with magic items or make them crawl through the mud for a +1 dagger.

There are simply different challenges in designing games in high magic and low magic campaigns. People who run low magic campaigns have simply chosen a different set of challenges.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> I don't think that DMs who run good low-magic campaigns are better DMs. I think that people who run such campaigns might like to think of themselves as special, just as people who use Macs like to think of themselves as smarter or more creative than people who use Windows, and people who drive Porsches like to think of themselves as better people than those who drive station wagons, and people who like to play White Wolf like to think of themselves as better roleplayers than people who play d20.



I like to think that people who assume that anyone who's got a taste issue with which they disagree must therefore have some kind of disassociated personality defect are ignorant and offensive.

My assumption about DMs of low magic games is that they like low magic games, and that's about as far as I can reasonably push it.


----------



## Wombat (Aug 11, 2004)

Actually, I think in many ways it would take a better GM to run a high magic (read: standard D&D magic) campaign.

Why so?

Because such a GM would actually take into account all of the magic, not just as it applies to a small battlefield or short set of encounters, but how it would affect the world overall.  The implications of this level of magic in the world is staggering.  

As a base-level example, let me take the sample hamlet of 200 people from the 3.0 DMG.

Okay, 200 people

we have one 1st level Adept, one 1st level Wizard, one 3rd level Cleric, two 1st level Clerics, one 1st level Druid, and one 1st level Bard.  Total magic-using sorts in the town:  7.  That is 3.5% of the population.  

Now this does not bring a _lot _ of magic to the town, especially of a high level, but it does bring enough to a small group of people (remember, 200) that it would utterly alter their lives.  That Druid is going to be very popular with the farmers.  

The problem is that if the 3.5% snapshot continued to a city of, say, 2000 people, we would now have 70 magic users, several of them of notably higher level.  In a city of 20,000 we have 700 magic users, including several in the mid-range (12-15th level).  

One 1st level cleric of average ability has 5 spells useable each day.  A druid has four; a sorcerer has 8; a wizard has four.  Those are spells who they can use _every single day_.  And remember that in the case of a wizard/sorcerer, many of those spells are highly destructive.  

The problem with many campaigns that I have been in, seen, and even _run_, is that the serious magic (other than healing or a bit of scrying) never really makes an impact on the campaign, much less the world, until the PCs are in a position to take these powers on.  

This is one of the reasons I prefer low magic in my world -- it messes up the gameworld less.  (This is also the reason that I cut down on the number of sentient species, vast numbers of magical animals, magical items, etc.)


----------



## molonel (Aug 11, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I like to think that people who assume that anyone who's got a taste issue with which they disagree must therefore have some kind of disassociated personality defect are ignorant and offensive.




Well, I think that people who make those assumptions are sexy. But I'm obviously somewhat biased. 

I also like to think that people who try to put words in my mouth are rather silly and immature. When did I say I disliked low magic? I've played low magic. I've run low magic. I'll play it again, and I will run it again. I have no preference either for, or against it. I love both Midnight and d20 Testament because they accomplished successfully what a lot of low magic game designers only attempt.

But I'm not married to low magic campaigns, and I'm not going to pretend that it makes someone into some sort of uberGM to run a successful low-magic game. If anyone needs that sort of reassurance to convince himself that he's on another plane of gaming, then he is exactly the sort of person I described. If not, then nobody should take offense at what I said. It doesn't apply to them.

I've heard the same tired arguments from people who run low magic games or 1st Edition AD&D games or 2nd Edition AD&D games or White Wolf Games or Ars Magica games or whatever. Someone just asked if running a quality low magic D&D game made someone a better DM. Doesn't it mean you have more "finesse?" Doesn't it mean that you are more experienced? Somebody obviously thinks so. 

I'll say it again: Running an interesting, longterm D&D campaign is challenging no matter what genre or style you choose. To keep people fascinated, and coming back week after week to run their characters and listen to the unfolding story is a skill. They could be home watching reruns of Friends, or playing Trivial Pursuit. Roleplaying is a fringe hobby, and watching gamers argue about what sort of gaming is superior makes me laugh. We're all a bunch of nerds rolling dice. Lighten up.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 11, 2004)

Um, yeah, what molonel said.

I'll give a brief mention as to why I perfer high-magic*.

1- More options for character growth, both mechanically and storywise.
2- More options for foes, particularly things like mind flayer cabals and demonic nests.
3- To have an epic story.
4- To give the players the chance to feel like they have awesome power. Power enough to shake the pillars of the world.
5- To allow the players the chance to explore, even to other worlds and
planes.
6- To _foster_ the "cold war" between the players and myself concerning divinations, SBT, and other consequences of high level spells. Some of us _like _ the magical Measures / Countermeasures aspect of the spells.

That said, after my gut check, above, I think my campaign isn't _high-magic _ so much as _high-level_. I tend to accellerate xp awards until about 5th-7th level. I find low-level adventures to be boring unless there is a strong political or intrigue component. Things really get rolling for me when the characters reach 12th level. The sheer options at the character's disposal force me to be creative and inventive.

Also, I've _never_ had the players in my game just throw away their character's lives. It costs a level to come back from the dead, and that's ignoring the sense of defeat you feel when that last blow fells your character. Even if you are able to secure a True Ressurection, it isn't cheap. Just because it's in the book doesn't mean that it's available or affordable.

The only time when characters died and raised similar to a video game is during a climactic battle between the party and Tiamat during my 1e days. The party level average was 16, and there was lots of demons, dragons, and the big girl herself. The party had a fully charged Rod of Ressurection when they went in. Now, this was when I was in high school, and it was the big bang before we went off to college, but we all had a blast. 

Which is why we play the game, after all.

Baron Opal


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

nevermind...


----------



## molonel (Aug 11, 2004)

Then I'll delete mine, too.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2004)

That's probably for the best, whatever it said.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Aug 11, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Actually, I think in many ways it would take a better GM to run a high magic (read: standard D&D magic) campaign.
> 
> Why so?
> 
> Because such a GM would actually take into account all of the magic, not just as it applies to a small battlefield or short set of encounters, but how it would affect the world overall.  The implications of this level of magic in the world is staggering.




I agree.  It would take a fantastically skilled DM to run such a game, to truly consider the logical impact on the world of all of the spells possible.  Most DMs can come up with some interesting plots - the king is back from the dead and wants his throne back - and some can design entire campaigns where the adventures and challenges properly account for everything the PCs can do.  But I would think that very very few DMs can really show you how the everyday world itself can plausibly look, accounting for the economic, social, legal, and other ramifications of the spells being as common as the DMG demographics make them out to be.

If you say that D&D is only meant to run adventures, not to engage in world-building, then it's a lot easier to postulate a world as rich in magic as you want without worrying about how it impacts culture or economics.  But even then, it takes a lot of time and effort to properly account for the logical impact of all the magic in the world when designing the limited scope of adventure elements, fortresses, and NPCs. 

If you know of a DM who has run such an outstanding high-magic campaign, thank him for me.  I won't read his Story Hour - I never read anybody's other than the one I play in, for a few reasons - but it would be cool to know there are such games.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 11, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> As a base-level example, let me take the sample hamlet of 200 people from the 3.0 DMG.
> 
> Okay, 200 people
> 
> ...




I have to quibble with your base-level example. 
While these caster have spells they can use frequently, they don't have a very big impact, other than being able to heal wounds in the case of the Cleric, Bard, and Druid. 

Druid popular with the farmers? Maybe for finding lost animals. The Druids gets Calm Animals, Cure Light Wounds, Detect Animals or Plants for first level spells, and Mending and Cure Minor Wounds as cantrips. 

Maybe I don't have a very open mind but thats all I see on the 0th/1st level druid spell list as useful to a farmer as _practical, everyday_ spells for _"normal", mundane problems_.

1st level Clerics popular? Yes. For healing. The 3rd level Cleric has Delay Poison, Lesser Restoration, Make Whole, Zone of Truth, Speak with Animals, Gentle Repose, and Cure Moderate Wounds.

The Bard and the Wizard have even fewer options for solving _practical_problems. 

So the healers cannot heal broken bones (see 3.0 Regenerate description) or cure diseases. All the casters can repair objects to one degree or another, and they can make sure prisoners don't lie. Not a very big impact.

Okay. So fewer people die from hemophilia or wounds in this hamlet. I don't see a huge impact.

Same with the rest of the spells in the PHB. Healing, yes. Stopping plagues, yes. 
But not a great impact except for people (nobles, adventurers, etc.) who can afford the extravagant spellcaster fees that are outlined in the Core books.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 11, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Same with the rest of the spells in the PHB. Healing, yes. Stopping plagues, yes.
> But not a great impact except for people (nobles, adventurers, etc.) who can afford the extravagant spellcaster fees that are outlined in the Core books.




Try to imagine the impact of _plant growth_, or _purify food and water_ or _create food and water_ (a 3rd level cleric spell) on a world with a little more internal consistency than a typical Hanna Barbara cartoon.  Do I need to point out that the reason peasants were peasants, serfs were serfs, the reason to this day most people in the third world don't really cause much trouble, is because they spend 99% of their time trying to produce enough food to eat?  What happens when you take that away?  

Think of _create water_, a zero level druid or cleric cantrip, in a time of drought?  In a desert?  EVERTHING CHANGES.  Add cure disease to this mix, and try to imagine the impact on population growth alone!  

With the zero level druid or cleric cantrip purify food and water, people could eat trash and forget about farming altogether.

I think honestly, the cheerful illogic of most rpg games tends to influence gamers toward a cheezy fantasy concept of history which distorts their grasp of reality... which in turn encourages them to enjoy high magic games more, a vicious circle... 
DB


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 11, 2004)

Yeah, one of the assumptions that I've made concerning the presence of low level curative magic is that the mortality curve is reversed. There is a relativly low level of infant and child mortality, and a higher adult level. As I understand it, it was difficult for a child to survive to 5 yrs of age, but if they did, they were quite likely to survive to 16, and thus to reproduce themselves. There was a second dip from 20 to 30, but if you made it to, say 40-45, you would probably live until you died from old age.

With the presence of magic, you are likely to not only survive to 5, but also to 20 or so. This leaves more people at the adult age. Why doesn't the area become over run by humans and kin? Why, the monsters of course. They put the hurt on villagers aged 20+, and the older range of the curve remains "mideval".

But then, that's kind of drifting towards world design...

Baron Opal


----------



## Geoff Watson (Aug 11, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Try to imagine the impact of _plant growth_, or _purify food and water_ or _create food and water_ (a 3rd level cleric spell) on a world with a little more internal consistency than a typical Hanna Barbara cartoon.  Do I need to point out that the reason peasants were peasants, serfs were serfs, the reason to this day most people in the third world don't really cause much trouble, is because they spend 99% of their time trying to produce enough food to eat?  What happens when you take that away?
> 
> Think of _create water_, a zero level druid or cleric cantrip, in a time of drought?  In a desert?  EVERTHING CHANGES.  Add cure disease to this mix, and try to imagine the impact on population growth alone!
> 
> ...




So, is EVERYONE (or nearly everyone) in a high-magic campaign a spellcaster?

Otherwise, these things help a few people, and by no means everyone.

As for 3rd level spells, just how many 5th level Clerics and Druids are there? Not many.

Geoff.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 11, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> So, is EVERYONE (or nearly everyone) in a high-magic campaign a spellcaster?
> 
> Otherwise, these things help a few people, and by no means everyone.
> 
> ...




Review Wombats example above.  Certainly a decent sized village could easily have a 5th level cleric or druid, and even the smallest "thorp" to use the DnD term is likely to have someone who can cast zero level spells.  All that created water and purified food can have a stunning effect on an economy...

DB


----------



## S'mon (Aug 11, 2004)

I think it's certainly very hard to run a plausible, self-consistent high-magic (or D&D 3e standard-magic) campaign in a believable world, and takes a very good DM to do so.  Not many even try though - "internal consistency of a Hanna Barbara cartoon" is all WoTC aims for, and few DMs do more than that.  Of course it also takes a good GM, of a different sort, to run challenging and interesting high-level high-magic battles in 3e, my experience has been that it's much harder than in 1e-2e, the line between ridiculously easy and TPK in 3e is so narrow.  I'd call the latter kind of GM the 'Monte Cook' GM - world-building is not their forte, their forte is running high-powered battle scenarios.  The former kind of GM seems very rare in 3e since WoTC seem to almost actively discourage this approach.  A good high-magic setting-designer would be Aaron Allston, who wrote the Dawn of the Emperors boxed set for the Mystara BEXCMI OD&D setting.  That featured a plausible and self-consistent ultra-high-magic setting in the Alphatian Empire.  I've seen a few high-magic-setting GMs on ENW like Shark and the Urbis guy, but they seem a small minority.

Myself, I've designed high-magic settings but 3e standard magic is an uncomfortable fit with most of my gameworlds, which predate 3e, so I've had to tone the rules down to fit the setting.  And while I enjoyed running deity-level AD&D (eg with Upper_Krust's Thrin PC) I find now that running high-magic 3e games often involves sitting around for half the session while the Wizard PCs plan their spell selection, which can get very boring.  Generally I find running low-magic to be easier and more fun.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 11, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Try to imagine the impact of _plant growth_, or _purify food and water_ or _create food and water_ (a 3rd level cleric spell)
> With the zero level druid or cleric cantrip purify food and water, people could eat trash and forget about farming altogether.




Okay. IIRC, you need a community of around 400 to support a 5th level cleric.  That cleric can produce enough food for maybe 15 people per day, consuming all his 3rd level spells.  That amounts to 4% of the populace, not eliminating farming.  Purify food and drink lets you un-spoil food.  Trouble is, it requires having spoiled food to begin with.    Purify does help during winter when grain will start going bad, reducing the losses from rot, mold, and fermentation.  

Plant growth, at least by MMS:WE, boosts production by around 33% per acre.  Unfortunately, that boosts the number of weeds, creepers, and parasitical plants as well, which doesn't really change the man-hours/bushel ratio in a world without herbicides.  

Goodberry is a wonderful thing, but with the exception of holly berries, I'm not aware of too many berries available year round.  And again, we're not talking enough food to feed the population.

Then there's the population survival arguement.  Yes, more children will survive childbirth and probably to around 4.  But 5 year olds are probably the primary foodstuff of many monsters.  They're big enough to be tasty, fast enough to get away from adults, and virtually defenseless on their own.  This is probably why a 1st level adventurer can be about 14 years old; great ghu only knows how many of his buddies were dragged into the sky by a peryton, hippogrif,  dire bird/bat, giant bird/bat, or fiendish critter, not counting the ankheg, worgs, goblins, orcs, gnolls, or other monsters.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 11, 2004)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Okay. IIRC, you need a community of around 400 to support a 5th level cleric.




The intelligence of gamers is so wasted by trying to rationalize nonsense.  I once met brilliant grad student at MIT who had developed rationalizations for how everything in (the original) star trek was, in fact, realistic.  The alternate races with pointy ears.  The green antaena girls.  The furbles.  The square landing craft.  Everything.

Without even picking apart any of the arguments you just made above, I'll just point out that you left off any discussion of the ZERO LEVEL CANTRIP _create water_.   I suppose that balances right out as well does it?  Is the water impotable to plants and livestock?  Because if not, it would allow high density human populations to overrrun almost every corner of the planet (or is your world a disk?)

And as for predatory animals, incidentally, how many of the really common predatory monsters in the SRD are tougher than Tigers, or Brown Bears, or packs of Wolves, or Lions?  Ordinary common humans in RL had little trouble eradicating them without any magic.  How many monsters could cause the kind of depopulating massacres that humans have inflicted on each other on a continuous basis since the beginning of time?  Or which surprass the effects of plague?  

DB


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2004)

my first double post!


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 11, 2004)

If you assume that there is a low ratio of number of casters to the general populace, even in a high-magic world, then many of the "survival" spells discussed previously will have an unbelievable social impact, nevermind the economy of health of the people.

Using the example above, we'll assume there is a 5th-level cleric in a town of 400.  He can cast create water 5 times per day.  That's 50 gallons.  A human (according to the DMG) needs a gallon of water per day.  So the cleric creates enough water per day for 50 people, assuming he uses all of his 0-level spells to do it.  He could even use his higher level spells and create enough for whole town!

The social effects of this are twofold:
1.  The people will no longer need to rely on themselves for sustenance.  They know it will be created for them.  Populations would boom (at least in the short-term).

2.  If there aren't enough clerics to go around, some people will go without.  This would cause civil unrest and most likely rioting.  

My point?  Who cares.  Even in a low-magic world, in which people run to avoid stuff like this, there can be major issues with even the most "minor" or spells.  "Yeah, my world is low-magic, I only allow up to 2nd-level spells and casters are very rare.  That way, magic won't have much affect on the world."  Yeah, right.  If that's the case, it will have MORE of an effect IMO since the people will know that there are those out there that can create water out of nothing.  The clerics would probably rule the land.  It would probably turn into some kind of Mad Max Beyond Waterdeep nonsense if you really wanted to do a social analysis.

I gave up on trying to justify magic and its effects on the world long ago.  It makes my head hurt.  And when my head hurts, I'm not having fun.  You want continual light lamps on every corner?  Great.

If you want to _completely_ remove magic altogether and switch to a more realistic medieval setting, good luck.  Playing a peasant farmer with the plague that lives to the age of 19 isn't my idea of a fun RPG.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 11, 2004)

*conan wore armor*



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> First off, I'd like to say that this is a good discussion, and fair points made by most sides. I've played in high magic, (snip)and low magic (snip) I've seen both styles suck, and I've seen both styles soar.



I agree with your basic point here, and this line in particular...


> ...see no reason why I should always try to force such people to sit through the roleplaying equivalent of a Jane Austen novel.



... is both very amusing and quite true.  Plenty of bad low magic games exist out there, and there are an unfortunate number of power tripping DM's running some of them.

I do have a few bones to pick with some of your points though.



> I just reread all of Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Of course Conan didn't need magic items. He was stronger, faster, tougher, had more skills and greater fighting prowess than anyone he ever met.




See, I just read an anthology of the original Conan stories myself, and I think you are really missing something.  One of the things I was struck by was that Conan relied on cunning as much as brawn, and more surprisingly, relied on superior (though non magic) equipment as often as he could.  In the dozen or so stories I just read, Conan was saved by heavy armor and / or helmets in at least half of them, by having a weapon with longer reach in at least one, and by superior tactics in three or four.  And Conan did run away from fights a few times incidentally.  Yes, Conan was stronger than any opponent he faced, but unlike most RPG characters, Conan knew he couldn't face a mob of opponents all by himself unless he had some major advantage on his side (like he had heavy armor and they did not).

All in all, it was a revelation to me how much Howards original Conan books drew upon historical basis and how well versed Howard was with what wars and personal fights were like in the age of swords and spears. 



> A lot of fantasy novels are designed, in game terms, to have one character (or maybe two) as the primary focus of the story, and the characers are powerful enough and resilient enough to face all of the challenges they encounter.




So what is preventing 5 or 6 party members with complimentary skills from being able to handle what one or two super heroic characters could?



> People have mentioned Achilles, Odysseus and characters from Tolkien (snip)  No. Beowulf's mail shirt frequently stood up to damage that would rend average steel links into breakfast cereal.




This is a reflection of the widespread misunderstanding of, and virtual contempt for "mundane" martial items such as weapons and armor.  I've seen some historically accurate riveted link and welded link mail armor which is practically indestructable, and I guarantee you it wasn't made of mythral or by dwarves.  I think it's the monty haul mentality in RPG's which has contributed to the idea that real kit is lame.  It's like people who demand UFO's or Loch Ness Monster and never even realise how cool real earth critters actually are.

The weapons and armor used by Beowulf seemed like magic to those people, because a) the whole world was magical to them, and b) these particular weapons were so extraordinarily awesome and beautiful.  For example, when Beowulf uses Unferth's sword, "the curious sword with a wavy pattern, hard of its edge" he is talking about a pattern welded sword.  These are real.  Have you ever seen one?

http://www.templ.net/pics/a15av.jpg
http://www.templ.net/pics/a05bv.jpg
http://www.templ.net/making_of_weapons/blades.php#damask4

They are incredibly beautiful and extremely potent weapons of _reality_.  My point here is this idea that real kit is lame or worthless is bankrupt.  Players should have a lot of options, but they don't have to shoot lazer beams or summon demons to be cool.



> Low-level D&D play *is* low magic, even by the book.



I don't agree, it's only low magic compared to the rest of whats out there.  As I said before, spells like invisibility are high magic spells! 

As for spells like teleport and ressurection not affecting the attitudes of players toward the game, we'll just have to agree to disagree I fear...

DB


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 11, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> Having said that, I've seen low magic campaigns suck more often than they soared. Most low magic campaigns I've seen start out with huge ambitions. The DM's almost always, to a person, think to themselves, "Okay, now that all that nasty math and all those cheesy magic items are gone, now we can focus on CHARACTER!"



Is there something wrong with reducing the math or the number of magic items?  Or with focusing on character?

At any rate, that's not at the heart of the low-vs-high-magic discussion we've been having here; this next passage _is_:


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> They talk about the good old days of fantasy, and Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser books, or Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Or the Illiad. Or Tolkien's novels.



You take such a negative tone.  Is there something wrong with enjoying those works?  With emulating them?


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> There are a few problems with this thinking, conceptually, before we even get into game mechanics. I just reread all of Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Of course Conan didn't need magic items. He was stronger, faster, tougher, had more skills and greater fighting prowess than anyone he ever met.



Yes, he was able to beat apes, lions, giant spiders, giant snakes, human guardsmen, etc.  He was fighting appropriate challenges for a single PC without a long list of magical items.  Is there something wrong with that?

A 6th-level barbarian with no magical gear _is_ stronger, faster, and tougher than a CR-2 ape, or a CR-3 lion -- if not a CR-5 giant constrictor snake.  Those are the foes you'd expect him to face in an otherwise by-the-books D&D campaign that featured (a) a single protagonist, and (b) rare magic.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Most D&D adventures assume, and often have, at least 3 to 4 characters, all of whom deserve screen-time and all of whom depend on each other.



What does this have to do with the magic level?


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Like it or not, there are plenty of guys who enjoy action movies, sit in a boring desk job 50 to 60 hours a week and WANT to kick the  out of a dragon on Saturday.



What does this have to do with the magic level?


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I see no reason why I should always try to force such people to sit through the roleplaying equivalent of a Jane Austen novel.



What does this have to do with the magic level?  Is Conan _in any way_ the equivalent of a Jane Austen novel?  I couldn't imagine a better example of opposites!


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 11, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> While these caster have spells they can use frequently, they don't have a very big impact, other than being able to heal wounds in the case of the Cleric, Bard, and Druid.



I think it's the _frequency_ with which they can cast that creates the monumental impact.  If preparing a spell meant scribing a scroll or brewing a potion (i.e., a large time and money investment), then magic would have a much, much lower impact on the world at large -- even if individual spells were just as powerful.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Aug 11, 2004)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> It would take a fantastically skilled DM to run such a game, to truly consider the logical impact on the world of all of the spells possible.




And I'm not that DM.

But by that same token, when I've got Mind Flayers, Yuan-Ti, Red Dragons and other such Evil Geniuses, I don't want to have to out-think a bunch of people with masters degrees, MIT diplomas and pregnant wives.  Because either they're going to be completely on top of the game and utterly foil me in four completely different and bizarre ways and I'll be shocked and disappointed with myself or they're going to be worried about their wives and jobs and whatever and I'll smash them rather more soundly than planned and they'll be miserable.

Less-than-SRD magic and limited suppliments is how I try to keep this game in the realm of "fun hobby" instead of purely a "strategic competition".

So what it comes down to is that I'd rather be looking at my wife than my D&D books.

Cheers,
::Kaze


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 11, 2004)

You guys are forgetting the one spell that would potentially alter a world more than any other - augury.  A cleric with augury could potentially bog down a town into complete chaos.  Insight from the gods?!  "God, should this man marry this woman?"  "God, should I eat corn flakes for breakfast, or Lucky Charms?"  "God, does this shirt go with these pants?"  If average people have access to Augury, nothing would get done without consulting the divine creator first.  And any cleric should be more than willing to provide divine insight to his flock if they seek it.


But enough about that.  Extrapolate this out to high level, and huge cities with high level wizards.  The DMG even mentions that a large city with a high level wizard has access to _wish_.  Yes, it costs him dearly to cast, but a city of sufficient size could easily afford the payment, and imagine what that could do to the landscape of a city?  "Wizard, we need crops that never need seeding", "wizard, we need wells that never run dry", "wizard, we need to put an end to this bubonic plague".  Even if a _wish_ is only cast once per year, cities that have been around for hundreds of years would still be enjoying the fruits of some wizard's labor to the current day, and properly worded wishes could very easily alter the nature of the society forever.  People wouldn't have to farm anymore, and food would always be plentiful, and water would always be clean and pure.

Crap, imagine the effects ONE decanter of endless water could do to a town.  One is all anyone needs.

I think a lot of people liked Eberron because the world was constructed with some of these things in mind - i.e., what happens to a world that has magic in it, and what is the end result of that?

The problem is, and this is why a lot of folks stick with low-magic/rare-magic is that once you extrapolate, and I mean REALLY extrapolate the effects of magic on the world, you end up with a SCI-FI setting.  Or at least something like steampunk.  Some people don't want that.


I was thinking on the way home about high magic versus low magic.  If you play D&D exactly as written, you end up with a very epic, high magic kind of game.  At 20th level, your fighter with his +5 whatever, and the sorcerer, with more spells per day than he could ever possibly cast, along with their other sufficiently powerful friends, cut a path through the outer planes, killing outsiders and whatever else.  Don't get me wrong, this is great fun, and for those that enjoy this, awesome.  

The thing that struck me was how much D&D was geared to this.  Which struck me as odd, since LoTR was such a heavy influence on Gygax in the beginning, yet LoTR could easily be classified as low magic, or at the very least low level.  But D&D's roots weren't in fantasy literature, but rather wargaming, and strategy gaming.  This was the origin of the game.  If you ever read any of the Gygax articles in Dragon, it seems as if every game he ever ran with the original players was some quest to go find more treasure.  "Robilar wanted to explore the 6th level of the dungeon to find more treasure."  That wasn't a role-playing game, it was treasure-finding game!  Was it fun?  I'm sure it was, since it's still around today.  Has it changed, not a whole lot.  The emphasis is still very magic/treasure-centric.  A chart in the DMG lists average treasure gp value by level.  All kinds of rules exist around magic items, and leveling up, and XP, and slaying bigger and bigger monsters.  It's core to the game, and don't get me wrong, I've done it for years and years, and am doing it in my own current game.  It works.

But I think people are looking for something more simplistic.  Something grittier, and leaner.  It strikes me as somewhat a shame that the core rules do low magic so poorly.  I mean, I can play a low magic individual at low level, but I can only do that so long.  I mean, one could just throw away all rule books, make up generic characters, and sit around and role-play every weekend set in some generic fantasy world.  Let's face it - you don't need *any* rule book for that.  So, to actually play a true role-playing game doesn't actually require any books, or any dice at all.  Oh, I suppose once you start interacting with the world you need to know things like how strong, or fast you are, but that's semantics.

For me, low-magic is about getting into a more realistic frame of mind.  But, it's all about context, I suppose.  For me, that means a medieval setting in a traditional fantasy sense.  People aren't dying of the plague, and throwing filth in the streets like they did in reality, but something at least close to that.  In this world, starting off at 1st level with the starting gold listed in the PHB is just wacky.  Take a village of 200 people, and to have a 1st level fighter start off with something like 120 gold is just ridiculous.  "For my first action, I shall purchase this quaint village".  As John Stossel might say, "Give me a break!"  

/babble over


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 11, 2004)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> And I'm not that DM.
> 
> I don't want to have to out-think a bunch of people with masters degrees, MIT diplomas and pregnant wives.




Amen, brother.

In my group I have:
a PhD in psychology
a Masters in Electrical Engineering
a Masters in BioChemistry
A PhD in Paleobotany (prehistoric plants)

No, I'm not joking.

No way can I ever possibly be smarter than these folks.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 11, 2004)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> The thing that struck me was how much D&D was geared to this.  Which struck me as odd, since LoTR was such a heavy influence on Gygax in the beginning, yet LoTR could easily be classified as low magic, or at the very least low level.



Not to go off on a tangent, by Gygax has explicitly stated that he never liked _The Lord of the Rings_ (although he did like _The Hobbit_ fine), and that he only included elements from it because he wanted to sell D&D to the legions of Tolkien fans out there.

What's so odd is how adding PC races from Tolkien totally Tolkien-ized the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 11, 2004)

> Well would people agree that it takes a "better" DM to run a low-magic campaign? Or at least to run run well. It seems to me that a low-magic campaign (however you make it low-magic) requires more "finesse" on the DM's part, including a solid understanding of CR's and balance issues. You need to know the rules in order to bend them into low-magic.
> 
> My guess is that people think "bad DM's" play normal/high-magic campaigns is because most low-magic campaigns are run by more experienced ones. Also, if you are what someone would consider a "bad DM", then you are probably just as interested in powergaming as that players are. This is just my opinion of course.



I absolutely do not agree that low magic = better DM. You don't need to know the rules to bend them into low-magic, as several "heap big DM's," as one poster put it, have shown...low-magic doesn't mean more finesse; if anything, it can be used as a ham-fisted way of enforcing a particular weakness on the party. Of course, a good DM wouldn't do that in a low-magic campaing, but a good DM would also keep magic items special in a high-magic campaign, and keep a medieval feel to a high-magic campaign, for instance. 

My use of "bad DM" was more to indicate those who didn't apply the RAW to normal magic, and thus ruined the "power of magic." Having +5 items available in shops, having commoners wielding magic longswords, having magic replace technology, using magic as a crutch, eradicating every significant challenge, destroying the semi-medieval feel, allowing people to be defined by their items, etc....these are all symptomatic of particular DM's at particular moments that didn't handle the power in a way that is fun for most people (though I'm sure there's someone someplace who would like the idea of commonners all wielding magic longswords. ) Someone who plays low-magic is by not measure of the imagination nessecarily better at D&D for some reason. Low-magic has it's own traps to fall into (DM power-tripping, over-estimating player capability, the feel that you characters are useless, the loss of any mystical potential) that are no less desctructive for fun potential. They don't HAVE to understand the rules better. And it's not by any stretch nessecarily true that they do just because they play low-magic D&D.



> Running an interesting, longterm D&D campaign is a challenge no matter what type of game you run.



One of the most true statements ever spoken on a D&D messageboard. 

------------------
On the otherside, we've got the verisimilitude of normal magic being struck at now.  To which I think a CS like Eberron has many immensely superb answers....

 I don't think it's rationalization to say "these wouldn't have that big of an impact," any more than it is an over-reaction to say "CREATE WATER IS BROKEN!" 

but I'm gonna start a new thread with them.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 11, 2004)

Some things shouldn't be taken for granted:

Verisimilitude is good.  (It is? Says who?)

High-magic means more options. (More high-magic options, I guess, but not more options)

Magic that doesn't feel special is bad. (It's good. It's just not special)


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Some things shouldn't be taken for granted:
> 
> Verisimilitude is good.  (It is? Says who?)




In general, I agree, but verisimilitude is good if you have players like I do that constantly question everything about the world.  If it's not consistent, you lose credibility.


And for the record, I just love the word verisimilitude, and talking with people that know what it means!


----------



## molonel (Aug 11, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> See, I just read an anthology of the original Conan stories myself, and I think you are really missing something. One of the things I was struck by was that Conan relied on cunning as much as brawn, and more surprisingly, relied on superior (though non magic) equipment as often as he could. In the dozen or so stories I just read, Conan was saved by heavy armor and / or helmets in at least half of them, by having a weapon with longer reach in at least one, and by superior tactics in three or four. And Conan did run away from fights a few times incidentally. Yes, Conan was stronger than any opponent he faced, but unlike most RPG characters, Conan knew he couldn't face a mob of opponents all by himself unless he had some major advantage on his side (like he had heavy armor and they did not).




Actually, I understand all that. In "The Phoenix on the Sword" the assassins who are trying to kill Conan revel in the fact that he didn't have time to don his helm. I obviously appreciate the character, otherwise I wouldn't be rereading the entire series of books for the fourth time.

But the fact is, Conan was still stronger than every other living human being he ever met. There was one priest who strangled people as part of his worship, and he'd been raised strangling people his entire life, and he could snap a normal man's neck like a dry twig. After Conan snapped his neck, he thought to himself, "Wow, that guy was almost as strong as me!" And that was supposed to be considered a compliment. Toward the end of the series, Conan is still, in his sixties, faster than a rapier-wielding swashbuckler. Throughout the books, Conan is stronger than every warrior he meets, a more skilled fighter than everyone he fights, faster than any human being, tougher than any mountain stone, quieter than a ninja, and a more skilled woodsman than any native of any terrain. It's a kick ass story, and he's a kick ass character. Robert E. Howard, at the top of his game, was an extraordinary writer.

But it is somewhat misleading to say, "Well, Conan didn't have a bunch of magic items!"

Obviously. He didn't need them. Why would he need a Belt of Giant Strength? He was stronger than everyone already. Why would he need Gloves of Dexterity? He was already faster than everyone. Why he need an item to increase his Constitution? He was already tougher than everyone else.

For those who are interested, this is the best recreation of Conan I've seen for d20, although it was for 3.0 rules:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/hosted/adilbrand/conan.htm

Now, before anyone says it, I know Mongoose has translated Hyborea into a playable game. But the problem I'm talking about is using the characters themselves as models for creating the game, rather than the worlds. And I've seen people make that mistake. Worlds like Conan d20, Midnight and d20 Testament have done extensive rewrites of the d20 system to account for low-magic worlds.

Most low magic games I've seen rarely last past 4th to 6th level, because a lot of people who feel threatened or intimidated by character power rarely want to play mid- or high-level characters, anyway, and the game starts to unravel very quickly at that point if you haven't thought through the impact on the game mechanics of playing low-magic.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> So what is preventing 5 or 6 party members with complimentary skills from being able to handle what one or two super heroic characters could?




Most campaigns are played somewhere between levels 1 and 10. Those are the most commonly played levels, and that's been confirmed through a plethora of online polls. One of the problems with D&D 3.0 was that they only really playtested levels 1 through 10 well, and that's why a large part of the perceived problems that were fixed in 3.5, like the three H's: Haste, Harm and Heal, or Time Stop, or DR, carried the largest part of their impact into higher level games.

It depends on what sort of 5 or 6 party members we're talking about. Will five or six 2nd level characters be able to recreate the adventures of Conan? Sure. The early Conan. The Conan who ran from wolves, and encountered the thing in the crypt to get his first sword. But there is a translation process that needs to take place, and like any translation, often things are lost in the process.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> This is a reflection of the widespread misunderstanding of, and virtual contempt for "mundane" martial items such as weapons and armor. I've seen some historically accurate riveted link and welded link mail armor which is practically indestructable, and I guarantee you it wasn't made of mythral or by dwarves. I think it's the monty haul mentality in RPG's which has contributed to the idea that real kit is lame. It's like people who demand UFO's or Loch Ness Monster and never even realise how cool real earth critters actually are.




I studied medieval literature as a graduate student, and that involved delving into Anglo-Saxon archaeology. I also have a lifelong interest in reading about forging, and ancient weapons. This has resulted in creating custom forging rules, and special materials and effects uncreatable by magic alone in some of my games. I've played a character as a dwarven master smith all the way from 1st through 21st level in a 3-year campaign, and fiddled with mechanics and roleplaying scenarios as I sought mentors, forging techniques from different races (including salamanders) and skill-enhancing items.

As a result, I've put a lot of work into creating alternate schemes for enhancing and creating items.

Responding to what you've said, although I've seen the incredible levels of craftsmanship possible using only mundane materials in THIS world, and without the benefit of magic, I still think that having a dragon with a bite-span of several feet pick you up and try to bite through your armor would test even the best-forged chainmail links in this world. Beowulf cuts a dragon in half with a dagger, and even if you take the perspective that he was actually wielding a short sword, and delivering a coup de grace, nevertheless, the actions of many so-called low heroes in classical literature is often beyond the ken or abilities of some high-magic heroes loaded to the gills, and every magic item slot filled.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The weapons and armor used by Beowulf seemed like magic to those people, because a) the whole world was magical to them, and b) these particular weapons were so extraordinarily awesome and beautiful. For example, when Beowulf uses Unferth's sword, "the curious sword with a wavy pattern, hard of its edge" he is talking about a pattern welded sword. These are real. Have you ever seen one?




I have. Still, however, all I'm trying to say is that when people argue that "Real heroes don't have a bunch of magic items to make them powerful" I think they fail to take into account the obvious quality of the gear that heroes in literature possessed. If anyone expects me to believe that Beowful was wearing a mere masterwork quality chain shirt, I'm sorry, that's going to be a rather hard sell.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> They are incredibly beautiful and extremely potent weapons of _reality_. My point here is this idea that real kit is lame or worthless is bankrupt. Players should have a lot of options, but they don't have to shoot lazer beams or summon demons to be cool.




Nor do I think so. But then again, I've put a lot of work into develop non-magical options into the games I've played. And I think that people drastically underestimate the effects described in classical and imaginative literature when they think that all heroes walked around in standard mundane gear.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I don't agree, it's only low magic compared to the rest of whats out there. As I said before, spells like invisibility are high magic spells!




If by low magic you mean no magic or mundane, I guess I can see your point. But it seems like all you're doing is flipping around the picture and looking at it from the bottom up. If you consider invisibility a high magic spell, then you're looking at it from the perspective of a very low-magic setting.

I may have a particular perspective, and I freely admit that. But then again, so do you.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> As for spells like teleport and ressurection not affecting the attitudes of players toward the game, we'll just have to agree to disagree I fear...




I'm content to agree to disagree.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

Reading through your post, mmadsen, I find a whole lot of sniping, and a lot of question marks. I've made a significant effort to explain my position, and I feel that several of your questions are already answered or addressed in what I've said already. I'm willing to interact with you, certainly, but I feel mostly that you're simply asking me to come back onstage and do an encore.

So, to answer your questions in order: 

1. No, there is nothing wrong with reducing math or the number of magic items. I said I've run in low magic games, and I will do so again. 

2. No, there is nothing wrong with focusing on character. I've made that quite clear. I simply feel that the excuse of wanting to "focus on character" sometimes veils a desire to keep players in a position of weakness. "Low magic" often seems to very easily translate into "low power." Since high fantasy, high magic games are not antithetical to good roleplaying, and low-magic, low-fantasy games do not necessarily breed riches stories or believable characters, and since part of why I said that was in response to people who seem to believe otherwise, I think my comments were both justifiable and rather clear. 

3. No, there is nothing wrong with enjoying those works, and since I have all of them on my shelves and have made knowledgeable reference to them in this discussion, that ought to be clear. 

4. No, Conan did not merely beat mundane foes, and if you think that, I suggest you reread the series. 

5. No, he did not merely beat appropriate challenges for a single PC, and if you think that, you DEFINITELY need to reread the series.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Some things shouldn't be taken for granted: Verisimilitude is good. (It is? Says who?)




When you are discussing a work of fiction, or an imagined world, verisimilitude is the quality of being believable and consistent. In a roleplaying game verisimilitude is created and maintained by game mechanics, backstory, history, character and the expectations of both players and the DM/GM. If no one else says it's a good thing, I do, and I think it is both expected and practiced by any good DM. You don't have to know the daily weather in each city, or the average price of barley, because part of creating an interesting work of fiction is that your details are imaginative, consistent and sufficient. You know your stuff, but you don't overdue it.

That doesn't mean that an accountant makes the best DM. But it does mean that an arbitrary DM who feels no obligation to maintain the vivid and continuous dream of a well-made world can ruin a game through whim and ever-changing circumstances.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> High-magic means more options. (More high-magic options, I guess, but not more options)




High magic does mean more options. That can be either a good or a bad thing. Low magic is primarily about removing certain elements from the game. Someone may believe that it makes room for other, more necessary and interesting elements, but that's part of what we're discussing here. Options are options.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Magic that doesn't feel special is bad. (It's good. It's just not special)




I actually agree that this is an unspoken assumption. I obviously disagree that all magic needs to feel special.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 12, 2004)

And for a look at exactly what your average D&D commoner would consider special, check This Thread. It's more +1 swords and full plate, and less _charm person_.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 12, 2004)

> CREATE WATER IS BROKEN




I think I found my new sig.   Consider it stolen.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> But it is somewhat misleading to say, "Well, Conan didn't have a bunch of magic items!"



Why is that misleading?

The argument for a low-magic (or rare-magic) campaign -- at least the argument given here -- is that it resembles classic fantasy worlds, where magic seems magical, and where magic isn't so prevalent that it would naturally change society drastically from historical norms.

The fact that Conan is seriously bad-ass in no way works against that.

The problem isn't character power.  The problem isn't +5 swords either.  The problem is magic stores in every city, spellcasters who can cast dozens of spells per day, every day, etc.  The problem is scry/buff/teleport.  The problem is _grocery lists_ of magic items, and "useless" +1 items that get sold off for +2 items.  Those are the things the clash with the feel of _The Lord of the Rings_ or Conan.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Why is that misleading? The argument for a low-magic (or rare-magic) campaign -- at least the argument given here -- is that it resembles classic fantasy worlds, where magic seems magical, and where magic isn't so prevalent that it would naturally change society drastically from historical norms. The fact that Conan is seriously bad-ass in no way works against that.




It's misleading because "low magic" in the case of Conan just means that his magic items are undispellable, can't be stolen and can't be sold. I love Robert E. Howard, but Conan translated into a D&D character would be a twinked-out munchkin from hell on steroids.

Look at the representation I gave, posted here on Enworld. Conan, as a 16-year old boy, is presented with three 18s and a 17. Oh, and he's got two dump stats in Wisdom and Intelligence: as 12 and an 11. Using point buy, that's a 68-point character. A high-powered, standard magic D&D campaign is considered 32- or 36-point stat arrays for characters. Most of their wealth will be aimed over time toward - you guessed it - stat building.

Who needs magic, at that point? A fighter using the elite array of stats (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) would need 550,000 GP worth of wishes just to get the inherent stat bumps to match a character like that. Or if you broke it down into items, he'd need a +4 Belt of Giant Strength, a set of +4 Gloves of Dexterity, a +4 item of Constitution, and a +6 Cloak of Charisma, and he'd STILL be lagging behind in two stats. That's the cheaper route, and it weighs in at the low, low price of 84K. The starting gold for a 10th level character, by the book, is 49,000 GP.

That's Conan at 1st level. That's just to match his STATS, never mind his gear.

And, frankly, I think the author of the stat array probably low-balled Int and Wis so that Conan wouldn't look like a total twink - even though he is.

How many low magic campaigns have YOU run that started all of your characters with those kind of stats?



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> The problem isn't character power. The problem isn't +5 swords either. The problem is magic stores in every city, spellcasters who can cast dozens of spells per day, every day, etc. The problem is scry/buff/teleport. The problem is _grocery lists_ of magic items, and "useless" +1 items that get sold off for +2 items. Those are the things the clash with the feel of _The Lord of the Rings_ or Conan.




If the problem isn't character power, then why do all of your examples concern character capabilities? Or were you worried about the monsters in your campaigns doing a scry/buff/teleport or casting dozens of spells per day or discarding magic items that were no longer useful? 

Never mind the fact that 3rd Edition D&D is the first version of D&D where the ability to keep items, and continue building on them, is built right into the core rules through item creation feats. If you can't do it yourself, you can pay a party member who can to do it for you. Or pay an NPC. As a high-level player, I found myself building on items more than I ever did in any previous version of the game. I didn't _need_ to trade my Belt of Strength for a better one. I just improved on it.

As Elder-Basilisk already pointed out on page 5, Pippin, from the Lord of the Rings (remember him?) by the end of the adventure had a helm of the tower of the guard, mail of the tower of the guard, a blade of westernesse, a cloak of Lorien, a belt from Lorien, lasting effects of the waters of the ents (inherent stat bumps, anyone?), and a horn given to him by the king. To quote Elder-Basilisk in full, he said, "For fiction, where minor items don't merit mentioning because that would take too long and make the story read more like a character sheet or a treatise on the various components of ancient armors, that's quite a bit. On the other hand, it's not exactly unusual for a LotR character either."

Thus, we see that your claims are entirely false where LotR is concerned. To _you_ they don't feel like Lord of the Rings, but to believe that, you must close your eyes or squint really hard when you compare the two. To _you_ it doesn't feel like Conan. And that's fine, because _you_ are the person running _your_ games. I won't let the facts get in your way. Go on, and believe that.

How many spells could Gandalf cast in a day? What were the stats for his Staff of Power? Did the "players" in LotR happen to find high-magic, item-rich places like Rivendell, or the Barrow Downs, or Lothlorien to gear up before setting out for their adventure? Always. The only difference is that they didn't have to buy their items. They oops, stumbled across items that exactly matched their needs, or - how convenient - someone just gave them to the party for free. Powerful items like Frodo's impenetrable mithral shirt, or Sting, or the Light of Earendil, or useful items like his elven cloak, or his elven waybread, or his elven rope that burned evil creatures and untied itself on command. He was carrying one of the most powerful artifacts the whole of Middle Earth.

That's your idea of a low magic campaign? You don't like scrying? Man, those scrying stones possessed by Denethor, Saruman and Sauron must have really pissed you off. Don't like loads of magical gear and powerful weapons and spells? Don't ever read the _Silmarillion_. 

Conan - oops, how convenient - just happened to get a sword in "The Phoenix on the Sword" that harmed his world's equivalent of summoned outsiders. Thoth Amon had the Ring of Set. Conan just happened to get an amulet that prevented him from being slaughtered with his army by shadows. Small, dinky magic items and treasure had a habit of disappearing between Conan stories. Just like characters dumping useless items, or items they no longer need.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 12, 2004)

> The problem is magic stores in every city, spellcasters who can cast dozens of spells per day, every day, etc. The problem is scry/buff/teleport. The problem is _grocery lists_ of magic items, and "useless" +1 items that get sold off for +2 items. Those are the things the clash with the feel of _The Lord of the Rings_ or Conan.



How does my Common Commoner thread look, man? 

94% of the people in a D&D world have never seen a magic sword or a second level spell in their lives (ish).


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> It's misleading because "low magic" in the case of Conan just means that his magic items are undispellable, can't be stolen and can't be sold. I love Robert E. Howard, but Conan translated into a D&D character would be a twinked-out munchkin from hell on steroids.
> 
> Look at the representation I gave, posted here on Enworld. Conan, as a 16-year old boy, is presented with three 18s and a 17. Oh, and he's got two dump stats in Wisdom and Intelligence: as 12 and an 11. Using point buy, that's a 68-point character. A high-powered, standard magic D&D campaign is considered 32- or 36-point stat arrays for characters. Most of their wealth will be aimed over time toward - you guessed it - stat building.
> 
> ...



Well, _that_ was an eye opener. I here I thought this conversation was getting boring.


----------



## Sir Elton (Aug 12, 2004)

One can always go back to basics.  Low Magic just means that certain things are unavailable.  Magic items are either _found_ or are a _gift_.  They are precious items to the Hero since they are there to help on the quest.

 An elven cloak, an elven brooch (as a symbol of love), _anduril_, _narsil, Glamdring_, elven waybread . . . all these items were precious to the Fellowship. Conan had his magical items too.

 However, most people balk at the idea that magic items have become a commodity.  To tell the truth, magic items were treated like a commodity back in Red Box Basic D&D.  so magic items as commodities were always a part of D&D.  However, this factor of D&D is an *option*, not a requirement.

 I read stories of low fantasy worlds where magic items where non-existent (_Hart's Hope, the Robin and the Kestrel_).  Stories where magic is impossibly high but still wondrous (_Xanth_ series).  And stories that are middle ground (_A Wizard of Earthsea_).

 But I think the DMs who post in favor of low magic worlds want a world where they can typically control.  Many others say that the rules 'assume' or 'imply' certain conditions.  Everyone in Plate Mail, Wizards as far as the eye can see, lots of Monsters, etc.  Other people wondered what effect magic would have on the society (as a result, _Eberron_ or _Forgotten Realms_).  However, I think the rules don't 'assume' or 'imply' anything.  I created worlds where magical universities existed, and now I'm creating a world where Wizardry as we know it in D&D 3e is just getting started (by imitating Sorcerers, HA!).  Do I want a break from the Magical Universities?  Sure.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Well, _that_ was an eye opener. I here I thought this conversation was getting boring.



The only problem with it is that it's only one interpretation.  That list of "magical" gear posessed by Pippin (which is actually an amalgam of stuff Pippin and Merry had, for that matter) is very arguably magical rather than obviously so, for instance.  Much of it was never described at all as magical or wondrous.  The Horn of the Mark (which was Merry's, not Pippins) is never described as more than a pretty horn with a nice-sounding call, and the belt of Lorien is never described at all other than to say it has flowers and leaf motifs.  The armor and helm of the tower of the guard is mithril and probably masterwork, but never even hinted at as magical.  The swords of Westernesse are the only items the hobbits had that were arguably magical, but that effect only seemed to impact the Ringwraith's themselves, as otherwise they weren't mentioned as anything particularly special.  The cloaks of Lorien, oddly enough, could be classified as magical, even though the elves specifically denied it!  Most of the rest of his points are similarly arguable.  Obviously the folks who claim low magic doesn't resemble the fiction they read, who are a largeish subset of folks, would interpret the textual evidence differently.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> That's your idea of a low magic campaign? You don't like scrying? Man, those scrying stones possessed by Denethor, Saruman and Sauron must have really pissed you off. Don't like loads of magical gear and powerful weapons and spells? Don't ever read the _Silmarillion_.




I'm sorry, but this is pure sophistry.  

Few of the items in LOTR were overtly magical, (just because a king gives you a helmet or a mail shirt doesn't make it magic), and the truly powerful magic was very rare and available only to the most powerful characters..  

The scrying stones are classic examples.  Yes, even in a low magic campaign, the most powerful wizards in the entire world should have the ability to scry, that makes sense.  

However, on the other hand, neither Sauruman nor Ganfalf could casually summon demons or fling meteor storms around at will or throw up prismatic walls... and nobody in LOTR seemed to be able to cast ressurection or even raise dead.  The magic in there is subtle, for the most part, and the few truly powerful items like the one ring or even sting or that mythril shirt stand out for their importance as a result.

If it was a normal magic D&D game (let alone high magic) the whole group would have had mythril plate armor, they would have teleported to Mount Doom (or at least flew) and they would have slain all those armies of orcs at Helms Deep with cloudkill spells instead of bothering with strategy of any sort...

They also would have stopped at the first town they could find and bought up cases of potions of extra healing, scrolls of monster summoning, wands of fireball, rods of absorption, and +5 cloaks of protection before setting out on their journey.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 12, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> How does my Common Commoner thread look, man?
> 
> 94% of the people in a D&D world have never seen a magic sword or a second level spell in their lives (ish).




Crap.  Even buying your demographics, your whole premise is built around the idea that each village or "thorp" (love that word) is completely isolated.  Like they wouldn't have county fairs?  Religious Festivals?   Like they never go to town?  How do you think the economics of real medieval villages functioned?

As for your idea that monsters attacked twice a day, thats pretty Hanna Barbarian...

DB


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The only problem with it is that it's only one interpretation. That list of "magical" gear posessed by Pippin (which is actually an amalgam of stuff Pippin and Merry had, for that matter) is very arguably magical rather than obviously so, for instance. Most of the rest of his points are similarly arguable. Obviously the folks who claim low magic doesn't resemble the fiction they read, who are a largeish subset of folks, would interpret the textual evidence differently.



To the argument that Middle Earth was "low magic". My interperetation, it _is_ magic. It's a magic sponge. It's RSE's make FR RSE's look like resort outing volley ball tournament. As for Conan, I'd have to take both sides of the debate's word for it since I've only read one conan book in my entire book reading career. 

Tarzan might make for a good low magic type feel. Only read one of those too.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> As for your idea that monsters attacked twice a day, thats pretty Hanna Barbarian...



Hanna Barbarian...  that sounds like a good username.  Or custom title.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> To the argument that Middle Earth was "low magic". My interperetation, it _is_ magic. It's a magic sponge. It's RSE's make FR RSE's look like resort outing volley ball tournament.



I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what that was supposed to mean.  Mainly because I don't know what you mean by RSE...


			
				Mystery Man said:
			
		

> As for Conan, I'd have to take both sides of the debate's word for it since I've only read one conan book in my entire book reading career.
> 
> Tarzan might make for a good low magic type feel. Only read one of those too.



Oddly enough, I've always thought Tarzan and Conan were pretty directly compatible.  It seems odd to suggest that Tarzan be low magic and Conan high when the similarities between the two are so striking.


----------



## Sir Elton (Aug 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> To the argument that Middle Earth was "low magic". My interperetation, it _is_ magic. It's a magic sponge. It's RSE's make FR RSE's look like resort outing volley ball tournament. As for Conan, I'd have to take both sides of the debate's word for it since I've only read one conan book in my entire book reading career.
> 
> Tarzan might make for a good low magic type feel. Only read one of those too.



 Yes.  Please explain what RSE is?  I'd like to know myself.  Although I'd probably go "duh" after reading your explanation.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 12, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> Yes. Please explain what RSE is? I'd like to know myself. Although I'd probably go "duh" after reading your explanation.



Sorry. Forgotten Realms lingo. It means Realms Shaking Event, ie "The Time of Troubles".


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

But that doesn't really address the level of magic, IMO.  Just because it has a history of big "RSE"'s doesn't automatically make it high magic.

Hyboria posits a series of "RSE"'s that turn the setting of Kull into the setting of Conan and then into the historical world.  That doesn't make it high magic either.

Paleontology also posits a set of "RSE"'s that changed the course of life on earth, including the suppression of the mammalian line of evolution by the reptilian/avian dinosaur heritage, and then the sudden snuffing out of that reptilian/avian dinosaur heritage in a sudden global catastrophe and the return to power of the formerly "exiled" mammals.  That doesn't mean it's high magic either.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But that doesn't really address the level of magic, IMO. Just because it has a history of big "RSE"'s doesn't automatically make it high magic.
> 
> Hyboria posits a series of "RSE"'s that turn the setting of Kull into the setting of Conan and then into the historical world. That doesn't make it high magic either.
> 
> Paleontology also posits a set of "RSE"'s that changed the course of life on earth, including the suppression of the mammalian line of evolution by the reptilian/avian dinosaur heritage, and then the sudden snuffing out of that reptilian/avian dinosaur heritage in a sudden global catastrophe and the return to power of the formerly "exiled" mammals. That doesn't mean it's high magic either.



Well sure thats a good point, but paleontology is rooted in the real world and is explained. In Middle Earth all the RSE's happened from magic. 

The two trees. The Silmarillion. The war with Melkor you had Balor(s) running around like mini Saurons and couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a dragon. There's more too.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> 4. No, Conan did not merely beat mundane foes, and if you think that, I suggest you reread the series.
> 
> 5. No, he did not merely beat appropriate challenges for a single PC, and if you think that, you DEFINITELY need to reread the series.



I never claimed that Conan only fought mundane foes.  My point was that many of the fearsome foes he did defeat were appropriate (or even weak) challenges for a single high-level character.  

Even a 6th-level Barbarian with no magic should expect to beat an ape, a lion, or a giant snake.

King Conan's arguably a 20th-level Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter; it's perfectly understandable that he'd take out a half-dozen soldiers sent to kill him.  Even if he's "just" 10th-level, it's perfectly reasonable.

Is Conan bad-ass?  Certainly.  Is Conan more bad-ass than anyone else he encounters?  More or less.  Does he have a laundry list of magic items?  No.  Does he live in a world where magic items are for sale at a typical bazaar?  No.  Does he live in a world where sorcerers cast dozens of spells per day, every day?  Not as far as I can tell.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> The two trees. The Silmarillion. The war with Melkor you had Balor(s) running around like mini Saurons and couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a dragon. There's more too.



Which Silmarillion did you read?  There only seem to have been a handful of balrogs running around, and they didn't actually do much outside of overt military action.  As for the commonality of dragons, there's really only Glaurung until the very end.  Yeah, _one_ dragon in the whole Silmarillion, until at the very end suddenly Morgoth releases Ancalagon and a flight of winged dragons.  Which are subsequently killed by Earandil in short order.  Hardly so's you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Even a 6th-level Barbarian with no magic should expect to beat an ape, a lion, or a giant snake.




How about a dragon? Single handedly with nothing but a poniard and a single dose of poison? Two frost giants? Read "The Frost Giant's Daughter." The Enworld stats put him at 9th level about that time. Yeah, right. And that's after he'd stumbled away wounded from a major battle where, once again, everyone died but him. A giant slug with a ranged touch weapon of spitting acid that weighed in 50 feet long? Killed with a statue. An advanced man-ape, killed single-handedly in a grapple while wearing no armor at all and no weapon except a dagger? A golem that turned all normal weapons away, once again with a magical dagger? Read "The Devil in Iron."

Pretending that Conan, as written, fits into the D&D CR system and make sense according to those rules is just plain silly. Maybe if we add a special ability that he can roll and confirm a crit at will, perhaps. With any object, weapon or bladed instrument.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Is Conan bad-ass? Certainly. Is Conan more bad-ass than anyone else he encounters? More or less. Does he have a laundry list of magic items? No. Does he live in a world where magic items are for sale at a typical bazaar? No. Does he live in a world where sorcerers cast dozens of spells per day, every day? Not as far as I can tell.




I see you have a habit of nicely skipping over inconvenient parts of the discussion, like Conan's stats. That's okay. Just go ahead and keep repeating the mantra, "He didn't have a laundry list of magic items." 

Read what I wrote. With stats like he had, he didn't NEED them, and he went through a list of magic items, if you actually READ the stories, which is much longer than you pretend. If you actually do choose to read the Ace paperbacks, please skip L. Sprague de Camp's _Conan the Buccaneer_. It's really, really bad.

If a DM told me I could play a 68-point fighter/barbarian, and then said, "But there aren't going to be as many magic items in this campaign," then I'm sure we'd both look at each other, deadly serious, and nod. Then we would both bust out laughing. And I'd say, "No, seriously."


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

Double post.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Which Silmarillion did you read? There only seem to have been a handful of balrogs running around, and they didn't actually do much outside of overt military action.




Read the Book of Lost Tales vol. 2. About 2 dozen balrogs were killed in the Fall of Gondolin alone, including Gothmog.

In the Silmarillion, when Ungoliant was about to consume Morgoth, he called out many balrogs to whip her with fire to save him.


----------



## Sir Elton (Aug 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Sorry. Forgotten Realms lingo. It means Realms Shaking Event, ie "The Time of Troubles".



 >Slaps self on the head.< Like, DUH!







 Thanks, Mr. Greenwood.  I feel bad for not being your game now.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 12, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Without even picking apart any of the arguments you just made above, I'll just point out that you left off any discussion of the ZERO LEVEL CANTRIP _create water_.   I suppose that balances right out as well does it?  Is the water impotable to plants and livestock?  Because if not, it would allow high density human populations to overrrun almost every corner of the planet (or is your world a disk?)




Actually I discounted it by the virtue of volumes.  Meaning there isn't enough.  Humans require 1-2 gallons of water/day depending on work and environment.  Draft animals require about four times that.  At 10 gallons per casting (5th level caster), you'd exhaust half your spells just watering the standard 8-ox plough team.  Which doesn't leave much for people, plants, or those create food/water and heal spells.  

A cleric/druid can keep a group of people alive, but not a large group, something like 2-6 people per caster level just off the top of my head.  Great for cults and parties.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this is pure sophistry ... etc. etc. ... The scrying stones are classic examples. Yes, even in a low magic campaign, the most powerful wizards in the entire world should have the ability to scry, that makes sense.




What sophistry? He said that among the high magics he didn't like was scrying, and then compared it to LotR. I can't help it if he likes to compare D&D to books he may or may not have read, and chooses not to remember inconvenient points for the sake of argument. 

So, if I understand you correctly, you want those things to be in the hands of the NPC, and therefore the DM, but not the players. Thank you for proving my earlier point. So it's not scrying that bothers you. It's not the DM having scry that bothers you. It's players having scry that bothers you.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> However, on the other hand, neither Sauruman nor Ganfalf could casually summon demons or fling meteor storms around at will or throw up prismatic walls ... and nobody in LOTR seemed to be able to cast ressurection or even raise dead. The magic in there is subtle, for the most part, and the few truly powerful items like the one ring or even sting or that mythril shirt stand out for their importance as a result.




I'm sorry, who was using the sophistry? 

Even in standard D&D world, the number of people who can cast meteor storms (a 9th level spell requiring a 17th level caster) or throw up prismatic walls (an 8th level spell requiring a 15th level caster) is such that most people, and even most characters, will never see such things throughout the majority of their non-epic careers, much less than entire lives. You guys seem to switch back and forth between LotR and Conan, depending on the argument. 

In 3.5 rules, in a standard world, the number of people who can cast Raise Dead (a 5th level spell requiring a 9th level caster, and a 5,000 gp jewel) is not great. Resurrection? Level 7 spell, 11th level caster, and a 10,000 gp gem. Ever looked up the availability of large, perfect gems in a standard city? Even if you can CAST Raise Dead, technically, that doesn't mean you have the components to do so. For many characters between 9th to 12th level, that might very well be worthy of a quest. You can smack me, and call me, "Suzanne!" but that sounds like an interesting adventure to me. 

If you, on the other hand, prefer dead characters to stay dead, then that is simply a matter of taste. There is nothing we can argue about, because you can't argue preferences.

Well, you can, but it's pointless.



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> If it was a normal magic D&D game (let alone high magic) the whole group would have had mythril plate armor, they would have teleported to Mount Doom (or at least flew) and they would have slain all those armies of orcs at Helms Deep with cloudkill spells instead of bothering with strategy of any sort ... They also would have stopped at the first town they could find and bought up cases of potions of extra healing, scrolls of monster summoning, wands of fireball, rods of absorption, and +5 cloaks of protection before setting out on their journey.




Now we're getting into questions of game design, and fiction versus game-time. Yes, they probably would have flown to Mt. Doom, or done anything other than drag themselves through hundreds of miles of ash and blackened stone for page after page after page, being led along by a small creature mumbling to himself. And it would have been a more interesting game, as a result. Some things that work in fiction do NOT work in a game, and the whole trudging to Mt. Doom would have been a real snozer of a campaign. If someone has played in one of my games long enough to be able to use spells like Teleport and Cloudkill, I'd like to think I can reward them with a more interesting encounter than ... more orcs. Lots and lots of orcs. Helms Deep would have been a great adventure for characters around 8th to 9th level. And if you think that would be a boring encounter, then you've never run a mass combat in 3rd Edition D&D.

Read this article by Monte Cook:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html

It's about designing high level adventures.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> Read the Book of Lost Tales vol. 2. About 2 dozen balrogs were killed in the Fall of Gondolin alone, including Gothmog.
> 
> In the Silmarillion, when Ungoliant was about to consume Morgoth, he called out many balrogs to whip her with fire to save him.



The _Book of Lost Tales_ are extremely early drafts of the legends that often bear little in common with what later emerged in the various versions of the Grey Annals or the Quenta Silmarillion.  Notably, in the earlier versions the balrogs were much reduced in stature and power from their later incarnations, although there were much more of them.  In other words, your argument doesn't hold up; that was an abandoned and discarded version of the story that your referring to to prove your point.  In _The War of the Jewels_ Tolkien seems to have narrowed down the total number of balrogs to single digits.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Which Silmarillion did you read? There only seem to have been a handful of balrogs running around, and they didn't actually do much outside of overt military action. As for the commonality of dragons, there's really only Glaurung until the very end. Yeah, _one_ dragon in the whole Silmarillion, until at the very end suddenly Morgoth releases Ancalagon and a flight of winged dragons. Which are subsequently killed by Earandil in short order. Hardly so's you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one.



Not so much the Silmarillion but the first age starting with Glaurung thru third age there were many. And yes, the dead cat analogy may have been a overstatement.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> How about a dragon? Single handedly with nothing but a poniard and a single dose of poison? Two frost giants? Read "The Frost Giant's Daughter."



There's no reason to equate that dragon with a typical D&D Adult Red Dragon or those frost giants with D&D's Frost Giants though.  If we use a Megaraptor as the dragon, that's a CR 6 creature; if we use a T-Rex, that's a CR 8 creature.  Similarly, we could use Ogres or Hill Giants for the frost giants; Robert E. Howard certainly wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual. 


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> The Enworld stats put him at 9th level about that time. Yeah, right. And that's after he'd stumbled away wounded from a major battle where, once again, everyone died but him.



Then either (a) those monsters aren't the high-CR monsters you assume them to be, or (b) Conan is higher level than you (and that web site) assume him to be.

We can agree that Conan is extremely bad-ass -- and more bad-ass than every foe (or group of foes) he beats.  He is a high-power character.  We can also agree that he doesn't need a laundry list of magic items.  (He typically wields one or two bits of magic per story to defeat his supernatural foe.)

What I don't understand is why you claim that Conan's Hyboria isn't low-magic by D&D standards.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> What sophistry? He said that among the high magics he didn't like was scrying, and then compared it to LotR.



It's pretty clear that's not what I said at all.  I said that "scry/buff/teleport" isn't low magic.  If you want a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- you don't want scry/buff/teleport as standard operating procedure.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> So, if I understand you correctly, you want those things to be in the hands of the NPC, and therefore the DM, but not the players.



Who said that?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> Now we're getting into questions of game design, and fiction versus game-time. Yes, they probably would have flown to Mt. Doom, or done anything other than drag themselves through hundreds of miles of ash and blackened stone for page after page after page, being led along by a small creature mumbling to himself. And it would have been a more interesting game, as a result. Some things that work in fiction do NOT work in a game, and the whole trudging to Mt. Doom would have been a real snozer of a campaign.



You say that like it's an absolute.  While I agree that what works in fiction doesn't necessarily work in game, I'd find a game of "destroy the ring at Mt. Doom" where the players flew or teleported in, and then popped over to Minas Tirith to slaughter the orc army with a handful of well placed meteor swarm or cloudkill spells execrable in the extreme, not more interesting.  You seem to take it for granted that the D&D method of modelling fantasy works well because you _like_ the D&D method of modelling fantasy.  This appears also to lead you to make unsupported leaps of logic, like your comments earlier that anyone who doesn't see the "obvious" correllations of the _Lord of the Rings_ and D&D must obviously prefer to keep powerful abilities in the hands of NPCs only and wants to nerf his PCs -- as DrifterBob pointed out earlier, that brand of argument is pure sophistry.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> If someone has played in one of my games long enough to be able to use spells like Teleport and Cloudkill, I'd like to think I can reward them with a more interesting encounter than ... more orcs. Lots and lots of orcs. Helms Deep would have been a great adventure for characters around 8th to 9th level. And if you think that would be a boring encounter, then you've never run a mass combat in 3rd Edition D&D.



You aren't making any sense.  Is running mass combat boring or not?  I tend to think not; Helm's Deep and the battle of Pelennor Fields are among my favorite chapters in the entire series, despite the lack of "high level" magic, or out there opponents and adversaries.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Read this article by Monte Cook:
> 
> http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html
> 
> It's about designing high level adventures.



Have before.  No thanks.  Monte has great advice, but again, the disconnect here that you (and Monte) have is in assuming that people who advocate the standard D&D solution to problems are actually satisfied with the D&D solution to problems.  You apparently haven't been paying attention to anything anyone's said on this thread if you can ignore everyone's claims that they don't like the flavor of D&D magic _ergo_ they prefer lower magic, and yet you still advocate designing adventures _around_ the very magic that they dislike.  That completely defeats the purpose.

Although it does explain where you're coming from in this thread.  I'm just surprised that you're coming at it from this angle, because in order to do so you must have been ignoring most of what the low magic fans have been saying.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 12, 2004)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Actually I discounted it by the virtue of volumes.  Meaning there isn't enough.  Humans require 1-2 gallons of water/day depending on work and environment.  Draft animals require about four times that.  At 10 gallons per casting (5th level caster), you'd exhaust half your spells just watering the standard 8-ox plough team.  Which doesn't leave much for people, plants, or those create food/water and heal spells.




Do your math again.

It's a zero level cantrip.  A 5th level Cleric could cast 5.  Thats actually 50 galons per day, easy, or enough water for 25-50 people by your estimate (I don't drink 2 gallons of water per day).  

Plus, more importantly, all the 1st level clerics in town can produce 6 gallons per day each.  

Lets also not forget other spells like control water, create food and water, purify food and water, etc. etc.

Oh, and incidentally, plant growth does not increase weeds right along with crops, SRD specifically says _Enrichment: This effect targets plants within a range of one-half mile, raising their potential productivity over the course of the next year to one-third above normal._

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 12, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> There's no reason to equate that dragon with a typical D&D Adult Red Dragon or those frost giants with D&D's Frost Giants though.




Thats absolutely right.  Nothing in common other than the name, I suspect.

I read the story with the Frost Giants and they came across as basically human sized.  After all, it was their sister who conan was chasing who led him to them, and he was chasing her with the intent of ahem, having relations.  I think these things wouldn't even qualify as ogres.

DB


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 12, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Do your math again.
> 
> It's a zero level cantrip.  A 5th level Cleric could cast 5.  Thats actually 50 galons per day, easy, or enough water for 25-50 people by your estimate (I don't drink 2 gallons of water per day).
> 
> ...




Other spells which are not personally available to these two 1st level and one 3rd level clerics in the 200-person thorp. 

You don't drink 2 gallons per day? Maybe not when you have an air-conditioned house, vehicle and workplace AND when most people have jobs that don't involve lots of physical labor, no you probably won't. 

But when almost every job in the thorp involves physical labor, I'd guess the peasants would drink more water.



> Oh, and incidentally, plant growth does not increase weeds right along with crops, SRD specifically says _Enrichment: This effect targets *plants* within a range of one-half mile, raising their *potential* productivity over the course of the next year to one-third above normal._DB




Read the two words in bold. PLANTS--weeds are plants, IIRC, and all of this assumes ideal conditions.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It's pretty clear that's not what I said at all. I said that "scry/buff/teleport" isn't low magic. If you want a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- you don't want scry/buff/teleport as standard operating procedure.




And you are acting like the only solution, therefore, is to remove those elements from the game. I'm pointing out that your solution is NOT the only viable solution, and not necessary in many campaigns since it's only possible at 9th level and above with an arcane spellcaster. 

Let me be clear about something: I'm discussing this, and to me it's only a discussion. Play whatever game you want in any way you like. I do not consider low-magic games an inferior type of gaming. I never have, and I never will.

I do not, however, think that low-magic games are the best solution or the only solution to the objections raised to a standard D&D game.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Who said that?




Who was I talking to at the time? That's a pretty good clue.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You say that like it's an absolute. While I agree that what works in fiction doesn't necessarily work in game, I'd find a game of "destroy the ring at Mt. Doom" where the players flew or teleported in, and then popped over to Minas Tirith to slaughter the orc army with a handful of well placed meteor swarm or cloudkill spells execrable in the extreme, not more interesting. You seem to take it for granted that the D&D method of modelling fantasy works well because you _like_ the D&D method of modelling fantasy. This appears also to lead you to make unsupported leaps of logic, like your comments earlier that anyone who doesn't see the "obvious" correllations of the _Lord of the Rings_ and D&D must obviously prefer to keep powerful abilities in the hands of NPCs only and wants to nerf his PCs -- as DrifterBob pointed out earlier, that brand of argument is pure sophistry.




So, naturally, the only viable, enjoyable, imaginative solution is to just NOT deal with the problem. I've played a high-magic, high-fantasy game where our group destroyed just such an artifact. Not only was the creative and intelligent use of high magic helpful, it was REQUIRED. You want to have your characters quake in their boots at the approach of 10,000 orcs? Cool. I'm not going to stop you. But don't pretend that's more imaginative or interesting than staggered armies with war trolls, battlemages, dragons and clerics. I can create interesting and appropriate challenges for characters no matter what their level. Sticking with orcs - lots and lots of orcs - and making characters FEAR orcs (lots and lots of orcs) is not a method of DMing that I find extremely imaginative. Even Tolkien had to up the ante at the Black Gate. 



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You aren't making any sense. Is running mass combat boring or not? I tend to think not; Helm's Deep and the battle of Pelennor Fields are among my favorite chapters in the entire series, despite the lack of "high level" magic, or out there opponents and adversaries.




Of course I'm making sense. Mass combat can be extremely interesting. But it doesn't have to be mundane in order to be challenging. At high levels in a standard D&D game, the battle is decided by higher-level characters in cinematic fights. Large armies are often routed after the death of their leaders, just like - gasp! - classical fantasy stories like the Iliad. What happens after the powerful champions or rulers are defeated? Typically, the army around them flees. Why? Because otherwise, they are going to get their arses kicked. The lack of high magic at Helm's Deep may make it interesting to you. Personally, I preferred the presence of characters I knew, enjoyed and cared about. I liked Helm's Deep. Did I enjoy it more than the Chaos War in the sixth book of the Elric saga? Not really. Was it fun because it was low magic? I think that's stretching things more than a smidgen.

Some things truly are a matter of taste. But low magic doesn't necessarily make a better story, or a better game. A good DM with a good group of players makes a good game. Once you've got that, high magic or low magic doesn't matter.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Have before. No thanks. Monte has great advice, but again, the disconnect here that you (and Monte) have is in assuming that people who advocate the standard D&D solution to problems are actually satisfied with the D&D solution to problems. You apparently haven't been paying attention to anything anyone's said on this thread if you can ignore everyone's claims that they don't like the flavor of D&D magic _ergo_ they prefer lower magic, and yet you still advocate designing adventures _around_ the very magic that they dislike. That completely defeats the purpose.




Wow. How many times can I say, "Play whatever you like!" I don't assume anything. But I do know that the solution you advocate is not the only solution to the perceived problem. I'm interacting with what people say, and doing so in a much more thorough fashion than you are. If you want to insist that I'm not paying attention, fine. I see that as lazy argumentation, though. That's like me calling you a big poopie head. It's not really that funny, it's not really accurate, and it's beside the point.

If people want to say, "I prefer low-magic campaigns. That's what I like!" then there is nothing anyone can say to that. Nobody should say anything. But when people start saying things like, "Tolkien was low-magic!" or "Conan was low magic!" that creates some problems, because those statements require some unexamined assumptions, and aren't entirely accurate.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The _Book of Lost Tales_ are extremely early drafts of the legends that often bear little in common with what later emerged in the various versions of the Grey Annals or the Quenta Silmarillion. Notably, in the earlier versions the balrogs were much reduced in stature and power from their later incarnations, although there were much more of them. In other words, your argument doesn't hold up; that was an abandoned and discarded version of the story that your referring to to prove your point. In _The War of the Jewels_ Tolkien seems to have narrowed down the total number of balrogs to single digits.




The Fall of Gondolin is described in the _Silmarillion_ as one of the last great sieges of Middle Earth, and the last great elven city to fall. Morgoth, among whose minions Sauron was only counted a lieutenant, and who according to the _Silmarillion_ had many of the Maiar among his followers, used all of his collective might to crush it. Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, fell during that battle. If you want to think that Morgoth defeated the greatest of the Elven cities by flinging thousands upon thousands of orcs at it, fine. I'll take Tolkien's version over yours. But we can see, yet again, how the sources are culled to meet the needs of the argument. Just remember that Sting, the mighty blade carried by Frodo throughout the Lord of the Rings, was a mere dagger from Gondolin. 

There is no place in any source by Tolkien which I am aware of where the numbers of the balrogs are listed in the single digits. And you have not provided one. You simply say that somewhere somehow that "seemed" to be your impression. Yet I can point to a story by Tolkien which directly, deliberately and unquestionably says otherwise. Also, since even the _Silmarillion_ is a posthumously published collection, arguing that one is a definitive version of events - and naturally, the one you prefer must be definitive - is rather silly, especially since you can't point to any specific examples that contradict what I've provided.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> There's no reason to equate that dragon with a typical D&D Adult Red Dragon or those frost giants with D&D's Frost Giants though. If we use a Megaraptor as the dragon, that's a CR 6 creature; if we use a T-Rex, that's a CR 8 creature. Similarly, we could use Ogres or Hill Giants for the frost giants; Robert E. Howard certainly wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual ... Then either (a) those monsters aren't the high-CR monsters you assume them to be, or (b) Conan is higher level than you (and that web site) assume him to be.




I never said they were completely synonymous, remember? I've read the stories. The dragon he killed with the dagger bound between 3 poles and a poison apple never breathed fire. It wasn't even red. I understand that Robert E. Howard wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual. I'm not the one that is arguing Conan fought challenges appropriate to his CR. On the one hand, you don't want me to say that Robert E. Howard used the monster manual, but on the other hand, you want to use Conan as an example of a single player facing appropriate CR monsters. Make up your mind. Either Howard was operating within D&D parameters, or he wasn't. Personally, I don't think he was. You seem to think otherwise.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> We can agree that Conan is extremely bad-ass -- and more bad-ass than every foe (or group of foes) he beats. He is a high-power character. We can also agree that he doesn't need a laundry list of magic items. (He typically wields one or two bits of magic per story to defeat his supernatural foe.) What I don't understand is why you claim that Conan's Hyboria isn't low-magic by D&D standards.




I'm claiming that it's not low-magic by the standards of people who appear to be using Robert E. Howard as their example. I'm also claiming that using Conan as an example of low-magic is rather silly, since by any standards of magic or fantasy, Conan was a twink powergamer. If you consider Conan low-magic, then you must consider the Vow of Poverty in The Book of Exalted Deeds low-magic.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 12, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Other spells which are not personally available to these two 1st level and one 3rd level clerics in the 200-person thorp.




You were the one who brought up a 5th level caster.  But frankly, with your premise you are relying on this laughably absurd concept that each "thorp" is completely isolated.  



> You don't drink 2 gallons per day? Maybe not when you have an air-



You don't know a thing about me, so such speculation is rather pathetic.  Actually, I live in New Orleans and I ride my bike to work.  I drink maybe a gallon of water on saturday when I do fencing practice out doors for several hours, but most days I don't even drink nearly that much.



> Read the two words in bold. PLANTS--weeds are plants, IIRC, and all of this assumes ideal conditions.




I guess either I should have posted the entire description of the spell, or maybe you should have looked it up before posting.

_Plant Growth
Transmutation

Level: Drd 3, Plant 3, Rgr 3

Components: V, S, DF

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Range: See text

Target or Area: See text

Duration: Instantaneous

Saving Throw: None

Spell Resistance: No

Plant growth has different effects depending on the version chosen.

Overgrowth: This effect causes normal vegetation (grasses, briars, bushes, creepers, thistles, trees, vines) within long range (400 feet + 40 feet per caster level) to become thick and overgrown. The plants entwine to form a thicket or jungle that creatures must hack or force a way through. Speed drops to 5 feet, or 10 feet for Large or larger creatures. The area must have brush and trees in it for this spell to take effect.

At your option, the area can be a 100-foot-radius circle, a 150-foot-radius semicircle, or a 200-foot-radius quarter circle.

You may designate places within the area that are not affected.

Enrichment: This effect targets plants within a range of one-half mile, raising their potential productivity over the course of the next year to one-third above normal.

Plant growth counters diminish plants.

This spell has no effect on plant creatures._

You will notice that with the two versions listed it specifically differentiates between growing briars and thistles on the one hand and crops on the other.  And seeing as one casting can effect this much area for a whole year, a 5th level druid travelling around a district could easily effect every farm for miles around in a given growing season.

DB


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 12, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> You were the one who brought up a 5th level caster.  But frankly, with your premise you are relying on this laughably absurd concept that each "thorp" is completely isolated.




I never assumed that. Yes, those higher level spells would do better. Yes, clerics COULD CERTAINLY run around casting create food and drink a dozen times in each thorp. 



> You don't know a thing about me, so such speculation is rather pathetic.  Actually, I live in New Orleans and I ride my bike to work.  I drink maybe a gallon of water on saturday when I do fencing practice out doors for several hours, but most days I don't even drink nearly that much.




No, I don't. But MOST PEOPLE don't do physical labor as their profession. 
Many people exercise, but this is far from working ten or more hours every day. 
Furthermore, I don't think anyone in America is a valid comparison to a D&D commoner because no one (or extremely few people) works as long or as hard as they did. How much someone who DOESN'T work in those conditions drinks is not an accurate data source. 



> I guess either I should have posted the entire description of the spell, or maybe you should have looked it up before posting.
> 
> _Plant Growth
> 
> ...




Notice that the spell has two options--one, an orgy of fast growth creating a thicket out of all plants affected by the spell and the second, which slowly enriches the growth of ALL THE PLANTS in the area of the spell. It says plants. Not crops.

The "normal vegetation" clause is there, IMO, to show that it doesn't include shriekers or mold or some other "abnormal" vegetation types that would be a plant but not a plant creature.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 12, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It's pretty clear that's not what I said at all. I said that "scry/buff/teleport" isn't low magic. If you want a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- you don't want scry/buff/teleport as standard operating procedure.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> And you are acting like the only solution, therefore, is to remove those elements from the game. I'm pointing out that your solution is NOT the only viable solution, and not necessary in many campaigns since it's only possible at 9th level and above with an arcane spellcaster.



What solution (or solutions) _are_ you recommending for a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- where scry/buff/teleport is not standard operating procedure?

Obviously you can play a lower-level game, but then it's hard to have great warriors like Conan or Legolas.  Or you can restrict the level of spellcasters.  Or you can restrict the spells available to spellcasters (e.g., remove teleport, or boost its level).  Or you can apply a cost to spellcasting (e.g., it causes madness, it alerts your enemies to your presence, it can backfire).


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I do not, however, think that low-magic games are the best solution or the only solution to the objections raised to a standard D&D game.



I think Joshua Dyal is right: 







			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You apparently haven't been paying attention to anything anyone's said on this thread if you can ignore everyone's claims that they don't like the flavor of D&D magic ergo they prefer lower magic, and yet you still advocate designing adventures around the very magic that they dislike. That completely defeats the purpose.



The low-magic argument is that we don't like the flavor of D&D magic.  How do you address that without changing the flavor of D&D magic?


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> If people want to say, "I prefer low-magic campaigns. That's what I like!" then there is nothing anyone can say to that.



Hmm...


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> But when people start saying things like, "Tolkien was low-magic!" or "Conan was low magic!" that creates some problems, because those statements require some unexamined assumptions, and aren't entirely accurate.



As far as I can tell, your argument against "Conan is low magic!" is "Conan is super-powerful!" -- and I don't see how that's an argument _at all_.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Aug 12, 2004)

*LOTR and Conan are low magic*

Before I respond here, I want to point out, like molonel, I really don't care how people play.  I think at some level it is a matter of taste.  

I do however think D&D as written tends toward higher magic than a lot of people can handle while retaining any degree of verisimilitude, or want to play in as a matter of taste, and I also think that D&D as is is MUCH higher magic than the source fiction.

I disagree with Molonels arguments here regarding the latter issue, but that doesn't mean I feel that he can't play high or low magic games if he wants to.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> What sophistry? He said that among the high magics he didn't like was scrying, and then compared it to LotR. I can't help it if he likes to compare D&D to books he may or may not have read, and chooses not to remember inconvenient points for the sake of argument.




My point is that scrying is ok, as long as it is put at the level it should be.  It is currently too common and too available.  In LOTR, by contrast, it's quite rare.



> So, if I understand you correctly, you want those things to be in the hands of the NPC, and therefore the DM, but not the players.




No, you don't understand me correctly.  The issue isn't whether NPC's or players have powers per se, it's at what level the power is available.  I'm sure you don't think 1st level players should be able to cast meteor swarms.  That does not mean that you think only NPC's should be able to do it or only the DM should be able to do it.  A low magic campaign merely states that powerful magic options should be rarer and should appear further up the power pyramid.



> You guys seem to switch back and forth between LotR and Conan, depending on the argument.




I'm responding to YOUR post.  I already addressed Conan.  I'm sorry if i don't have time to respond to every single claim you made, you are rather a prolific writer!



> Even in standard D&D world, the number of people who can cast meteor storms (snip) In 3.5 rules, in a standard world, the number of people who can cast Raise Dead (snip) Resurrection? Level 7 spell, 11th level caster, and a




Yes, but you fail to recognize this basic fact: Sauron, Saruman, and Gandalf are the three most powerful spellcasters _in the world_ (in fact they are spritis and super-human).  Any spellcaster in the top fifty of Greyhawk let alone Forgotten Realms could cast those spells, could in fact probably take over Middle Earth....

therefore OBVIOUSLY, LOTR is obviously a much lower magic setting.

And by the way, whether it's one balrog or 100 in the entire history of middle earth, whether its 10 dragons or 1000, thats still way, way, way less than any official D&D campaign setting I know of.

And another point, Elric and Vances Dying Earth which are higher magic than Conan or Lankhamr or LOTR, are also lower magic than D&D.



> If you, on the other hand, prefer dead characters to stay dead, then that is simply a matter of taste. There is nothing we can argue about, because you can't argue preferences.




Granted. 



> Read this article by Monte Cook:




It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not a huge fan of Monte Cook's D&D material, at least not for actually playing, though I enjoy reading it sometimesf.

DB


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> How about a dragon? Single handedly with nothing but a poniard and a single dose of poison? Two frost giants? Read "The Frost Giant's Daughter."





			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> There's no reason to equate that dragon with a typical D&D Adult Red Dragon or those frost giants with D&D's Frost Giants though. If we use a Megaraptor as the dragon, that's a CR 6 creature; if we use a T-Rex, that's a CR 8 creature. Similarly, we could use Ogres or Hill Giants for the frost giants; Robert E. Howard certainly wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> The Enworld stats put him at 9th level about that time. Yeah, right. And that's after he'd stumbled away wounded from a major battle where, once again, everyone died but him.





			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Then either (a) those monsters aren't the high-CR monsters you assume them to be, or (b) Conan is higher level than you (and that web site) assume him to be.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I never said they were completely synonymous, remember? I've read the stories. The dragon he killed with the dagger bound between 3 poles and a poison apple never breathed fire. It wasn't even red. I understand that Robert E. Howard wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual. I'm not the one that is arguing Conan fought challenges appropriate to his CR. On the one hand, you don't want me to say that Robert E. Howard used the monster manual, but on the other hand, you want to use Conan as an example of a single player facing appropriate CR monsters. Make up your mind. Either Howard was operating within D&D parameters, or he wasn't. Personally, I don't think he was. You seem to think otherwise.



You scoff at the notion that any reasonable character could single-handedly defeat Conan's foes, and I point out that many of them are low-CR critters that a mid-level Barbarian could easily defeat.

When you point out that Conan doesn't fight just "mundane" foes, you use a dragon and two frost giants as your example.  I point out that those probably weren't a dragon as defined by D&D and frost giants as defined by D&D; they were probably equivalent to lower-CR opponents.

Further, they don't _need_ to be low-CR for my argument to work; they just need to be lower than Conan.  _Your_ argument is that there's _no way_ a reasonable PC could defeat the foes Conan defeats.  My argument is that a high-level Barbarian (with little magic) could easily defeat many of the foes Conan defeats.


			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> We can agree that Conan is extremely bad-ass -- and more bad-ass than every foe (or group of foes) he beats. He is a high-power character. We can also agree that he doesn't need a laundry list of magic items. (He typically wields one or two bits of magic per story to defeat his supernatural foe.)
> 
> What I don't understand is why you claim that Conan's Hyboria isn't low-magic by D&D standards.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I'm claiming that it's not low-magic by the standards of people who appear to be using Robert E. Howard as their example.



So, for the people who define low-magic as "like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories," Robert E. Howard's Conan stories aren't a good example?  Huh?


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I'm also claiming that using Conan as an example of low-magic is rather silly, since by any standards of magic or fantasy, Conan was a twink powergamer.



What does "a twink powergamer" have to do with low- or high-magic?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> So, naturally, the only viable, enjoyable, imaginative solution is to just NOT deal with the problem. I've played a high-magic, high-fantasy game where our group destroyed just such an artifact. Not only was the creative and intelligent use of high magic helpful, it was REQUIRED. You want to have your characters quake in their boots at the approach of 10,000 orcs? Cool. I'm not going to stop you. But don't pretend that's more imaginative or interesting than staggered armies with war trolls, battlemages, dragons and clerics. I can create interesting and appropriate challenges for characters no matter what their level. Sticking with orcs - lots and lots of orcs - and making characters FEAR orcs (lots and lots of orcs) is not a method of DMing that I find extremely imaginative. Even Tolkien had to up the ante at the Black Gate.



I never said that was the only viable, enjoyable, imaginative solution.  Rather, I said your position that having half a dozen PC characters deal with the whole army being "more interesting" was hardly absolute.  You seem determined to polarize; if you make an absurd claim and I disagree, then you automatically assume that my position must be equally absurd on the other end of the scale. 

That's not a discussion, that's arguing.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Of course I'm making sense. Mass combat can be extremely interesting.



You weren't making sense because it was unclear from your post if you thought mass combat was boring or interesting.  I'm not disagreeing with you either way, I'm merely pointing out that I didn't understand which you were trying to say.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Some things truly are a matter of taste. But low magic doesn't necessarily make a better story, or a better game. A good DM with a good group of players makes a good game. Once you've got that, high magic or low magic doesn't matter.



You're arguing that like someone said the opposite.  As I recall looking back through the thread, you hinted that a lot of low magic fans say that, but none actually have, on this thread at least.  In other words, you're arguing against a position that nobody is defending.  Go knock yerself out.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Wow. How many times can I say, "Play whatever you like!" I don't assume anything. But I do know that the solution you advocate is not the only solution to the perceived problem. I'm interacting with what people say, and doing so in a much more thorough fashion than you are. If you want to insist that I'm not paying attention, fine. I see that as lazy argumentation, though. That's like me calling you a big poopie head. It's not really that funny, it's not really accurate, and it's beside the point.



If you ignore the points that are made and then argue against other ones, then yeah, you aren't paying attention.  Your response to the fact that a lot of folks saying they don't like the taste of D&D magic is to try and convince us that yes, you can indeed map D&D magic to Robert E. Howard and J.R.R. Tolkien.  Fine.  However, that sidesteps the heart of the whole matter; if we don't like the taste of D&D magic, not only do we not care, but we still aren't any more likely to use it.

I don't know why you want to refuse to see that you're not arguing against the same things we're saying, and when I point that out you try to claim that I'm effectively just calling you names.  That hardly makes your position any stronger to continue to ignore what I'm saying to attack something that I didn't.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> If people want to say, "I prefer low-magic campaigns. That's what I like!" then there is nothing anyone can say to that. Nobody should say anything. But when people start saying things like, "Tolkien was low-magic!" or "Conan was low magic!" that creates some problems, because those statements require some unexamined assumptions, and aren't entirely accurate.



Actually, your counter arguments have been much more thoroughly picked apart, I'd say.  But it's still a tangential argument.  If _to me_ Tolkien feels like low magic, then no amount of D&D style mapping to Tolkien is going to convince me that D&D default magic feels like Tolkien.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

Wow.  I point out that using the _Book of Lost Tales_ as an authoritative guide is flawed, as they were abandoned very early drafts, and you respond by _supporting_ my argument with more detail, namely that only one balrog is now attested to have been involved in the fall of Gondolin in _The Silmarillion_ (which is also a flawed document, as it contains a hack-job editing by Christopher, who pulled info from dubious sources, leading him to regret what he did and publishing unedited his father's actual writings later in life, but that's another topic) and yet, despite offering evidence that supports my claim about what Tolkien actually said, you still have the nerve to write:


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I'll take Tolkien's version over yours.



You're really something else.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> There is no place in any source by Tolkien which I am aware of where the numbers of the balrogs are listed in the single digits. And you have not provided one. You simply say that somewhere somehow that "seemed" to be your impression. Yet I can point to a story by Tolkien which directly, deliberately and unquestionably says otherwise. Also, since even the _Silmarillion_ is a posthumously published collection, arguing that one is a definitive version of events - and naturally, the one you prefer must be definitive - is rather silly, especially since you can't point to any specific examples that contradict what I've provided.



Oh, one exists.  I've checked it out from the library and read it more than once.  It's also been bandied about on Michael Martinez's mailing list, with the actual quote in question typed word for word in the text of an email.

I don't have the text in front of me, so you can choose to not believe it if you wish, but I've been gradually coming to the conclusion that it doesn't actually matter as you're unlikely to listen anyway.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> What solution (or solutions) _are_ you recommending for a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- where scry/buff/teleport is not standard operating procedure?




Okay, first of all, I can't create a FEEL that is going to satisfy you, because nobody can quantify a feeling. People complain that D&D 3.0/3.5 doesn't FEEL like 1st Edition D&D. Or it doesn't FEEL like the Conan novels they read years ago. I'm not even going to try to recreate that because I don't know you, I don't know exactly what you're looking for, and I'm not the best judge of what you need for your game. You're the best judge of that.

As far as dealing with the _mechanics_ of scry/buff/teleport, that requires some thought:

Scrying was a real problem in 3.0 because the mechanics behind scrying were poorly written, and easy to break. The problem with making something like scry into a skill, which is what 3.0 rules did, is that (1) the DCs were incredibly easy, (2) skill-enhancing items, using the item creation guidelines, were incredibly cheap, and (3) there was no saving throw or SR check with the spell.

For a review of the scrying skill in 3.0, you can read here:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdskillsii.rtf

And here:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspellss.rtf

Note that there is no saving throw, and no spell resistance.

Andy Collins, in an article that used to be published on his web site (and here is shown in a cached Google article) suggested doubling the DCs:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...es/scrying.htm+andy+collins+and+scrying&hl=en

Scrying, like Harm and Haste and Heal, was broken in 3.0. Nobody denies that.

Compare that to scrying in 3.5 rules:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsS.rtf

The spell provides a saving throw. SR does apply. If you've only heard of the subject of the scry, they get a +10 saving throw on the spell. Within the core rules, spells like Detect Scrying and Screen provide protection in certain areas. Powerful foes, in my campaign, may have access to such magic, and I tell that to players ahead of time.

Read the spell Teleport:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsT-Z.rtf

You have to scry the same area for at least an hour in order to teleport there. You cannot scry an area. You must scry a person. Unless you are intimately familiar with that person or monster, the odds are very good that they will succed at their saving throw. A 10th level caster will need to cast scry six times, and the person on the receiving end must fail six successive saving throws, and be in the same area for all that time, in order for the scry/buff/teleport to work.

That's just a start, too. Enemies and NPCs have access to all the same magics that PCs have. Especially in games where political intrigue is the order of the day, wizards who can cast Detect Scrying are in high demand, and well paid. 

So, to summarize, the scry/buff/teleport option is not the sure thing easy option it was under 3.0 rules, and in a high magic world I assume that powerful foes and NPCs have access to the same magics and countermeasures that players can use. Successfully scrying someone to port on top of them is a dangerous gambit, as the players in my present campaign are about to find out. An adventuring strike team who makes a habit of it will acquire a reputation similar to that which terrorists in our own world have among powerful foes. I'd give players some healty warnings that their actions will have reprecussions, and if it became a real problem in my game, the players would eventually experience a taste of their own medicine.

And that's just what's possible with the Core rules.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Obviously you can play a lower-level game, but then it's hard to have great warriors like Conan or Legolas. Or you can restrict the level of spellcasters. Or you can restrict the spells available to spellcasters (e.g., remove teleport, or boost its level). Or you can apply a cost to spellcasting (e.g., it causes madness, it alerts your enemies to your presence, it can backfire).




As I've tried to point out, creating a great warrior like Conan is difficult to do even if you remove magic items from the picture. Remove magic items, and then give your players four 18s and a couple of dump stats (but no stats low enough for penalties) and they can create a reasonable fascimile of Conan.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> Hmm...As far as I can tell, your argument against "Conan is low magic!" is "Conan is super-powerful!" -- and I don't see how that's an argument _at all_.




Magic items are simply one form of power. If you look at a LOT of mid- and high-level characters in a standard D&D game, a large portion of their wealth is usually invested in stat-boosting, whether through enhancement bonuses from items or spells ,or inherent bonuses through wishes and tomes. Those are more necessary when you don't have a character who, like most depictions of Conan I've read which are accurate to how he is portrayed in the book, has stats which are less like that of a demigod or archetypal human. Seriously. The guy is typically depicted as a 68-point character build, and I think that's low-balling it. His magic-items are already pre-built into his character. Power is power is power, whether it comes from magic items or DM fiat (or in this case, writer fiat).


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal, I'm doing my best to respond to at least three people right now. Each of you is only responding to me, at this point. I ask your patience and indulgence if all of your similar, perhaps slightly different and personally shaded arguments tend to blend together into one steaming morass in my text editor right now. I'm keeping them in separate windows in Editpad, and flipping back and forth between them as I work. So I'm going to ignore all your paragraphs that begin with "you" because I'm not here to argue about me. If you'd like to continue arguing about me, rather than the game, that's your affair. If that's not what you're doing, or don't intend to do, then please do what Drifter Bob and mmadsen are doing, and stick to the game. They are being a bit more professional and polite about this, and if you follow their example, I'd feel more inclined to listen to you. I think you're taking this a bit too personally.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> You scoff at the notion that any reasonable character could single-handedly defeat Conan's foes, and I point out that many of them are low-CR critters that a mid-level Barbarian could easily defeat ... When you point out that Conan doesn't fight just "mundane" foes, you use a dragon and two frost giants as your example. I point out that those probably weren't a dragon as defined by D&D and frost giants as defined by D&D; they were probably equivalent to lower-CR opponents ... Further, they don't _need_ to be low-CR for my argument to work; they just need to be lower than Conan. _Your_ argument is that there's _no way_ a reasonable PC could defeat the foes Conan defeats. My argument is that a high-level Barbarian (with little magic) could easily defeat many of the foes Conan defeats.




Then I respectfully disagree, and I will probably never convince you otherwise. I think the primary vehicle of Conan's survival in the Robert E. Howard stories is the creative license of the author, not properly balanced CR encounters. I'm content to leave it at that.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> So, for the people who define low-magic as "like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories," Robert E. Howard's Conan stories aren't a good example? Huh?




Okay. Stop for a minute, and read this sentence: I do not think that Robert E. Howard's Conan stories provide the necessary evidence for low-magic games because there is, in my opinion, a larger amount of magical wealth in those stories than most people seem to give them credit for. There are more items, more incantations, more spells and a higher level of magic than most people even seem to remember. That is part of the problem with talking about the "feel" of the Conan stories, because oftentimes I think that "feeling" is based more on nostalgia and a creative reworking of the original material in the memories of those who don't quite remember it correctly than in a close and accurate reading of the texts.

This is probably another point where we will have to be content to agree to disagree.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> What does "a twink powergamer" have to do with low- or high-magic?




The discussion about magic is ultimately, at least in part, a discussion about power and abilities. Conan is not a good example of a person without magic items because, played as a character, he is vastly overpowered from the get-go. I could make a MUCH more balanced, fair and appropriate character in a standard fantasy setting in D&D using point-buy rules, and standard treasure appropriate to level. As a DM, I'd be less concerned about designing a game around high-magic characters created using tested standards of fairness than I would simply stripping away those items, and replacing them with the stats of a paragon of humanity, which ultimately only replaces one form of power with another.


----------



## Sir Elton (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> Magic items are simply one form of power. If you look at a LOT of mid- and high-level characters in a standard D&D game, a large portion of their wealth is usually invested in stat-boosting, whether through enhancement bonuses from items or spells ,or inherent bonuses through wishes and tomes. Those are more necessary when you don't have a character who, like most depictions of Conan I've read which are accurate to how he is portrayed in the book, has stats which are less like that of a demigod or archetypal human. Seriously. The guy is typically depicted as a 68-point character build, and I think that's low-balling it. His magic-items are already pre-built into his character. Power is power is power, whether it comes from magic items or DM fiat (or in this case, writer fiat).



 Hi!  Can I speak up?  I agree with molonel in this instance.  I can write fantasy stories about people with amazing abilities, either by magic or by item, or by environment (Wuxia, breaks the laws of physics).

 There are hundreds of low magic options available to DMs and they can have a satisfying game.  The Archtypical low magic environment is the Wuxia/Hong Kong Action Film.  I mean seriously, take a look at the Feng Shui sorcerer and compare it to the D&D sorcerer.  Yet, they entertain you by having wild high flying stunts.  People walking on walls, leaping from roof top to roof top, making high flying whirlwind attacks and then proceed to do a great cleave.  And that is some of the stunts in _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_ (CTHD).

 Conan seems low magic because scholars wield magic that is remeniscent of _Call of Cthulhu_.  However, the guy is buffed by his magic items.  It's like he's Superman, only he doesn't come from Krypton.  Well, there's _Beastmaster_.  Dar is also over the top. The stunts on _Beastmaster_ (the T.V. show) probably places Dar somewhere in the range of Barbarian 3/Monk 6/Druid 6 (without Wildshape). 

 Yet, there isn't any high frequency of sorcery going on in that show; well, yes.  But it's subtle.  I guess low magic for those who support it want something to be subtle.  Magic should be wondrous and subtle, they say. None of the powerful evocations like _magic missile_ or _fireball_.

 One way of limiting magic in your games is keeping track of spell components.  Compile the material components and make your wizards keep track of them.  some of them will be easy to buy (Sulpher, glass rod and steel wool, etc.); others not so easy (gems worth 10,000 gp. for instance).


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 12, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> Joshua Dyal, I'm doing my best to respond to at least three people right now. Each of you is only responding to me, at this point. I ask your patience and indulgence if all of your similar, perhaps slightly different and personally shaded arguments tend to blend together into one steaming morass in my text editor right now. I'm keeping them in separate windows in Editpad, and flipping back and forth between them as I work. So I'm going to ignore all your paragraphs that begin with "you" because I'm not here to argue about me. If you'd like to continue arguing about me, rather than the game, that's your affair. If that's not what you're doing, or don't intend to do, then please do what Drifter Bob and mmadsen are doing, and stick to the game. They are being a bit more professional and polite about this, and if you follow their example, I'd feel more inclined to listen to you. I think you're taking this a bit too personally.



Actually, I'm not.  You're simply bypassing what I've been saying and arguing something that I'm (and neither is anyone else, really) not.  I don't know why that means you're more inclined to continue to not listen, or to wrongfully assume that I'm taking this discussion personally, or to try and pass off the failure to communicate as my "unprofessionalism."

I can speak from long experience of dealing with my children; it's frustrating to say something that is completely disregarded and ignored, and then arguments are made that are completely beside the point.  And, just to give you fair warning, if you're going to try and pass off anything Tolkien wrote as high magic and expect to convince me, you're wasting your time.  I haven't written a dissertation on Tolkien's work, or anything like that, but I still consider myself a fairly well-versed Tolkien scholar.  You can't come up with a laundry list of items that's a conglomeration of Merry and Pippin, and then assume that they are all magical when nothing Tolkien wrote even hints at that.  When I refuted this, Mystery Man asks, "what about all the balrogs and dragons?" and when I point out that according to the texts there wern't "all the balrogs and dragons" there were at best a handful of each _ever_.  You decided to get involved again by quoting dubious sources and serving it up with a healthy side of "you don't know what the hell you're talking about."

So, if I appear snappish, I certainly think it's not unreasonable given the way you've treated me in general and ignored my arguments that don't favor your position in particular.  But I'm _not_ taking it personally, and I honestly would like to have a decent discussion about this, as it's a topic of great interest to me that's near and dear to my heart.  But I can't have a discussion where I'm talking to the wall.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 12, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> Hi!  Can I speak up?
> 
> One way of limiting magic in your games is keeping track of spell components.  Compile the material components and make your wizards keep track of them.  some of them will be easy to buy (Sulpher, glass rod and steel wool, etc.); others not so easy (gems worth 10,000 gp. for instance).




Hi!  Can I speak up? This is something I don't understand. People complain about resurrection and raise dead and such and fail to notice that the material component is an amount of _diamonds_. If I remember correctly, diamonds were expensive and thus hard to find. Seems like a pretty limiting factor on bringing people back from the dead, just on an economic basis alone, irregardless of the spiritual problems.


----------



## Sir Elton (Aug 12, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Hi! Can I speak up? This is something I don't understand. People complain about resurrection and raise dead and such and fail to notice that the material component is an amount of _diamonds_. If I remember correctly, diamonds were expensive and thus hard to find. Seems like a pretty limiting factor on bringing people back from the dead, just on an economic basis alone, irregardless of the spiritual problems.



 Exactly.  However, I know some DMs don't really use material components.  So the Eschew Component metamagic feat is useless.


----------



## molonel (Aug 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal, all I can say is that I feel no particular urge to respond with sarcasm to either mmadsen or Drifter Bob. I look down through your posts and read a long string of "You ... you ... you ... you." In this discussion, you are the only person to directly address me with terms like "ignorant" and "offensive." I look through their posts and I see more discussion about ideas, the imagination, abstracts and game mechanics. I also observe a healthy amount of humor in Drifter Bob which encourages me to lighten up, and remember it's just a game. It's a well-taken lesson, and I've tried to apply it in my responses to him and mmadsen. The fact that you compare arguing with someone you disagree with to dealing with your children only reinforces the perception that you are condescending, and encourages me toward a tone I'd rather avoid in this discussion. I don't particularly care whose fault it is, and I'm not assigning blame. For some reason, you and I seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. If that's my fault, then I'm rectifying that now. If it's your fault, then I'm going to choose not to bait you further. The odds are very good that we both participated in this misunderstanding equally, and in that case, it doesn't help either of us to continue.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 13, 2004)

True enough, and I thank you for stepping up and being the better man.  Quite honestly, it's entirely possible I'm bleeding attitude from a pretty lousy day at work as well, and I've never claimed to be very diplomatic.  I'm probably a bit over-reactive on this particular topic as well; for some reason when it comes up there's usually someone who has to take it upon themselves to show how I'm having "wrong fun" because I'm not a good enough DM to play the rules as written.  There's even someone kicking around the boards who put that in his sig; something to the effect of, "if you want low magic, play some other game and leave D&D alone!"  If I have come across as condescending, I apologize.

I do admit I'm a bit baffled in trying to reply to you, though, which is perhaps a big part of my problem.  I'm not sure I understand your position on either Robert E. Howard or Tolkien.  You've gone to extensive lengths to show how you believe they can be effectively modelled in the D&D system, yet you appear to be stating positively that they are not well modelled by the system.  I'm not sure where they feature in the argument anymore.  Usually in these types of arguments, someone like mmadsen will come in and say they want something more like Howard or Tolkien rather than standard D&D, and someone else will come in and try to show how they are more or less modelable under D&D.  I thought we were going down that familiar path earlier in the thread, but either you're making a reversal in your position or I'm completely missing something.

Also, another statement I made, which I think got fairly lost in the shuffle (only mmadsen responded to it, for that matter, to say that he agreed) is that for someone like me, who doesn't particularly _like_ the flavor of high level D&D magic, showing the Monte Cook argument on how to construct adventures that allow players to utilize all their D&D magic is a fairly pointless exercise; it doesn't address my original concern at all, and is only likely to make me even more disaffected with the game than I already am.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 17, 2004)

barsoomcore (me) said:
			
		

> Some things shouldn't be taken for granted: Verisimilitude is good.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> If no one else says it's a good thing, I do, and I think it is both expected and practiced by any good DM. (snip) An arbitrary DM who feels no obligation to maintain the vivid and continuous dream of a well-made world can ruin a game through whim and ever-changing circumstances.



I understand that you LIKE verisimilitude. That doesn't mean you're right to take it for granted. People may enjoy (and sensibly, too) games in which verisimilitude is chucked out the window, where it's all about puzzle-solving and tactical thinking and killing things and taking their stuff.

You like verisimilitude, that's great. But it is not in and of itself a virtue.


			
				barsoomcore (me again) said:
			
		

> Some things shouldn't be taken for granted: High-magic means more options.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> High magic does mean more options.



Nonsense. The number of options in any given situation is dependent on the design of the adventure and the sensibilities of the DM. A DM may very easily create a high-magic adventure that railroads the PCs and negates their magic capabilities. Likewise, a low-magic adventure might provide PCs with more options than they can even consider.

The fact that a high-magic adventure CAN provide more options does not make it a priori true that high-magic adventures ALWAYS have more options.

***

On a separate note, I'd like to point out that the fact that Conan kicks huge amounts of butt has NOTHING to do with whether or not Hyboria itself is a high-magic world. It's not. Or at least, compared to Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, it's not. Sure, Conan is comparable to a high-level D&D character with lots of gear. Agreed, good point.

But so what? The argument isn't that CONAN is low-magic, it's that HYBORIA is low-magic -- which it most certainly is. People saying, "I want to play in a world like Hyboria," aren't saying, "I want to play a character like Conan." Or at least, proving that wanting to play Conan is equivalent to wanting to play a high-level twink D&D character doesn't prove that wanting to play in Hyboria is ACTUALLY wanting to play in a high-magic world.

And there are plenty of low-magic worlds in fantastic literature. Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age is one -- regardless of what may have been in the case in earlier days, in the years leading up to the War of the Ring, it's very clear that there is almost no magic flying around Middle-Earth -- at least, not for the vast majority of its inhabitants.

And that's a big part of it. For the vast majority of inhabitants of a typical D&D setting, magic is part of their everyday life -- most towns and villages have a couple of spellcasters, and magic-using monsters are often encountered. Contrast that with life in the Shire, where the only spellcaster to visit in living memory is Gandalf, and all he does is set off fireworks. Just encountering elves and dwarves is a big deal, something that most of the people in the Shire will never do. This is clearly true across Middle-Earth to a greater or lesser degree. The Rohirrim, the Gondorians, the men of Dale -- none of them have ANY spellcasters in their entire nations. The armies of Hyboria only rarely have the benefit of magical assistance -- usually in the form of a single spellcaster who dies at the hands of Conan. If you don't call that low-magic (at least in comparision to the standard D&D settings), I don't know what to say.

The point isn't "Do some of these heroes display qualities that might be modelled in D&D terms using magic?" It's "Do these worlds obey the standard rules of D&D with respect to the distribution of magic?"

And clearly the answer for both Hyboria and Third-Age Middle Earth (and Nehwon, and the world of the Black Company, and others) is no, they exhibit a vastly reduced distribution of magic compared with the standard D&D rules such as numbers of spellcasters in the population and frequency of encounters with magical creatures. You, molonel, might disagree with others as to what that distribution actually is, but I can't imagine you would suggest that Hyboria obeys the standard D&D rules on these points. If you do, please provide careful evidence, because I'm likely to be skeptical. Note that the average hamlet of two hundred souls in a D&D setting contains one wizard, three clerics, a druid and an adept. That sure doesn't sound like the Hyboria I read about.

The conclusion is that a DM who wants to run a campaign that models the world of Hyboria or any similar world must make substantial changes to the standard D&D distribution of magic.


----------



## molonel (Aug 17, 2004)

Well, this thread has resurfaced. I'm glad the servers survived the hurricane.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> True enough, and I thank you for stepping up and being the better man. Quite honestly, it's entirely possible I'm bleeding attitude from a pretty lousy day at work as well, and I've never claimed to be very diplomatic. I'm probably a bit over-reactive on this particular topic as well; for some reason when it comes up there's usually someone who has to take it upon themselves to show how I'm having "wrong fun" because I'm not a good enough DM to play the rules as written. There's even someone kicking around the boards who put that in his sig; something to the effect of, "if you want low magic, play some other game and leave D&D alone!" If I have come across as condescending, I apologize.




And if, during the flurry of answering so many, and so much, I've suggested to you that your approach is inferior, than I also apologize. That was not my intent. I don't think low magic is bad gaming, and I don't think low magic DMs are pansies, anymore than I think high magic DMs enjoy hack-n-slash rollplaying over character building and story.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I do admit I'm a bit baffled in trying to reply to you, though, which is perhaps a big part of my problem. I'm not sure I understand your position on either Robert E. Howard or Tolkien. You've gone to extensive lengths to show how you believe they can be effectively modeled in the D&D system, yet you appear to be stating positively that they are not well modeled by the system. I'm not sure where they feature in the argument anymore. Usually in these types of arguments, someone like mmadsen will come in and say they want something more like Howard or Tolkien rather than standard D&D, and someone else will come in and try to show how they are more or less modelable under D&D. I thought we were going down that familiar path earlier in the thread, but either you're making a reversal in your position or I'm completely missing something.




I don't think Conan or Tolkien is effectively modeled in the D&D system, but I also think the comparison in terms of "low magic" and the application of that term to the stories themselves is rather misleading. When modeled in D&D terms, Conan is a twink. But I also don't think an archetype is very well modeled in d20 terms, where balance is more important than it is in a work of fiction. The magic system in Hyboria, where magic carries a sort of taint, and even the best wizards are somehow corrupted by their use of magic, is also not very well translated, but the fact that a lot of folks seem quite willing to ignore that factor in Hyborian magic speaks to the desire to limit power rather than effectively model the world in D&D terms. I'm told that Mongoose's d20 version of Conan addresses this element in magic.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Also, another statement I made, which I think got fairly lost in the shuffle (only mmadsen responded to it, for that matter, to say that he agreed) is that for someone like me, who doesn't particularly _like_ the flavor of high level D&D magic, showing the Monte Cook argument on how to construct adventures that allow players to utilize all their D&D magic is a fairly pointless exercise; it doesn't address my original concern at all, and is only likely to make me even more disaffected with the game than I already am.




That's my answer to the question, like it or not. I prefer to address the problem of enjoyable campaign design by carefully selecting which materials players can draw from during character creation. To me, this solves a great deal of the problem of out-of-control campaigns devolving into hack-n-slash slugfests. I think low magic campaigns perhaps reach the same conclusion by a different route. So do campaigns that limit XP advancment, and design the world so that the highest level characters are between 10th to 12th level. Those are all valid solutions, and which one you choose is a matter of taste.


----------



## molonel (Aug 17, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I understand that you LIKE verisimilitude. That doesn't mean you're right to take it for granted. People may enjoy (and sensibly, too) games in which verisimilitude is chucked out the window, where it's all about puzzle-solving and tactical thinking and killing things and taking their stuff. You like verisimilitude, that's great. But it is not in and of itself a virtue.




Of course I have a right to take it for granted. And you have a right to disagree with me. It's America. Even in a world where problem-solving and tactical thinking and killing things and taking their stuff, there are constants you learn to expect, and the rules of a consistent world. When you swing your sword, a natural 20 will hit, and a natural 1 will miss. If that changes from combat to combat, and between swings, that's a loss of verisimilitude, and the game turns into a Monty Python skit. A world has to obey its own rules, and do so consistently. It is a virtue, whether or not you acknowledge it as such. A rules book creates verisimilitude. You cannot avoid that.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Nonsense. The number of options in any given situation is dependent on the design of the adventure and the sensibilities of the DM. A DM may very easily create a high-magic adventure that railroads the PCs and negates their magic capabilities. Likewise, a low-magic adventure might provide PCs with more options than they can even consider. The fact that a high-magic adventure CAN provide more options does not make it a priori true that high-magic adventures ALWAYS have more options.




It's not nonsense. Magic provides options. That's not to say that nothing else can, or the absence of high magic is synonymous with the absence of options, or that those can't be taken away in another fashion. But it's hardly nonsense.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You, molonel, might disagree with others as to what that distribution actually is, but I can't imagine you would suggest that Hyboria obeys the standard D&D rules on these points. If you do, please provide careful evidence, because I'm likely to be skeptical. Note that the average hamlet of two hundred souls in a D&D setting contains one wizard, three clerics, a druid and an adept. That sure doesn't sound like the Hyboria I read about.




My point is simply that appealing to Hyboria as a low-magic environment ignores some important considerations. You are free to disagree with me, and since I've addressed this point _ad nauseum_ by now, I'm content to agree to disagree. I'm not terribly fond of repeating myself. I have a friend who frequently plays EXTREMELY low magic campaigns, and who was shocked to hear that anyone considered Robert E. Howard's Hyboria a low-magic environment. To him, that was sheer lunacy because wizards and the supernatural were common in the Conan stories. Some things truly are a matter of perspective.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 17, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> A rules book creates verisimilitude.



Okay, I won't argue that. Point taken. 


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> That's not to say that (snip) the absence of high magic is synonymous with the absence of options



The only point I was trying to make. I felt that some people (not necessarily you) were trying to claim that the absence of high magic was indeed synonymous with the absence of options. We agree here, too.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> My point is simply that appealing to Hyboria as a low-magic environment ignores some important considerations. (snip) Some things truly are a matter of perspective.



Which is why I've tried to maintain the notion that "low-magic" means "a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules". By that definition of "low-magic" I think it's clear that Hyboria is low-magic -- and that is not a matter of perspective. Your friend may have a different definition of low-magic, that's fine with me. My point is that Hyboria presents a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules, and a DM who wishes to run a campaign in a world with a similar distribution of magic to Hyboria must make changes to the standard D&D rules.

NOT that my definition of low-magic is correct. That IS a matter of perspective.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> It's America.



Not necessarily, when you're debating online.


----------



## molonel (Aug 18, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Which is why I've tried to maintain the notion that "low-magic" means "a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules". By that definition of "low-magic" I think it's clear that Hyboria is low-magic -- and that is not a matter of perspective. Your friend may have a different definition of low-magic, that's fine with me. My point is that Hyboria presents a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules, and a DM who wishes to run a campaign in a world with a similar distribution of magic to Hyboria must make changes to the standard D&D rules. NOT that my definition of low-magic is correct. That IS a matter of perspective.




But even within this discussion, exactly what the standard D&D rules entails has been a matter of some debate. Do the standard D&D rules require you to have magic stores on every corner? No. Do they require you to have every item available in every village and hamlet? No. Do they require a magical monoculture where all classes, all items, all spells and all creatures are present in all times, and in all places. Absolutely not. Even within the storylines held up as examples of "low magic" there are cultures where magic is more common or more prevalent: the Noldor in LotR, the elves in Lothlorien, the wizard cults in Hyboria, and the first and second ages of the Sun in the Silmarillion. It depends on who you ask, and where you look, and how carefully. One of my points, throughout this discussion, is to pull back the rather simplified approach that some people take in painting very different and diverse story backgrounds with the same broad brush of "low magic."



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Not necessarily, when you're debating online.




True enough, but when the server rests in the United States, it's a safe bet that everyone enjoys the equal right to disagree with me if they have access to an internet connection.


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 18, 2004)

Personally, I prefer high-magic, low-availability.

My setting includes powerful spellcasters with great variety (most magic use is more along the lines of a ranger or bard than a full-blown wizard or cleric), but, due to a serious lack of long-lived races or make-yourself-undead tricks, there's very very few of them that are powerful enough to overshadow more 'mundane' classes.  While there are powerful outsiders, most of them have a damnable time getting to the prime, and they're usually stuck with making deals with mortals for long-distance manipulation.  I find that making almost all magic concentration-based very very useful in explaining a lack of magic accumulation.

There's plenty of magic out there.  But it's not overwhelming, and is even less accessable than normal science (anyone can combine vinager and baking soda when they're still using velcro, but it takes years of training to master hurling searing hot pebbles at people while dodging their sword thrusts.

--

I find that one of the main issues in keeping magic from getting to the 'tech' level is the duration/permanency issue.  The longer a spell effect lasts, the more effect it has on society.  If you have to hire mages to cast Light spells constantly, you're NOT going to ever worry about spells replacing oil lamps.  If you have to have a bunch of clerics casting 'create water' instead of using a Decanter of Endless Water, you're not going to have a bunch of ever-expanding oasise in the middle of a desert.  If you keep the 3.5 durations of the Buff spells rather than the longer 3.0 durations, you won't have uber-effective magicked-up mining uperations.  If there's no way to keep a creature magically harnessed for a relatively permanent amount of time, lightning rails become disasters waiting to happen.

Similarly, being able to call up a whole host of effects given time seriously changes the way a spellcaster works.  If no character could have more than three spells active at any one time, for instance, it would have a serious effect on things, like lessening that whole "Scry+Teleport=You Die" thing.*

Another issue that is more about how magic compares to normal combat is the area of effect.  Fireballs have a great deal more relavance to combat than Shocking Grasp.  If spellcasters had mostly limited-target spells, at least until much higher levels, they wouldn't have nearly the effect on warfare and similar things as they currently do; compare it to having snipers amidst bowmen instead of bazooka-users amidst gunmen.*

*Mind you, with such a change, spellcasters WOULD deserve some compensation, since they're balanced based on fireball more than shocking grasp.

Now, you'll still get things like wizardly arc-welders and miners, but that just means more raw materials for more standard war machines and fortifications, and generally just making the same things with a higher quality and durability.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 18, 2004)

You make some interesting comments there, especially with the consideration of duration. I normally consider what the spell does and the likely hood of it being desirable to a caster or society.

Food for thought. Thanx.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 18, 2004)

I can't believe that I manage to skim through this entire thread (though I guess that indicates how interesting this topic is to me).

Admidst the blur, I have to say that I found -- in a vague, drunken way -- Barsoomcore the winner.  

And Incenjucar's last post was very good as well.

(Ugh.  People like different things.  Is that so hard to accept?  And Howard's Conan is sooooo low-magic!)


----------



## molonel (Aug 18, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Admidst the blur, I have to say that I found -- in a vague, drunken way -- Barsoomcore the winner.




Bah. He had three double-dribbles, four fouls and almost got ejected from the game by the ref in the third quarter. You weren't even watching the game, if you think that.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 19, 2004)

molonel, you're establishing strawmen and shooting them down with gusto while ignoring my point. There are two very clear definitions of D&D standard magic distribution -- the distribution of spellcasters in the population at large, and the frequency of encounters with magical creatures. We don't need to debate on those -- they are clearly outlined for us in the Dungeon Master's Guide. And either one alone clearly indicates that the standard D&D magic distribution is far higher than what we observe in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth.

I don't actually care about fuzzy impressions of "standard D&D" -- all I'm trying to say is that classic fantasy worlds such as Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower distributions of spellcasters and lower frequencies of encounters with supernatural creatures that the standard D&D setting does, according to the rules as published.

Ergo, they can usefully be described with the term "low-magic" since they exhibit demonstratably lower levels of magic.

That people may use the term "low-magic" to incorrectly group settings that exhibit very different traits is inconsequential to my point. That the standard D&D setting is not perfectly definable in all its traits is inconsequential to my point. My point is that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth exhibit lower distributions of spellcasters and supernatural creatures than the standard D&D setting does, and thus can be called "low-magic".

And on the basketball front -- at least my scoring percentage is better than the American team versus Puerto Rico. Even if I am vague and drunken.

I could watch that game the rest of my life. What a joy to see.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 19, 2004)

Since he's proven himself as an excellent point guard...

... but he's much shorter than Magic Johnson...

... does that make Carlos Arroyo 'low magic'?


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> ... Even if I am vague and drunken. ...




No, no ... you misunderstood me.  *I* was the "vague and drunken" one!

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 20, 2004)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> No, no ... you misunderstood me.  *I* was the "vague and drunken" one!
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.



I think we can all agree that we'd all be happier vague and drunk.  Just ask this guy.


----------



## hong (Aug 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> molonel, you're establishing strawmen and shooting them down with gusto while ignoring my point. There are two very clear definitions of D&D standard magic distribution -- the distribution of spellcasters in the population at large, and the frequency of encounters with magical creatures. We don't need to debate on those -- they are clearly outlined for us in the Dungeon Master's Guide. And either one alone clearly indicates that the standard D&D magic distribution is far higher than what we observe in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth.
> 
> I don't actually care about fuzzy impressions of "standard D&D" -- all I'm trying to say is that classic fantasy worlds such as Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower distributions of spellcasters and lower frequencies of encounters with supernatural creatures that the standard D&D setting does, according to the rules as published.




There is nothing in the rules that mandates any particular frequency of occurrence of "magical creatures". There ARE guidelines on what EL encounters a party should meet. An encounter of a given EL can be made up of one uber-monster, or it can be a group of NPCs, or it can be a huge horde of warriors. In turn, an uber-monster can be something like a giant (not something you meet every day, but not exactly outre either in terms of super powers), or a dragon (more magical, but still definitely run-of-the-mill compared to the truly exotic stuff), or just a high-level NPC.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 20, 2004)

hong's always right, of course. Leaving me with but one lonely statistic to cling to in my efforts. Which is one more than my opponent has, so I'm still ahead.

Okay, forget about frequency of "magical creatures". I don't need it. Never liked it anyway. Let's consider only distribution of spellcasters. It's still clear that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth show vastly lower numbers of spellcasters than standard D&D mandates, according to the rules in the DMG.

molonel, if you want to show that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth are NOT lower in their magic distribution than standard D&D, come up with a different statistic by which they have higher than standard, and we'll call it even. Or show that my statistic is faulty. Or accept that yes, Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth are pretty acceptable examples of "low-magic" settings. Whatever differences they may possess otherwise.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 20, 2004)

I'd like to point out that I take very little comfort in the news that my arguments appeal to unfocused drunks. Thanks for effort and all, but, well, not so comforting.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 20, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that I take very little comfort in the news that my arguments appeal to unfocused drunks. Thanks for effort and all, but, well, not so comforting.




More like: the brilliance of your arguments were such as to penetrate even the haze of drunkenness and sway the reader with their superior force!


----------



## molonel (Aug 21, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> molonel, you're establishing strawmen and shooting them down with gusto while ignoring my point. There are two very clear definitions of D&D standard magic distribution -- the distribution of spellcasters in the population at large, and the frequency of encounters with magical creatures. We don't need to debate on those -- they are clearly outlined for us in the Dungeon Master's Guide. And either one alone clearly indicates that the standard D&D magic distribution is far higher than what we observe in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth.




Well, as someone has already said, one of those points wasn't quite so clear as you thought, and actually it was demonstratably false.

And again, which part of Third Age Middle Earth do you want me to compare to those tables? Rivendell, or the Shire? Lothlorien, or Angmar? In Hyboria, what shall I compare? Conan's native Cimmeria, or the wizard-ruled lands of Stygia? 

One of my main points, throughout this discussion, has simply been that there are conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as cookie-cutter examples of "low magic" when the worlds themselves are not static backwaters of low magic goodness. As a result of my points, your language has become a lot more confined and specific, you'll notice. It's never "Middle Earth" now, but "Third Age Middle Earth." That, in and of itself, communicates that you admit some traction in the points I've made. Most of the folks, yourself included, were not nearly so specific when those points were originally raised.

Pretty soon, your assertion is going to look something like this:

"Okay, molonel. Fine. Maybe the culture in the city of Aquilonia, the wizard cults in the mountains and the wizard-ruled lands of Stygia don't exactly fit our definition of "low magic" here, and maybe there are large regions of Middle Earth in the Third Age that don't fit that definition, either, and the First and Second age and the Age of Stars and the Age of the Lamps definitely don't. But you are absolutely FORCED to admit that the deserts of Shem, the Pict lands not ruled by shapechanging shamans and the northern wastelands of the Cimmerians (but not the Aesir) fit that definition! And you MUST admit that the Shire is pretty low magic."



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I don't actually care about fuzzy impressions of "standard D&D" -- all I'm trying to say is that classic fantasy worlds such as Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower distributions of spellcasters and lower frequencies of encounters with supernatural creatures that the standard D&D setting does, according to the rules as published. Ergo, they can usefully be described with the term "low-magic" since they exhibit demonstratably lower levels of magic.




And I feel I've shown, through several anecdotes drawn directly from the books themselves, that your statements are incorrect or leave a great deal unaddressed. Perhaps it's time to agree to disagree?



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That people may use the term "low-magic" to incorrectly group settings that exhibit very different traits is inconsequential to my point. That the standard D&D setting is not perfectly definable in all its traits is inconsequential to my point. My point is that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth exhibit lower distributions of spellcasters and supernatural creatures than the standard D&D setting does, and thus can be called "low-magic".




But what I'm saying is that even within Hyboria and Third Age Middle Earth, as within a "standard" D&D setting, there are disparities between different cultures. Someone else has already pointed out that you were incorrect in your assumption about the commonality of magical creatures in a standard D&D world. Will you possibly entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that there was more to Hyboria than the Cimmerian backwaters? Hedgewizards and shamans were not an uncommon occurence in the Conan stories, and their resemblance to low-level wizards and clerics is striking. The reason Conan is said to be so scared of magic, in the early stories, was because he was a barbarian.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> hong's always right, of course. Leaving me with but one lonely statistic to cling to in my efforts. Which is one more than my opponent has, so I'm still ahead. Okay, forget about frequency of "magical creatures". I don't need it. Never liked it anyway. Let's consider only distribution of spellcasters. It's still clear that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth show vastly lower numbers of spellcasters than standard D&D mandates, according to the rules in the DMG.




Well, I've confined myself mostly to references from the actual texts of the stories we've been discussing, and specific examples from those, so I can see why you'd prefer statistics since the stories don't actually offer any. Where do you draw your statistics about the occurence of spellcasters in Hyboria and Middle Earth, since you're now "clinging to statistics?"



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> molonel, if you want to show that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth are NOT lower in their magic distribution than standard D&D, come up with a different statistic by which they have higher than standard, and we'll call it even. Or show that my statistic is faulty. Or accept that yes, Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth are pretty acceptable examples of "low-magic" settings. Whatever differences they may possess otherwise.




Well, you haven't SHOWN that they were lower. You've simply said it several times, and naturally the more you say something, the truer it becomes, yes? So I guess we're at a stalemate on that point.

I consider there to be conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as a baseline for "low magic." If you think they work, great. I'm not telling you not to use them. I'm saying I can't use them that way, because I've read the stories closely enough and carefully enough that I realize it's easy to walk away from them after a cursory reading, and forget a lot.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 23, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> As a result of my points, your language has become a lot more confined and specific, you'll notice. (snip) Most of the folks, yourself included, were not nearly so specific when those points were originally raised.



Excuse me, but you are mistaken. Just to jog your memory, here's my entrance into this discussion:


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> There are plenty of low-magic worlds in fantastic literature. Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age is one.



Sorry to burst your little bubble, there, but no, your "points" haven't accomplished a thing. My position remains as it was when I started. 

I started this conversation by pointing out that your statements concerning how much gear Conan possesses or how powerful he may be are irrelevant to the question of "Is Hyboria a low-magic world?" I was correct to say so, and the point stands.

Now, if you want to call Hyboria a high-magic world, hey, do as you like. My point is simply that for the majority of its inhabitants, it is a lower-magic world than standard D&D, as is Third Age Middle-Earth. In standard D&D, virtually everyone in the world knows a spellcaster; indeed, most know several. This is not the case in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth. This is what I've been saying, and again, this point stands.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> There are conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as cookie-cutter examples of "low magic" when the worlds themselves are not static backwaters of low magic goodness.



Hm, attack straw men much?

I agree with you (as I've said previously) that both settings display local variations. I'm glad you think it's interesting. It has nothing to do with my point, however. I'm not saying that each and every corner of Hyboria is lower-magic, I'm saying that on average, Hyboria is lower-magic than standard D&D -- for the average person. I'm not saying (and never have said) that the stories of Conan exhibit very low levels of magic. I'm saying that for the average joe, magic is much more prevalent in D&D than in Hyboria.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Someone else has already pointed out that you were incorrect in your assumption about the commonality of magical creatures in a standard D&D world.



I am not incorrect in my assumption about the frequency of magical creatures -- I am incorrect in my belief there was evidence for any particular level of frequency. The frequency isn't different than I assumed -- there simply isn't any evidence to prove it one way or the other. I might still be right about the frequency, but neither of us can decide the issue, so it's a wash.

You seem to want to use that to argue that I'm probably wrong about other stuff. Sorry, but ad hominem attacks convince me not at all.

If someone has encounter tables for Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, that would provide some evidence. I'm more than happy to drop that particular assertion since doing so in no way impairs my argument. If you want to keep worrying at it, feel free, but until somebody comes up with some evidence, I'm uninterested.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I consider there to be conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as a baseline for "low magic."



Oh, well, then, I'll make sure not to do that. You'll note I haven't done so yet, so again, this is yet another strawman that you're setting up in order to shoot down.

I wouldn't use either as a "baseline for low magic", either. I've never said anyone should. All I've said is that they exhibit less magic than standard D&D.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> And I feel I've shown, through several anecdotes drawn directly from the books themselves, that your statements are incorrect or leave a great deal unaddressed



Huh? Did you forget to put up a post or something? If you're going to claim that you've already backed up your rebuttals to my points with references to the texts themselves, you should actually back up your rebuttals to my points with references to the texts themselves. Cause otherwise that claim falls a little flat, I'm afraid.

Unless you think your offhand mentions of "wizard cults in Stygia" and "Lothlorien" count as "several anecdotes". Please refer to this post where I discuss the existence and relevance of local variations in these settings. I am not suggesting there are no variations, nor do I see how their existence is relevant to my point, which centers on the average condition. Local variations must be combined and, er, averaged to produce the average, right? 

So unless you've got anecdotes, let's not pretend you do, okay? And until you've shown my statements are incorrect, let's not pretend you have.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I'm saying I can't use them that way, because I've read the stories closely enough and carefully enough that I realize it's easy to walk away from them after a cursory reading, and forget a lot.



Implying that I haven't read them closely or carefully enough. You don't need to attack my scholarship like this in order to prove your points, you know. You simply have to be right.

You seem to think I'm saying a whole raft of things I'm not. And I'm sorry if I'm a poor communicator and have given you that idea. Let me try to be clear.

It is not my contention that all of Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth displayed a uniform distribution of magic (defined as number of spellcasters per unit of population). It is not my contention that those seeking an "ideal" low-magic setting should use either of these settings as their example. It is not my contention that in the stories set in these setting, magic is unheard of.

My contentions are two:

1. That the heroes of a story set in a particular setting themselves display high amounts of magic use in no way indicates that the setting itself displays an average of high amounts of magic use. It is perfectly possible to have high-magic heroes in a low-magic world.

2. That both Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower average distributions of magic (defined as spellcasters per unit of population) than the standard D&D setting mandates. There may be other measures by which they display higher distributions of magic, but it is clear from reading the stories set in these worlds that for most people, magic is very rarely encountered. This is not the case in standard D&D, where it is stated that nearly all people encounter magic on a daily basis.

You seem to be attacking very different points -- namely those contentions I've listed above as NOT supporting. If you feel the need to keep attacking those points, I won't stand in your way, but I'd be more interested in reading your responses to the points I'm actually making.


----------



## kolikeos (Aug 23, 2004)

for me, low magic is a very bad thing, as i always like to play spellcasters.
but in the game im running now, although i did not want it to turn out this way, none of the pcs are spell casters and the players like it that way, although i do not.


----------



## molonel (Aug 23, 2004)

barsoomcore, I'm going to wade through the flotsam and jetsam of whatever Philosophy 101 class you just took, and step to the meat of what you said in your last post. A discussion has degenerated far past any usefulness when two people insist on saying, "Actually, what I really said/meant/thought was X," or "No, that's not what I said" and "Yes it is!" and "No it isn't!" I'll deal with what you are saying in the present, and you grant me the same courtesy. That avoids the buildup of misunderstandings. I won't make any reference to anything which anyone else has said or argued, nor anything that you've said before now. Fair? I'm also going to ignore the snipes at how I present myself, or my arguments. It doesn't accomplish anything. If you are really interested in arguing the points, rather than attacking the person, then you will do the same.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It is not my contention that all of Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth displayed a uniform distribution of magic (defined as number of spellcasters per unit of population). It is not my contention that those seeking an "ideal" low-magic setting should use either of these settings as their example. It is not my contention that in the stories set in these setting, magic is unheard of.




Okay. So you aren't arguing against the idea that even within a setting which might be considered "low magic" (I'm saying MIGHT, not definitely) there may be cultures in which there is a higher distribution of magic. And the average person might just be familiar with magic. That's useful to know.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> My contentions are two:
> 
> 1. That the heroes of a story set in a particular setting themselves display high amounts of magic use in no way indicates that the setting itself displays an average of high amounts of magic use. It is perfectly possible to have high-magic heroes in a low-magic world.




Actually, I agree with you. Since I don't consider the average D&D game to be a genuinely, undeniably high magic setting - certainly nothing on the level of the Forgotten Realms, or Spelljammer - what tends to set adventurers apart is their high level of magical gear. I've never argued that D&D 3.5 characters don't have a good spread of magic items. Compare the average character wealth by level on page 135 of the 3.5 DMG to the average wealth of NPCs of the same level on page 127. At 20th level, the average PC (going by the book) has 760,000 GP worth of treasure, magic items, etc. The average NPC at the same level has less than a third of that. For a 20th level NPC fighter, 220,000 GP is enough for a good weapon, a good suit of armor and maybe one or two other items. The "average" 20th level NPC fighter listed on page 117 - and this is someone who would certainly be a general or a well-known NPC fighter in any non-epic campaign world - is listed with a +4 suit of armor, a +3 shield, a couple of AC items and a stat item (probably strength). The first magic item we even see on the charts for an NPC fighter is 6th level, and he gets a suit of +1 full plate.

So I agree: just because heroes, or player characters, have a high amount of magic items in no way indicates that the setting itself displays a high amount of magic use. But understand that I also apply this logic to the standard D&D setting. I think it's possible to misconstrue the level of magic in the standard D&D world by using the PLAYERS as the yardstick for what folks think is available or common to the rest of the world.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 2. That both Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower average distributions of magic (defined as spellcasters per unit of population) than the standard D&D setting mandates. There may be other measures by which they display higher distributions of magic, but it is clear from reading the stories set in these worlds that for most people, magic is very rarely encountered. This is not the case in standard D&D, where it is stated that nearly all people encounter magic on a daily basis.




Let's refer to these infamous charts we've been talking about, shall we? Flip to page 139 of the 3.5 DMG. You say all people encounter magic on a daily basis in a standard D&D game. But in anything smaller than a large town, the most anyone who lives out their lives in a small town (population up to 2,000 people) ever encounters is a 1d4-th level wizard or sorceror, or a 1d6-th level cleric. That is the highest level possible for NPCs in those settings. That also means that in a hamlet or thorp, it's entirely possible - and statistically likely - that with the modifiers listed there will be nobody from several spellcasting classes. In other words, no, all people do not encounter magic on a daily basis. There are higher level spellcasters available in large metropolises, and in specially magical communities. But note that in the MAJORITY of randomly generated towns (70 percent, by the book) the most anyone will EVER encounter is a 4th level arcane caster.

I contend two things, in return:

1. I do not believe that the standard distribution of magic, whether by magic items or spellcasters per unit of the population, is as high in the standard D&D world as you seem to imply. Nor do I believe that the standard distribution of magic, by either means, is as low in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle Earth. Do I believe that Hyboria is high magic? Well, if I did, then I've never said so. But I'm not sure it's so different from the "standard" D&D world, and you've given me no particularly compelling reason to think otherwise.

2. How much magic - by either standard - appears in a "standard" D&D world depends on two things: the commonality of high population centers, and the amount of civilization that appears in the world. One of the reasons the "adept" is an NPC class is precisely because it says that some cultures don't have the sophistication or development to train clerics or wizards.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 23, 2004)

Alright, point one is uncontested. Wonderful. Onwards.

Your rebuttal to point two is that there are very few spellcasters above 4th level among the general population. No argument from me as to the truth of that assertion. I certainly agree that most folks in a D&D setting don't very often encounter spellcasters above 4th level. On the other hand, they will almost certainly encounter spellcasters below that level. Do you consider 4th level some kind of threshold point? I'm not saying there are high-level spellcasters everywhere. I'm just saying there are spellcasters everywhere.

At all levels of communities -- from thorps to metropolii -- average communities will have multiple spellcasters. The average hamlet described in DMG, of 200 souls, includes a 1st-level adept, a first-level wizard, a third-level cleric and two first-level clerics and a first-level druid. Does that sound like the average 200-person village in either Hyboria or Middle-Earth (can I stop saying "Third Age" every time?)? It sure doesn't sound like Bree, or Edoras, or even Minas Tirith. It doesn't sound like Aquilonia, or Khawarizm, or Bakalah.

Now, as to our personal conduct:


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I'm going to wade through the flotsam and jetsam of whatever Philosophy 101 class you just took (snip) I'm also going to ignore the snipes at how I present myself, or my arguments. It doesn't accomplish anything. If you are really interested in arguing the points, rather than attacking the person, then you will do the same.



That's a brilliant tactic. "I'm going to smack you one across the chops, but then let's agree not to smack each other anymore. Doesn't that sound fair?" Nicely done.

Here's a better deal: You agree to stop making insulting assumptions about me, and I'll stop being so snide about your groundless arguments. Actually, you know what -- you go on trying to insult me. It's kind of amusing. And I'm actually really enjoying being snide about your groundless arguments.

If you think I've attacked you, rather than your arguments, then I apologize, and sincerely. It is not my intent to cast any aspersions on you personally. I don't know you, and I don't insult people whose character I am unaware of. And besides, ad hominem attacks are pointless, and I'm nothing if not efficient.

If there's a specific comment I made that you interpreted as an insult, I'd appreciate you letting me know, since it was done without intent and I would want to see how what I said could be interpreted as an insult, so as to avoid doing so in the future.

In that spirit, here are the attacks you've made against my person, as opposed to my arguments:


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Someone else has already pointed out that you were incorrect (snip) Will you possibly entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that there was more to Hyboria than the Cimmerian backwaters?



Meaning you were wrong once so you're probably dumb, which means you'll probably be wrong again. Oh, and here's an insinuation that you don't know anything about the source material.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I've read the stories closely enough and carefully enough that I realize it's easy to walk away from them after a cursory reading, and forget a lot.



Meaning you're probably dumber than I, so you didn't get what I did out of the source material.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> The flotsam and jetsam of whatever Philosophy 101 class you just took



Meaning you speak like a dummy so your logic must be faulty.

If I misinterpreted one of those comments feel free to explain what you meant. Please don't worry that you've hurt my feelings, or that I'm all upset now. I just don't like it when people take swipes at me for things I haven't done. Especially when it's something they've made a habit of themselves.

I don't agree that this discussion has passed the point of usefulness. I'm enjoying myself immensely, at any rate. But then, I'm right.


----------



## molonel (Aug 23, 2004)

barsoomcore, I am going to focus on arguments. You can focus on behavior. You obviously prefer doing so when you devote 60 percent of your post to addressing it. I'm done with that. Seriously.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Your rebuttal to point two is that there are very few spellcasters above 4th level among the general population. No argument from me as to the truth of that assertion. I certainly agree that most folks in a D&D setting don't very often encounter spellcasters above 4th level. On the other hand, they will almost certainly encounter spellcasters below that level. Do you consider 4th level some kind of threshold point? I'm not saying there are high-level spellcasters everywhere. I'm just saying there are spellcasters everywhere. At all levels of communities -- from thorps to metropolii -- average communities will have multiple spellcasters. The average hamlet described in DMG, of 200 souls, includes a 1st-level adept, a first-level wizard, a third-level cleric and two first-level clerics and a first-level druid. Does that sound like the average 200-person village in either Hyboria or Middle-Earth (can I stop saying "Third Age" every time?)? It sure doesn't sound like Bree, or Edoras, or even Minas Tirith. It doesn't sound like Aquilonia, or Khawarizm, or Bakalah.




I'm saying that having three percent of the population in a village of 200 being able to cast a handful of cantrips doesn't rise above my threshold for high magic. It doesn't necessarily rise outside of my threshold for low magic, either. That depends entirely on how the DM handles it. 

Is it so very different from Aquilonia, or even Minas Tirith? In my opinion, no. But we can swap cities: Bree or Rivendell, Edoras or Lothlorien. You focus on one part of the world. I focus on another.

I am thoroughly convinced of one thing, though: that is my opinion, and it obviously differs from yours. And I'm content to stay that way. You haven't presented me with any solid, convincing reason to think otherwise. Does magic change the whole face of the community when those sorts of spellcasters are present? Probably not. It doesn't change the daily lives of most people. The presence of a Cure Light Wounds to heal a sprained ankle or a hedgewizard who might just spend all of his time reading and casting Comprehend Languages doesn't mean that everyone knows those spellcasters on a firstname basis. Or that their presence changes daily life in any significant way.

But unless we're going to start covering some new material, I think we've both adequately expressed our POV. This is starting to smell like a verbal stamina contest, and if that's what it's turning into, then I will freely offer to bail out first.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 23, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> Does magic change the whole face of the community when those sorts of spellcasters are present? Probably not. It doesn't change the daily lives of most people. The presence of a Cure Light Wounds to heal a sprained ankle or a hedgewizard who might just spend all of his time reading and casting Comprehend Languages doesn't mean that everyone knows those spellcasters on a firstname basis. Or that their presence changes daily life in any significant way.



And here I'd say you're very wrong.  In pseudo-Medieval cultures, which granted is an assumption, but not an unlikely or unreasonable one, people lived in the same area their entire lives, for the most part.  To assume that the people of a little village of 200 who all lived there forever weren't on first name basis with each other is, frankly, unbelievable.  To assume that in a population of that size, whoever wanted a cure light wounds, or comprehend languages spell, or purify food and water, or heck, even prestidigitation at any time doesn't know exactly who to go to for that, and that they wouldn't do so whenever possible, I simply don't buy.

Also, you're seemingly fond of vaguely referencing the "text" of source material, as if your anecdotal evidence were somehow hard proof.  I'd very much like to see this "text" wherein it is even implied that there are these "vast regions," to use your own phrase, of Middle-earth that are teeming with spellcasters.  Near as I can tell, other than a few named characters we actually see; namely Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, Radagast, and the Witch-king, all you've got are some very vague references in the Appendices to a handful of sorcerers in Rhudaur, and some equally vague references to sorcerers amongst the Black Numenoreans, including some very apocryphal legends about Queen Beruthiel.  Exactly what sorcerer means in this context is, however, completely unknown.  And since most of those named characters are actually angelic/divine beings rather than mortals, who also tend to be pretty low key in their approach to spellcasting, I don't think that at all you've made your point about localized high magic convincingly.

So, you can go on claiming that your interpretation of Middle-earth is backed by some text, or careful reading you've done, but you haven't actually demonstrated it, you've simply said so several times.  I have no problem in agreeing to disagree with you on that regard, but kindly do not make any claims for any more "textual authority" than you actually have.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 23, 2004)

I don't know Conan all that well. Never read the books, they simply never appealed to me and it took me well over 10 years to finish the LotR trilogy even though I wanted to read them.

I would say from what I know, that Conan is low magic and low fantasy. Theres few real monsters and wizards are not throwing balls of flame or lightning bolts around. Its a story of a mighty warrior doing what he does. No grand quests or rings of power.

Then on the other hand Middle Earth in my eyes is mid-magic and high fantasy. Its grand quests, fate the world type story, and magic appears in many forms (Sting, the One Ring, elven rope...etc). But when we look at Gandalf and Saruman, we don't see them throwing spells around left right and centre. We see (in D&D terms) scrying, light and a couple minor spells. 

You can have a low magic setting that has powerful mages and monsters. It just depends on the frequency and use of those beings. You can have high level wizards but they don't go around throwing spells or permanent teleport circles around - that would kill that feel. 
I run a DragonLance game, a setting I feel is high fantasy but low-magic. I use monsters as they are used in D&D, so beholders / medusa's / gorgons / demons... etc make appearences, but wizards are more concerned with protecting their magic from misuse and don't go using it for just anything. 

Others will surely disagree and say that what I am running is a mid-high level magic game, but its not. At the end of the day, low-magic means that its not everywhere. Villages may have access to a low-level cleric or druid who helps with healing or crops, but magic and casters are not so prevalent as to be everyday occurences.


----------



## molonel (Aug 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And here I'd say you're very wrong. In pseudo-Medieval cultures, which granted is an assumption, but not an unlikely or unreasonable one, people lived in the same area their entire lives, for the most part. To assume that the people of a little village of 200 who all lived there forever weren't on first name basis with each other is, frankly, unbelievable. To assume that in a population of that size, whoever wanted a cure light wounds, or comprehend languages spell, or purify food and water, or heck, even prestidigitation at any time doesn't know exactly who to go to for that, and that they wouldn't do so whenever possible, I simply don't buy.




Okay, you simply don't buy it. That's valid. 

But in how many fantasy stories have you read about people who give the local hedgewizard a wide berth? Or where the local druid is elusive, shadowy and only appears when people need him? That crazy old man with his books in the tower? It's cursed, you know. Don't go there. Nobody ever does. I simply don't see the evidence for "magic as technology" in the charts. If you do, that's fine. I think it's entirely up to the DMs presentation. And I don't think the rules dictate how that should go.

Here is how I see the difference between standard D&D magic and the world presented in the Lord of the Rings trilogy:

There are no divine spellcasters, because there really aren't any gods to grant divine spells. There is nothing like the evocation school with arcane casters. Magic is very low with the hobbits, who distrust it, and very high with the elves. It is passing from amongst the world as the elves retreat into the West, and the dwarves become more reclusive and retreat into the mountains. I would consider the Fourth Age of the Sun to be a truly low-magic world. But the ground of this discussion has shifted several times: it's according to the commonality of "magical" beasts. It's rated according to the distribution of magic items. Now we're dealing with spellcasters per capita. At every step along the way, I've been willing to look at the books. Pretending that I'm being deliberately vague, or avoiding evidence, is just dishonest. I'm not. I see differences between standard D&D cosmology and world-building, and Tolkien's world, and I don't believe that the latter translates very cleanly into gaming terms. MERP was a very D&D-esque interpretation of Middle Earth, and ICE had to play very fast and loose to put divine spellcasters (animists, I believe) into the world. They just didn't fit.

Am I going to do a line-by-line explication of all of Tolkien's works to provide a statistical breakdown of spellcasters per capita? No. And neither is anyone else. That is not a good use of my time. You may attribute whatever motives to that statement you wish.

The end result is: I don't consider Tolkien's Third Age, or Howard's Hyborea, to be good examples of what a low magic world should look like. What we are ultimately talking about, in this discussion, is what a low magic gaming world should look like. And while I don't think the underlying fabric of a very specific time in Middle Earth is as different as some here do from a D&D world, I also don't think the world as a whole translates very well into gaming terms.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 23, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> Am I going to do a line-by-line explication of all of Tolkien's works to provide a statistical breakdown of spellcasters per capita? No. And neither is anyone else. That is not a good use of my time. You may attribute whatever motives to that statement you wish.



Actually, all I'd be interested in is addressing my point; that other than about half a dozen named characters, most of whom are actually divine/angelic beings, _nobody_ seems to do any magic in Middle-earth.  And yet, you still make the claim that it's not very clear if it's low magic or not.  I'm not interested in a per capita breakdown of spellcasters either, I'd merely like to see _one_ counter example to what I said.  And I'm not asking you to reference it by page number, just refer to it.  If Tolkien wrote it, I almost certainly have read it half a dozen times at least, and I'll catch up on my own.

I do agree that neither Tolkien nor Howard's works really lend themselves all that well to a game mechanics description; they certainly weren't interested in modelling the kind of consistency that game mechanics would probably have given the characters.  But that's not really the point, so that whole thrust of discussion is off topic at best.


----------



## Numion (Aug 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, all I'd be interested in is addressing my point; that other than about half a dozen named characters, most of whom are actually divine/angelic beings, _nobody_ seems to do any magic in Middle-earth.  And yet, you still make the claim that it's not very clear if it's low magic or not.  I'm not interested in a per capita breakdown of spellcasters either, I'd merely like to see _one_ counter example to what I said.  And I'm not asking you to reference it by page number, just refer to it.  If Tolkien wrote it, I almost certainly have read it half a dozen times at least, and I'll catch up on my own.




Wasn't there something about the gifts Bilbo had ordered for his birthday, that many of them were magical? And wasn't there mention that some people in the shire had magic items, like buttons that opened and closed on command? If true, then it would imply that magic wasn't that rare, and there even was trade in magic items, a notion people usually attribute to 3e or Diablo   

Also there was even the wonky magic item worth a villages yearly income sort of thing, that people usually accuse D&D of: Bilbos magic armor was worth the whole shire ..

My LOTR is a bit rusty though, just something I seem to remember.


----------



## molonel (Aug 23, 2004)

So you want the name of a non-Istari, non-maiar, non-elven, non-main character in Middle Earth during the Third Age of the Sun who is a spellcaster? Okay: the Mouth of Sauron.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 24, 2004)

molonel; you already got one of the groups I mentioned though; 







			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Near as I can tell, other than a few named characters we actually see; namely Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, Radagast, and the Witch-king, all you've got are some very vague references in the Appendices to a handful of sorcerers in Rhudaur, and some equally vague references to sorcerers amongst the Black Numenoreans, including some very apocryphal legends about Queen Beruthiel. Exactly what sorcerer means in this context is, however, completely unknown.



The Mouth of Sauron was a Black Numenorean.  I'd hardly say that goes anywhere at all towards making your point of localized high magic.  It does make the point that there is actually _some_ magic, but nobody has ever accused Middle-earth as being a no magic world.  And other than the Mouth of Sauron, maybe Queen Beruthiel, and probably some of the Nazgul before falling into wraithhood, those are the only examples of Black Numenorean sorcerers we know of.  Not that we know a lot about Black Numenoreans anyway.  Nor do we know what sorcerer means in this respect.  It's entirely possible that they were more like ritualistic priests of Sauron or Morgoth; since we never actually witness any of them doing any magic, it's _possible_ that they never actually do.  Although I wouldn't put that out there as a strong possibility, it is telling that nobody except for Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond (and indirectly Sauron and the Nazgul) are ever doing anything that could generously be described as magical.

On the other hand, Numion actually raises a good point: 







			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Wasn't there something about the gifts Bilbo had ordered for his birthday, that many of them were magical? And wasn't there mention that some people in the shire had magic items, like buttons that opened and closed on command?



Yes, some of the toys are described in "A Long Expected Party" as "obviously magical."  Not sure exactly what that means, though -- after all, the blasting seige engines of Saruman are also called "sorcery" when I think it's clear that Tolkien was describing engineering rather than magic.  But rather than try to set up some special pleading here, I'll take what it says at face value and say that yes, that is an example of a higher level of magic than the rest of the books seem to imply.

As for buttons that opened themselves, I'm not sure I remember anything like that, although now that you mention it, I almost seem to remember someone mentioning it as a legend of sorts; that either the Old Took or the Master of Buckland had them as a gift from Gandalf.  If so, and I'm remembering correctly that that anecdote does even exist, then it would still be attributed to Gandalf.

And this entire discussion has gone a fair amount beyond the original scope here; although I strongly believe that both Hyboria and Middle-earth are great examples of low magic settings, my own interest in low magic is not necessarily based solely on them.  I like the pseudo-historical feel of low magic; I like that it is realistic, but with a twist.

And I like some high magic settings too.  I think the Wheel of Time game is excellently done, and it is also a very high magic setting, albeit one quite different from a D&D-ish setting.


----------



## Sargon the Kassadian (Aug 24, 2004)

*I had a semi-revelation!*

WHAT IF SOME PUBLISHER MADE A HUGE BOOK ON HOW TO DO A LOW MAGIC GAME (or a radically altered DND ala Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed)! I know there have been some, but I mean a really well thought out one, with different approaches to the goal. Maybe even by WOTC (  )! I don't know how popular it would be with the mainstream players, but judging by the number of wanting-low-magic-RPers here at ENworld, it would at least break even.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 24, 2004)

molonel said:
			
		

> I'm saying that having three percent of the population in a village of 200 being able to cast a handful of cantrips doesn't rise above my threshold for high magic. It doesn't necessarily rise outside of my threshold for low magic, either. That depends entirely on how the DM handles it.



Well, if you don't consider number of spellcasters to be a determining factor in deciding between low and high magic, you could have mentioned that. Might have saved us a few snarky comments.

And you really, really, need to start being accurate in your statements. "A handful of cantrips"? We're talking about five first-level casters and one third-level. That's two second-level, seven first-level and ten cantrips per day from the clerics alone. Adding in the others we get two second-level, ten first-level and nineteen cantrips per day from this average crowd. That's 31 separate manifestations of magic in a 200-person village per day. Yeah, I think it's fair to say that in standard D&D, everyone witnesses or experiences magic on a near-daily basis.

Which I submit is markedly different from what we see in Hyboria or Middle-Earth. As I have done from the beginning of this conversation.


			
				molonel said:
			
		

> But the ground of this discussion has shifted several times: it's according to the commonality of "magical" beasts. It's rated according to the distribution of magic items. Now we're dealing with spellcasters per capita. At every step along the way, I've been willing to look at the books. Pretending that I'm being deliberately vague, or avoiding evidence, is just dishonest.



This is the second time you've pretended that my position has changed. You were demonstrated to be wrong the first time -- is there something to suggest you're right this time? I refer to my earlier post in which this same assertion of yours is demolished by the simple expedient of referring to the facts. My position has not changed.

On the contrary, molonel, you are the one who has attempted to shift the ground of the conversation, by attributing to me statements I never said or positions I never held. I have to give you props for audacity, however -- you are surprisingly eager to accuse others of the very failings -- both of logic and of courtesy -- that your statements have demonstrated.

You're willing to look at the books? Fine, then. Look at LotR and tell which community you think is more typical of the average -- Edoras or Lothlorien. Feel free to support your position with references from the text that you are so familiar with.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

Sargon the Kassadian said:
			
		

> WHAT IF SOME PUBLISHER MADE A HUGE BOOK ON HOW TO DO A LOW MAGIC GAME (or a radically altered DND ala Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed)! I know there have been some, but I mean a really well thought out one, with different approaches to the goal. Maybe even by WOTC (  )! I don't know how popular it would be with the mainstream players, but judging by the number of wanting-low-magic-RPers here at ENworld, it would at least break even.




Hey, mon ami, it has been done.  It is called the CONAN OGL game, produced by Mongoose games.  The magic system is based on what Howard actually wrote about Hyboria.  Consequently magic is both very rare and dangerous (spellcasters can become corrupted or lotus addicts, etc.).  And it is "well thought out" (or at least the magic system is, with reference to Hyboria).  
 

Seriously Barsoomcore, why do you bother to continue to argue?  You won twelve posts ago (or something like that).  Anyone who thinks that the standard DnD magic system has any resemblence to either Arda or Hyboria is just not getting it.  Crack open a brewski and call it a day.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 24, 2004)

Sargon the Kassadian said:
			
		

> WHAT IF SOME PUBLISHER MADE A HUGE BOOK ON HOW TO DO A LOW MAGIC GAME (or a radically altered DND ala Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed)! I know there have been some, but I mean a really well thought out one, with different approaches to the goal. Maybe even by WOTC (  )! I don't know how popular it would be with the mainstream players, but judging by the number of wanting-low-magic-RPers here at ENworld, it would at least break even.




Midnight
Conan RPG
Call of Cthulhu
Darkness and Dread
d20 Modern
Grim Tales
To name the first half dozen or so off the top of my head.  And that's only in d20 -- if I go beyond that, the numbers swell even more.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Midnight
> Conan RPG
> Call of Cthulhu
> Darkness and Dread
> ...




Yes, and most of those have been "well thought out" as well IMO (don't know anything about "Darkness and Dreath" though).

Midnight, Conan, and Grim especially slap the "low magic" puck right into the goalie's net!


----------



## Sargon the Kassadian (Aug 24, 2004)

I didn't mean a setting, I just meant a book devoted to discussing the issue, although I may be showing my ignorance in reference to third party "systems".


----------



## molonel (Aug 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> molonel; you already got one of the groups I mentioned though; The Mouth of Sauron was a Black Numenorean. I'd hardly say that goes anywhere at all towards making your point of localized high magic ... Not that we know a lot about Black Numenoreans anyway. Nor do we know what sorcerer means in this respect. It's entirely possible that they were more like ritualistic priests of Sauron or Morgoth; since we never actually witness any of them doing any magic, it's _possible_ that they never actually do. Although I wouldn't put that out there as a strong possibility, it is telling that nobody except for Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond (and indirectly Sauron and the Nazgul) are ever doing anything that could generously be described as magical.




You asked me for one counter-example. I gave it to you using the criteria you provided. It's equally "possible" that black sorcerors and spellcasters were a strong part of Sauron's army. We're dealing with possibilities and potentials here. You're asking me to give you the names of people who weren't directly involved in the story using ... what, exactly? When I mentioned something from The Book of Lost Tales Volume II, earlier, that was dismissed as an early version of the story because of course it's OBVIOUS that Tolkien intended Middle Earth to be a low magic world. How would Tolkien have portrayed the parts of the world he didn't elaborate on further? That's a good question, and one that neither you nor I can answer. Men are capable of magic, both wielding it and using it. That potential is obvious. The only thing "telling" thing is that the people we see using magic in the stories are main characters with the backgrounds you describe. 



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And this entire discussion has gone a fair amount beyond the original scope here; although I strongly believe that both Hyboria and Middle-earth are great examples of low magic settings, my own interest in low magic is not necessarily based solely on them. I like the pseudo-historical feel of low magic; I like that it is realistic, but with a twist. And I like some high magic settings too. I think the Wheel of Time game is excellently done, and it is also a very high magic setting, albeit one quite different from a D&D-ish setting.




And that, ultimately, is the best and strongest argument for low magic worlds, in my opinion: not because that is what Tolkien or Howard did, though elements from their stories can be useful. It is a feel that people are looking for. And people emerge with a different "feel" from fiction which is only imperfectly reflected in gaming terms.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> This is the second time you've pretended that my position has changed. You were demonstrated to be wrong the first time -- is there something to suggest you're right this time? I refer to my earlier post in which this same assertion of yours is demolished by the simple expedient of referring to the facts. My position has not changed. On the contrary, molonel, you are the one who has attempted to shift the ground of the conversation, by attributing to me statements I never said or positions I never held. I have to give you props for audacity, however -- you are surprisingly eager to accuse others of the very failings -- both of logic and of courtesy -- that your statements have demonstrated.




barsoomcore, I have a polite, peaceful request: please stop interpreting everything I say as a personal attack on you. I said, "But the ground of this discussion has shifted several times." I didn't say, "That @#$#@ing barsoomcore can't make up his mind." The criteria by which WE in this discussion have considered what makes a low magic world has certainly changed and shifted ground over the 14- or 15-some pages (Edit: Now 17) of this discussion. I know I've personally raised several different points while speaking with at least half a dozen posters. You have not demolished anything other than my faith that you are willing to pursue this argument as anything other than a jones-fix for your ego, and a personal duel. If I am incapable of doing anything other than offending you, then I'm done arguing with you.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 24, 2004)

Sargon the Kassadian said:
			
		

> I didn't mean a setting, I just meant a book devoted to discussing the issue, although I may be showing my ignorance in reference to third party "systems".



Darkness and Dread and Grim Tales still do exactly that; they are systemless rules machines.  As is Unearthed Arcana, come to think of it, that discusses (among other options) a number of low magic scenarios.

Not sure what you mean by third party "systems" -- maybe third party publications within d20?  Several of those I mentioned were still Wizards of the Coast.  And if you change systems, there's no third party at all anymore.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Aug 24, 2004)

Wow...  Read this entire thread, but this quote from the first page sums up my opinion just fine.


			
				Insight said:
			
		

> There is a huge difference between low-powered magic and low-frequency magic. I lean toward low-frequency, but high-powered magic in my fantasy worlds. Spellcasters are very powerful and rare, and are usually feared or revered by the populace (depending on their reputation and the populace in question).
> 
> I prefer magic items to be rare and powerful as well. I find the magic items in the standard DMG far too catalog-ish. It seems to make more sense to me to have the PCs running around with a few powerful items than a laundry list of weak items. I also like unique magic items, and especially those I can use for adventure hooks, or can play a part in a future campaign component.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 24, 2004)

Offend me? Not at all. Nothing you have said has offended me, molonel. If you've got evidence to suggest I'm wrong, I'm eager to hear it -- my primary motivation in these sorts of discussions is to be exposed to new ideas that inspire or motivate me.  The fact that I'm continuing on in this discussion is entirely due to the fact that I don't think you're a moron, and you keep saying you disagree with me, so I keep hoping you've got some nugget that I haven't grasped yet that will open my eyes.

If I misinterpreted your last remark concerning the ground of the discussion, then I apologize. You chose to use examples of my position in that remark and so I assumed you were addressing me. You weren't, so fair enough.

I think it's hardly fair of you to say "stop interpreting _everything_ I say as a personal attack" (emphasis admittedly mine) when you have in fact attacked me personally several times, and I have one time misinterpreted you after those attacks were launched. But still, I apologize for having done so. I was wrong.

I await your responses to my point.

Akrasia: I'm genuinely curious as to why molonel continues to disagree with me. As long as he continues to do so, and as long as I fail to understand why, and as long as I continue to believe I might understand eventually, I'll continue to ask him to demonstrate his reasoning.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Akrasia: I'm genuinely curious as to why molonel continues to disagree with me. As long as he continues to do so, and as long as I fail to understand why, and as long as I continue to believe I might understand eventually, I'll continue to ask him to demonstrate his reasoning.




You're a better man than I am, Barsoomcore.  I salute you!    

(Great site BTW.)


----------



## malladin (Aug 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Midnight
> Conan RPG
> Call of Cthulhu
> Darkness and Dread
> ...



could I just queitly speak up to add DarkLore to that list (currently on sale for only $2.50 (yes, two dollars and fifty cents).  See our birthday thread in the publisher's forum.

Cheerio,

Ben, Malladin's Gate Press


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 24, 2004)

malladin said:
			
		

> could I just queitly speak up to add DarkLore to that list (currently on sale for only $2.50 (yes, two dollars and fifty cents).  See our birthday thread in the publisher's forum.
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Ben, Malladin's Gate Press




Right on!  I think you guys did a bang-up job with your adaptation of d20 Modern to a fantasy setting.


----------

