# What is "grim and gritty" and "low magic" anyway?



## Remathilis

"I run a low magic game." 
"Magic is more rare in my game than in standard D&D." 
"My game is alot more grim and gritty than normal." 

I hear these phrases tossed around many times on this board, from some perfectly good people and supposedly good DMs (haven't played under all of you to make that assertion.)

But what does it mean? 

How do you define low magic? How do you define grim and gritty? What makes these seemingly more attractive than standard Core Rules D&D for many? Is this a direction more campaign settings and sourcebooks should go in? What about the core rules?


----------



## Shadowdancer

OK, for me, low magic means there's not a lot of magic in the campaign. Magic is still powerful, just rare, and fills most people with awe/dread. Magic items are very uncommon, except maybe potions, which are more alchemy than magic. The few people able to cast spells are pretty powerful individuals.

Acquiring a magic weapon or some magic armor for one character might be the plot of an entire campaign.

Grim and gritty, to me, is a little different. It can be low magic, or not. The setting is closer to what the actual medieval era was like in Europe, not an idealized, somewhat sanitized version that is in most game settings. People are dirty and smelly. Food and water is not always safe to consume. Things are dark at night, and disease can be a problem, if it's a low magic game.

More importantly, combat can be lethal, no matter how experienced you are. There is always a threat that you could die from one well-placed dagger or sword thrust. Characters can't just shrug off massive amounts of damage, even at high levels. This usually involves some sort of VP/WP system, with critical hits going straight to WP.


----------



## Wombat

Remathilis said:
			
		

> How do you define low magic? How do you define grim and gritty? What makes these seemingly more attractive than standard Core Rules D&D for many? Is this a direction more campaign settings and sourcebooks should go in? What about the core rules?




"Low Magic", to me, means no magic shops, no one sells magic, access to magical items is very, very limited, wizards (and sorcerers) are not that common.

"Grim 'n' Gritty", again to me, means the potential of One Shot, One Kill, the idea that a low level character stands a slim chance fighting a high level one.

Both put together also implies, to my eyes, a grim world, filled with death and darkness everywhere, lots of moral ambiguities, and Survival Of The Fittest.

Why are they attractive?  Well, for some people such rules make things more "realistic" (a highly ambiguous and flexible term).  For others they bring in more of a "Conanesque" feel, thus more closely mirroring specific types of some fantasy literature (the _Game of Thrones_ serious pops to mind).  

These are just some initial impressions; I invite others to chime in and correct any misinterpretations I have.


----------



## Saeviomagy

To me
"Low magic" usually means "I hate handing out magical items, so I removed them, inadvertantly making anyone who plays a wizard or cleric significantly more powerful than the rest of the party, but that's ok, because I cover it by saying that wizards and clerics are uncommon. Even though there's one of each in every party."

"Grim and gritty" usually means "I love save vs death mechanics and I hate hitpoints. I've further devalued the fighters of the party by removing any staying power they have."

Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences.


----------



## Krieg

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences.




Wow condenscending & insulting. How quaint.  :\


----------



## Trickstergod

For me, low magic means that, for the world at large, magic is not a common thing. Society isn't based off of it, and it's more valuable than money can usually afford. It's not in the hands of store clerks, kings or even the local priest, but instead, rests with saints, hermits and other folk who often remain at the fringes of society for one reason or another. This does not mean, however, that the same necessarily applies to the PCs - they're the exception, after all. But the point is that that the kings champion likely is clad in normal full plate, the town priest is an Expert/Aristocrat, and the idea of a magic item shop is insanity. 

Grim and gritty...evil's omnipresent. Being good get's you killed. At the end of the day, you're not likely to destroy the lord of darkness, but you might save a childs parents from being killed by the things minions. Bad things happen to good people, and evil prospers. It also means that death is likely a quite permanent thing, though that ties partially into low magic. 

Both are the way I prefer to do things, to varying degrees for varying games. 

Good examples would be the Midnight and Ravenloft campaign settings.


----------



## Epametheus

Low magic: either the DM remembers to ban spellcaster PCs, or spellcaster PCs grossly overshadow everyone else, who lack the equipment needed to compete.

Grim & gritty:  bring multiple character sheet, don't get attached to your current PC, becuase the next roll could kill them no matter how good they are.


----------



## Saeviomagy

Krieg said:
			
		

> Wow condenscending & insulting. How quaint.  :\



Perhaps I should qualify.

If someone's primary description of their campaign includes only the phrases "grim and gritty" and/or "low magic", then you're in trouble.

If they start out by describing a WORLD as opposed to their houserules, and you then say "so it's low magic and grim and gritty", and they say yes - my comments don't really apply.


----------



## Kormydigar

Remathilis said:
			
		

> "I run a low magic game."
> "Magic is more rare in my game than in standard D&D."
> "My game is alot more grim and gritty than normal."
> 
> I hear these phrases tossed around many times on this board, from some perfectly good people and supposedly good DMs (haven't played under all of you to make that assertion.)
> 
> But what does it mean?
> 
> How do you define low magic? How do you define grim and gritty? What makes these seemingly more attractive than standard Core Rules D&D for many? Is this a direction more campaign settings and sourcebooks should go in? What about the core rules?




There are several types of "low" magic campaign types. The features of these types are often mixed and matched. None of these magic levels are truly "better" then the one presented in the core rules. It's all a matter of style preference. Some of these magic levels are:

1) A completely reduced magic level in the world. Spellcasting classes are hard to qualify for, resulting in fewer numbers of casters. The effects of spells are reduced in power and are seldom flashy.  Magical items are extremely hard to come by, nigh impossible to make, and are rarely, if ever, sold. Magical creatures are often more mythical than real. If civilizations exist where the majority of the population do not believe in magic, then the overall presence of magic is extremely low by D&D standards. This level of low magic gives the game a sort of pseudo historical feel akin to the Pendragon game.

2) A somewhat reduced level of magic. Spellcasters are not as common as they are in the core rules, but still wield significant power. The general population is aware of magic though not all may have experienced it directly. Magic items are still not common, but are a little easier to come by. Some items such as potions and scrolls, can be made with some difficulty. Magical creatures are present to the extent that nearly everyone believes they exist.

3) A slightly reduced level of magic. Spellcasters are common and command the standard powers presented in the core rules. The general population accepts casters as members of society and most have witnessed real magic. The main restriction at this level is magic items. Some items can be obtained on the open market while others cannot. You could buy a potion of healing rather cheaply for instance but a +3 longsword would not be available for any price. Potions, scrolls, and possibly wands could be made by the pc's, but permenant items must still be obtained through adventure.

As far as grim and gritty are concerned, its all in the presentation of the details. A critical hit chart that is capeable of taking out a high level fighter in one good hit does not make the game "grittier" just more deadly. A game can have a gritty feel when the overall tone of the campaign is dark and even the heroes feel "dirty", much like the main characters in The Black Company, by Glenn Cook. By contrast a game can be lighthearted in feel while having an extemely high pc mortality rate. " Oh wow, we lost Bob, and Joe on that trip. Lets head back to town and look for a couple of out of work fighters!" Neither style is right or wrong. Whatever the the DM and players enjoy is right.


----------



## Krieg

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Perhaps I should qualify.
> 
> If someone's primary description of their campaign includes only the phrases "grim and gritty" and/or "low magic", then you're in trouble.
> 
> If they start out by describing a WORLD as opposed to their houserules, and you then say "so it's low magic and grim and gritty", and they say yes - my comments don't really apply.




That is certainly fair enough. Of course the same can be said of pretty much ANY campaign under those qualifications (replacing grim/gritty & low magic with other descriptors).

FWIW Wombat, Shadowdancer & Trickstergod's comments echo my opinions on the subject...although I don't necessarily agree with Trickstergod in that evil must be omnipresent. I feel that moral ambiquity is a more likely prereq.


----------



## kamosa

In my experience "grim and gritty" and "low magic" has equaled poor DM.  It means DM's that feel magic missle is over powering, but a fighter with a sword that critical threats on 16 or greater and does 4D6 plus strength, 3 times per round is perfectly balanced.  It means the DM is getting ready to keep the best spells out of the game.  It means the Mage might was well not even attempt to take item creation feats. 

 It means that anything that is more creative then "I swing my sword" will be crushed by an egotistical GM, that would rather have a boring lame game then see his/her story ruined by altering the adventure even a little bit.  

It means fear of what the players could do, and fear that their perfect little game would be ruined if the players had any power.


Maybe your experience has been different, but that's been my experience.


----------



## Morrus

kamosa said:
			
		

> In my experience "grim and gritty" and "low magic" has equaled poor DM. It means DM's that feel magic missle is over powering, but a fighter with a sword that critical threats on 16 or greater and does 4D6 plus strength, 3 times per round is perfectly balanced.



That may be your experience, but I do not feel that that is a fair summary of "grim and gritty".  You are implying that the style is, in itself, bad.

Low magic does not have to be a question of what the DM considers "overpowered"; more likely, it is a question of the flavour and feel he wants in his campaign.  Reducing magic does not unbalance the game as long as the DM takes into account that magic has been reduced in other areas of the game.

Obviously, a party without magic will not be able to deal with monsters which can only be harmed by magic.  That's a DM call - he needs to design his world, and his adventures, to make sure that the lack of magic is not a disadvantage.  This requires some effort on his part, but it is not necessarily unbalancing, and certainly isn't wrong in any way.

Imagine playing a Middle Earth campaign; magic exists, but it is not common.  This, however, does not detract from the setting - it merely gives it a different flavour to "standard" D&D.  

You might personally find low magic to be boring, but that does not mean that it is universally boring - that's just your taste.  When it comes down to it, if everyone is enjoying themselves, then they are playing D&D correctly.


----------



## mmadsen

Remathilis said:
			
		

> How do you define low magic?



I think that most people use "low magic" to mean "more like classical fantasy" (e.g., Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_, Howard's Conan stories) -- not particularly low in magic except in comparison to D&D's implied default setting.


----------



## Gothmog

Low magic means that magic is less common, but not necessarily less powerful.  No magic item shops, and maybe once every 3-4 adventures a minor magical item shows up (potion, +1 item or equivalent).  I have run a low magic game for the last 12 years, and in 3E, my solution to the overly powerful core class casters was to grant all characters an extra feat at every odd level (not every 3), and to make casting classes gain a new level of spell every 3 levels instead of every 2 (much like the adept), but one more spell per day of each level.  Its worked well, seems balanced so far, and the high-level magic (5th+) will pretty much always be out of the hands of most characters in the game.  Spells of 6th level and higher are ritual spells, and require either lots of time or multiple casters to work.  Cursed items or items with side-effects are also more common and interesting to use in such settings.

Grim & Gritty is a style of game where morality is relative (like real life), and cosmic forces of absolute good and evil are rare (especially good).  Life in such a setting is often harsh, brutal, and short, and those with power hold it over those who don't.  It isn't necessarily easy to die, but death can come from a mob of peasants just as easily as it can from the jaws of a dragon.  This type of world is often protrayed in fiction and gaming as worse than the real world was in medieval times.  Game mechanics that go along with this are lowering the massive damage threshold, using WP/VP (especially giving big critters extra VP based on size), and slowing HP advancement after a certain level (usually 10th).

I'm a big fan of both styles, and combine them to varying degrees in the games I run.  I personally find that low magic and grim & gritty games are more fun to play in and run, becasue the players can more easily identify with their characters, and rampant munchkining of the game is much less likely with the kind of folks who like these games.


----------



## Dark Jezter

"Low magic" usually means that the DM hates powerful spells that can be used to divine the villain's intentions or bring dead characters back to life, and also hates powerful magic items.   So they make magic items almost nonexistant and severely nerf spellcasters (but usually don't reduce the difficulty of encounters to compensate for this reduced-power party).

"Grim and Gritty" usually means that the DM wants the PCs to die every time they get an unlucky roll.  "Grim and Gritty" worlds usually appeal to cynical and pessimistic DMs, because there is no hope for anybody and life is hell.  If combined with low magic mechanics, players in "grim and gritty" campaigns will be rolling up new characters all the time.

As you can probably guess by my post, I'm not too fond of "Low Magic" or "Grim and Gritty".


----------



## ManicFuel

This seems to be a love it or hate it topic. For what it's worth, any house rule or other deviation from core that is poorly implemented, poorly "balanced", or poorly refereed will garner similiarly negative responses. 

I think the others have said what "low-magic" and "grim and gritty" are, and I agree generally, so I'll tell why I insert these ideas into some of my games. For me the draw is to put more emphasis on the characters and their abilities than on and magic items and just-in-time buffs. It means putting some measure of wonder back into magic. It means the players feel a bit the courage required for their characters to wade into combat with unknown enemies. Most of all, it allows all of us the chance to change the way we play, from a more brazen "I blast this" and "swing my sword" style backed up with readily available magic, to a more tactical, planning style. Less swagger and more tension.

These sorts of games tend to be more character- and interaction-driven rather than combat-driven, for obvious reasons. When these campaigns are DM'd and played by the players just like a standard rules game, bad things happen. If the understanding on both sides of the table is that Things Are Different, it can be an enjoyable change of pace.


----------



## Salad Shooter

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> To me
> "Low magic" usually means "I hate handing out magical items, so I removed them, inadvertantly making anyone who plays a wizard or cleric significantly more powerful than the rest of the party, but that's ok, because I cover it by saying that wizards and clerics are uncommon. Even though there's one of each in every party."
> 
> "Grim and gritty" usually means "I love save vs death mechanics and I hate hitpoints. I've further devalued the fighters of the party by removing any staying power they have."
> 
> Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences.




Ouch...I don't know who you play with, but any DM worth his salt will balance out a lack of magic...if its low magic...that means you probably aren't going to have a mage in your party...that statement seemed like a misinformed attack on people using house rules, to me. Low magic means there is very little magic in the world, mages are so uncommon that the odds of your party having one is very slim, and their magic may or may not be nearly as strong as that in a setting with normal magic. White Wolf's World of Darkness would be my idea of a grim and gritty setting. And thats my two cents


----------



## Aezoc

I think that, as a DM, the campaigns I run probably fall into both the "low magic" and "grim and gritty" groups, although both of these terms are extremely subjective and have come to possess nearly as many meanings as "munchkin."

ManicFuel already covered most of the reasons that I like this style, but there is one other that I consider to be important, although it involves world-building more than individual characters and adventures.  Most people I know despise the idea of magic as technology (the so-called "Flintstones-style game" that the DMG briefly mentions being an extreme example of this).  However, as a DM, I have found it very difficult to find a believable explanation as to how, in a world where the default D&D level of magic has existed for thousands of years, this has not occurred.  mmadsen touched on this by stating that many literary fantasy worlds have a level of magic that is much different than that of D&D.  This creates an interesting sort of dilemma when much of Greyhawk, FR, and many other "generic" D&D worlds draw on fantasy archetypes from literature for inspiration, and then insert them into a world built upon entirely different assumptions.  For instance, no kingdom should be without teleportation circles linking major cities and outposts, or items of _sending_ to eliminate the need for messengers and troop movements entirely.  Also, blacksmiths should be a thing of the past, thanks to _fabricate_ and _wall of iron_.  There are many other examples that unfortunately I can't really point to without my books in front of me, but the point is that I've yet to see a setting that factored these peculiarities into the dynamics of the setting. Rather, they seem to make variations on established fantasy that are independent (and sometimes completely contrary to) the gameplay rules that govern the world.

In short, I've found that lower magic and a grittier setting not only tend to make for better roleplaying and stories, but they also get rid of many inconsistencies that D&D created by borrowing out of context from fantasy literature.


----------



## Fenris

Gothmog said:
			
		

> in 3E, my solution to the overly powerful core class casters was to grant all characters an extra feat at every odd level (not every 3), and to make casting classes gain a new level of spell every 3 levels instead of every 2 (much like the adept), but one more spell per day of each level.  Its worked well, seems balanced so far, and the high-level magic (5th+) will pretty much always be out of the hands of most characters in the game.  Spells of 6th level and higher are ritual spells, and require either lots of time or multiple casters to work.  Cursed items or items with side-effects are also more common and interesting to use in such settings.




And if I say pretty please could I get a copy of such a simple and elegant mechanic?


----------



## Gothmog

ManicFuel said:
			
		

> This seems to be a love it or hate it topic. For what it's worth, any house rule or other deviation from core that is poorly implemented, poorly "balanced", or poorly refereed will garner similiarly negative responses.
> 
> I think the others have said what "low-magic" and "grim and gritty" are, and I agree generally, so I'll tell why I insert these ideas into some of my games. For me the draw is to put more emphasis on the characters and their abilities than on and magic items and just-in-time buffs. It means putting some measure of wonder back into magic. It means the players feel a bit the courage required for their characters to wade into combat with unknown enemies. Most of all, it allows all of us the chance to change the way we play, from a more brazen "I blast this" and "swing my sword" style backed up with readily available magic, to a more tactical, planning style. Less swagger and more tension.
> 
> These sorts of games tend to be more character- and interaction-driven rather than combat-driven, for obvious reasons. When these campaigns are DM'd and played by the players just like a standard rules game, bad things happen. If the understanding on both sides of the table is that Things Are Different, it can be an enjoyable change of pace.




Very good points.  Low magic games do tend to be much more character oriented, and IME the players have had to think much more and use sound tactics to overcome odds rather than blowing through it with obscene amounts of magic.  Characters rely on their skills and knowledge, not on their nifty magical gizmos.  And you are right in that without some sort of modification to the core system, low magic games with the normal D&D classes simply fall apart fairly quickly.


----------



## Gothmog

Fenris said:
			
		

> And if I say pretty please could I get a copy of such a simple and elegant mechanic?




Ok, its late and my brain isn't working like it should.     If you'd tell me which of the modifications I suggested you were interested in seeing, I'd be happy to oblige.


----------



## d4

ManicFuel said:
			
		

> This seems to be a love it or hate it topic.



strangely enough, i'm on both sides of the aisle. i prefer "low magic" campaigns, but i hate "grim & gritty." my preference is for a "low magic, high action" setting: the characters are accomplished and powerful (like cinematic action movie heroes) by dint of their own innate abilities, not because of magic.

if i were to run such a campaign in D&D, i'd have some serious alterations to make. luckily, there's quite a few things from UA that could help.


----------



## Snoweel

Kormydigar said:
			
		

> Neither style is right or wrong. Whatever the the DM and players enjoy is right.




No.


----------



## danzig138

Snoweel said:
			
		

> No.



Explain?


----------



## FireLance

To me, "low-magic" simply means that magic is rare.  Some people enjoy low-magic settings for various reasons.  I do not.  I play D&D to explore what may be possible in a world where magic is real and common.  I thus avoid low-magic games on the basis of "what's the point?"

To me, "grim" means that the odds are stacked against the PCs and they are doomed to fail eventually.  I do not enjoy such games either, as in my view, they tend to degenerate into an exercise in futility, and I like having a decent chance of succeeding at what I set out to do.

To me, "gritty" means that there is no black and white.  Good always has some evil mixed in, but (in a truly grim setting) the reverse may not be true.  I enjoy playing idealistic heroes whose faith in the power of good will always be vindicated.  Hence, I do not enjoy such games, either.

To sum up, I guess low magic, grim and gritty games look and awful lot like reality, and I don't want that much reality mixed into my fantasy, thank you.


----------



## Mieric

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Low magic means that magic is less common, but not necessarily less powerful.  No magic item shops, and maybe once every 3-4 adventures a minor magical item shows up (potion, +1 item or equivalent).  I have run a low magic game for the last 12 years, and in 3E, my solution to the overly powerful core class casters was to grant all characters an extra feat at every odd level (not every 3), and to make casting classes gain a new level of spell every 3 levels instead of every 2 (much like the adept), but one more spell per day of each level.  Its worked well, seems balanced so far, and the high-level magic (5th+) will pretty much always be out of the hands of most characters in the game.  Spells of 6th level and higher are ritual spells, and require either lots of time or multiple casters to work.  Cursed items or items with side-effects are also more common and interesting to use in such settings.




These are the rules I believe he was talking about.  I'd be interested in getting a .txt/.doc copy of these as well. 

mieric!s-mail.com       <-- please replace the ! with @


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Low magic games do tend to be much more character oriented, and IME the players have had to think much more and use sound tactics to overcome odds rather than blowing through it with obscene amounts of magic. Characters rely on their skills and knowledge, not on their nifty magical gizmos.




Dude, it's not the magic or the grim & gritty that defines tactics, character orientation, "munchkiny," or use of skills and knowledge -- it's the DM and the Players. A no-magic one-hit-kill world can skill have powergamers, munchkins, and those who don't care a whit about your precious plot and style and prefer to just roll a d20 and play a character.

THIS is as bad as the other side blaming it on incompetent or limiting DM's. A flavor is just that -- a flavor. It doesn't define a playing style. It is always the DM's and Players working as a unit that define the playing style. Making sweeping generalizations about how people play under a hit point rule and a magic system is a bit mislead.

That said, I'm on both sides. I appreciate low magic or grim & gritty rules, and I think both have their place and can run fun games. I'd like to play in a few here or there. But I'll keep comin' back to the core, because at heart I want to sling around spells and act like a hero. Low magic and grim & gritty don't have much appeal to me as a ruleset, and a bad DM (one constantly harping about munchkins, for one) can ruin it all worse than a bad core DM. I like the feel of the normal magic games, and they are no less morally ambiguous, oriented on stuff, or stratiegic and skillful than anybody's low-magic bloodfest. You don't NEED low magic to be interesting.

The main game I run now isn't low magic or grim & gritty, but the players have about three magic items as a party of 5, and there is no gold. And yet there are no special rules governing creation of magic items, or use of spells. The alignments exist. People have hp. It's normal D&D in nearly every respect, and it's still as skill-focused and character-drive as anything else.

The one detail I've changed is that the PC's, instead of getting magic items, just get magic powers. And that doesn't re-define the balance of the campaign, it just means I can hand out treasure at a more comfortable pace without underpowering the PC's for basic D&D. I don't need to re-assess the entire game system just because I don't like the idea of powers dependant mostly on items. I just change a detail, and the world works fine.

If I want magic to be awe-inspiring, I just put in an epic spell or an incantation. If I want players to feel affraid of one mook with a dagger, I give the mook seven levels of rogue and three levels of assassin.

The main difficulty I have with low magic and grim & gritty is that while they serve a valuable service, they make a mountain out of a molehill more often than not, and turn into a game that is very focused on mechanics because you're learning how to enter a different idiom. And some of their advocates will preach the good word like low magic is the saving grace of gaming and will dispel munchkinism forever, unlike normal high magic rollplaying!

I don't have any problem with the existence of these things, if you like 'em, and you have a right to like 'em. But implying that they're hollistically 'better' isn't accurate at all in my book. I like my HP, AND I can make one mook with a dagger dangerous. I like my magic, AND I can make magic inspiring, and skills useful. I can have magic shops, AND stop people from being walking armaments. I like my alignment, AND I can have moral ambiguity and doubt. WITHOUT destroying the system. That's what I prefer. I know that's not everyone's cup o'tea, and more power to them, but your method doesn't dispel munchkins any better than mine.


----------



## Snoweel

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Explain?




Hmm... what to do..?

Either I could explain humour to you (I could even spell it in such a way that you might be able to look it up yourself: H-U-M-O-R) or I could give you the smug satisfaction of defending a ludicrously obvious argument from the undefeatable position of moral highground.

What to do..?

Honestly dude, when somebody feels the need to make an idiotic statement like:



			
				Kormydigar said:
			
		

> Neither style is right or wrong. Whatever the the DM and players enjoy is right.




I just want to punch my 15" VGA monitor in the face.

Does such inane babble need to be said? As if not everybody's aware of this truism?!?!?

But then I get a response from someone like you, who's just _itching_ for somebody to disagree and give you the opportunity to win something - *anything* today, and I realise Kormydigar was probably wise to attach a qualifying disclaimer to his post.

*DISCLAIMER:* POEPLE R FREE 2 PLAY GAMES IN A WAY WHATS TEH MOST FUN.


----------



## Aezoc

Snoweel said:
			
		

> Hmm... what to do..?
> 
> Either I could explain humour to you (I could even spell it in such a way that you might be able to look it up yourself: H-U-M-O-R) or I could give you the smug satisfaction of defending a ludicrously obvious argument from the undefeatable position of moral highground.
> 
> <snip>




Wow, what a waste of forum space. It wasn't the least bit funny, so the humor defense really doesn't hold any water. And while what he said may be a truism, its still worth mentioning since some of the posts in this thread have been fairly negative towards one style of play or the other, although they all remained pretty civil until yours.


----------



## Snoweel

Aezoc said:
			
		

> Wow, what a waste of forum space. It wasn't the least bit funny




Actually dude it was.

But you should probably just take my word for it because I'm funnier than you'll *ever* be.



> _so the humor defense really doesn't hold any water._




Well I think I just proved, QED-style, that it does. And I expect a full and very public retraction.



> _And while what he said may be a truism, its still worth mentioning since some of the posts in this thread have been fairly negative towards one style of play or the other_




Yes but they were all clearly *opinions* rather than *statements of fact.* I was always of the *opinion* that opinions don't require validation of the alternatives.

Expediency and all that, y'know?



> _although they all remained pretty civil until yours._




Ahh, civility - the last refuge of the smug coward.


----------



## Morrus

Snoweel said:
			
		

> Hmm... what to do..?
> 
> Either I could explain humour to you (I could even spell it in such a way that you might be able to look it up yourself: H-U-M-O-R) or I could give you the smug satisfaction of defending a ludicrously obvious argument from the undefeatable position of moral highground.
> 
> What to do..?
> 
> Honestly dude, when somebody feels the need to make an idiotic statement like:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to punch my 15" VGA monitor in the face.
> 
> Does such inane babble need to be said? As if not everybody's aware of this truism?!?!?
> 
> But then I get a response from someone like you, who's just _itching_ for somebody to disagree and give you the opportunity to win something - *anything* today, and I realise Kormydigar was probably wise to attach a qualifying disclaimer to his post.
> 
> *DISCLAIMER:* POEPLE R FREE 2 PLAY GAMES IN A WAY WHATS TEH MOST FUN.



Hmm... what to do..?

Either I could explain the basic rules and conditions under which you have permission to post on this messageboard (I could even repeat it many times in such a way that you might be able to remember it) or I could just ban you.

What to do..?

Honestly dude, when somebody feels the need to make an insulting,  inflammatory post like the above...

I just want to punch that banning option as hard as I can.

Do such rules need to be repeated? As if not everybody's aware of how things work here.

But then I see a post from someone like you, who's just _itching_ to insult someone and give you the opportunity to win a permanent holiday from the boards.

In all serious, Snoweel, tone it down.  It's 8.30am, I've been up all night working on the site/boards, and the last thing I need is to have to deal with crap like this.


----------



## Snoweel

Just to clarify, it's early Friday evening on this side of the world. I'm a bit tense after a hard day's pouring concrete.

And can I point out that being asked to



			
				danzig138 said:
			
		

> Explain?




an obvious joke couldn't be construed as anything *but* an insult, since for me to treat it as a sign of innocent curiosity would be to show *serious* disrespect to danzig138's comprehension skillz.

So I figured I'd give him the debate he wanted and try to be funney about it.

Tell me you didn't chuckle.


----------



## Morrus

My response was funnier.  But making a joke out of it doesn't change the rules round here.

Anyway, enough of this.  There's a discussion going on.


----------



## Snoweel

TO THE DISCUSSION![/melodrama]


----------



## RangerWickett

Aww, and I was all ready to start placing bets on who'd kick whose arse.  *whistles innocently*

I want a setting where magic is impressive and mysterious, but I couldn't run an actual 'low magic' setting and enjoy it.  I mean, I've run a couple non-Fantasy adventures, and they've either been Star Wars with its Force powers, or they've been set in the modern day with a World War 2 Japanese submarine ghost ship with actual ghosts.

I like magic.  But I don't like things like 'suggested character wealth' practically being measured in magic items.  I don't like magic being the default for all characters.  I don't mind it being there, and being somewhat common, but I don't like it being in the hands of common people.


----------



## S'mon

Low Magic - less magic than normal. 'Normal' around here usually means standard-3e, which is ultra-high-magic compared to most other RPGs.  Low magi usually means magic is both rarer & weaker than normal, although it can be common-but-weak, as in Runequest (and arguably Tolkien), or very-rare-but-very-powerful, as in the Elric stories and much swords & sorcery fiction.  Of course a DM who tries to create a low-magic setting using standard 3e rules is likely to screw up, either overpowering PC spellcasters (by restricting items but not spellcasting) or annoying players by arbitrarily nerfing the casters at inopportune moments.

Grim & Gritty - usually this means 'disease, pestilence & death' as in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which combines a dreary late-medieval setting with omnipresent supernatural evil.  You can have settings that are grim but not gritty, 'high fantasy in a dark world', like Midnight (some people run Midnight as 'gritty' too, but I think that's a mistake).  You can have 'gritty' but not particularly grim - Lankhmar, say, or arguably Conan, settings where death comes easily, but the protagonists are still larger-than-life heroes who laugh in the face of it.


----------



## Dirigible

S'mon pretty much sums up my views on the matter.

And to all the people who've said things along the lines of 'grim'n'gritty and/or low-magic means a lazy, player-hating, incompetant GM'... *shakes heads*


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL

For me, low magic can either be the way things are described or it can involve actually changing the game system. 

Examples:

A low magic world could consist of 99.9% 1st level commoners - the players as 2nd level adventurers are already really special - different flavour, same mechanics. The players have a 'reasonable' number of items for their level - however items are still very rare on a global scale? 

Or even removing all items and replacing them with innate and/or non-magical abilities. Pluses/effects stay the same. Description of how you get them changes.

Or it could involve removing all magic items, clerics and mages.


I agree with what's been said - changing the level of magic in a game can have some far reaching effects on the game balance. For example removing all magic items makes monks, clerics, certain monsters and wizards very nasty - If not compensated for - being a barbarian may not be too much fun! DM's can counter this, but it's an awful lot of work for them and, IME, details often get missed.

IMO, altering many of the other core of the core mechanics 'too far' has similar effects.

When it's being drastically altered - I'd rather start with a different system that's closer to what I'm trying to achieve. Whether that's an OGL D20 game or something from another system all together:

For example: 
Spaceships, Magic and Firearms = Dragonstar.
Everyone plays a super mage = Ars Magica.
Wild west, horror and magic = Deadlands.
No magic, guns, less spying = D20 Modern.
Etc.

Then start house ruling from this closer point. I've realised games designers and games testers are generally better at designing games than I am, so the less modding I do, the better the game tends to work.  

As a fringe benefit, I like having everything gathered in a nice printed books... piles of house rules scrawled on bits of paper (or worse, in my scatty brain!) tends to lead to confused players.


However, if you're having fun then you're doing things right! And it's only rules, after all - plenty more important things than that.


IMO, like others have said, Grim and Gritty has more to do with the tone of the game rather than rules mechanics. YMMV, but I find the 'harder' things are for the characters the more morally ambiguous they get.


----------



## hong

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> IMO, like others have said, Grim and Gritty has more to do with the tone of the game rather than rules mechanics. YMMV, but I find the 'harder' things are for the characters the more morally ambiguous they get.




I said something similar on rec.games.frp.misc, some time back:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6fqt0v4j5lanq4v0phi6im0j56fkbu7unk@4ax.com


From: Hong Ooi (hong@zipworld.com.au)
Subject: Re: D20: As Gritty As You Wanna Be 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd, rec.games.frp.misc
Date: 2002-12-29 05:08:52 PST 


On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:00:03 -0000, jhkim@darkshire.org (John Kim) wrote:

>Rick Rauser <rauser@canoemail.com> wrote:
>>Here's an easy way to make D&D (and any d20 game, for that matter)
>>gritty rather than cinematic.  [...]  Simply adopt the CoC Massive 
>>Damage rule (see CoC d20 rulebook, page 70), which states that if a 
>>character receives 10 hp of damage in a single blow, he must make 
>>a successful Fortitude save (DC 15) or be killed instantly.  
>
> I'm not really sure about this.  For example, I've played 
>in 1st edition AD&D which had a number of "save or die" threats.  
>However, I never felt that they made the game particularly "gritty" 
>in the sense that GURPS or Runequest were -- though maybe this is 
>just a difference in the meaning of "gritty".  

"Gritty" is one of those words that means what you want it to mean. It's a
bit like "munchkin" in that regard.

I like to define a "gritty" campaign as one where the PCs aren't expected
to solve all the problems they face. By problems, I mean not just proximate
threats like the Lich of the Dark Tower 10 miles thataway, but also the
general tone and theme of the game world. A gritty campaign is one where
the DM presents at least one ongoing threat or condition that can't be
addressed by a group of random individuals, whether by force of arms,
diplomacy, intrigue, or any other methods available to them.

Note that this definition doesn't have much to do with the lethality of the
game. You could have a high-level D&D campaign where PCs die all the time
(and high-level D&D _is_ lethal, in 3rd Ed). However, since the PCs are
expected to overcome the challenges they face (destroy the Dark Lord of
Poo-Bah, beat back the invading armies from the Plane of Pink Smurfs, or
whatever), it isn't gritty. Conversely, you could have a character
interaction-heavy campaign revolving around gangs in a large city. Even if
not much combat takes place, the characters know that most of the people
around them are never going to leave the ghetto, are never going to make it
to greater things, etc. (Whether this latter example is really "gritty"
depends on how much the campaign focuses on social issues. You could just
as easily have a non-gritty campaign set in the 'hood, by de-emphasising
the level of poverty and desperation, and concentrating on action instead
of bleakness.)

This definition also doesn't have much to do with the campaign's degree of
connectedness with the real world. A Spycraft campaign a la James Bond is
very much "real world", in the sense of not having much magic or ultra tech
(relatively speaking). However, the characters are likely to be larger than
life, and the challenges they face will be those appropriate to the action
movie genre: ones that can be surmounted over the course of a session, or a
campaign. On the other hand, a campaign taking place in the Warhammer
universe will probably feature lots of fantastic creatures like dark elves,
orks, undead and whatnot. It'll still be gritty, because even if the PCs
kill all the bad guys, there are more where they came from: you can't
defeat Chaos, only slow it down.

Personally, I prefer just going into dungeons, killing monsters and taking
their treasure. Much less complicated.


----------



## S'mon

Interesting, Hong.  I think the idea of threats you can't just kill is one that features strongly in grim & gritty settings like WHFRP, 1984, Blake's 7, Cyberpunk 2020 etc.  On this definition of 'gritty' (which I think is a very good one BTW) my deity-level AD&D campaign suddenly became 'gritty' when Thrin (UK's deity PC) encountered the Arasaka Corporation as an enemy on Cyperpunk Earth and realised that it didn't matter how many Arasaka assault teams or executives he dispatched, the Corporation itself was effectively unkillable by any means he had available.  Gibson's 'Neuromancer' has a great discussion on this AIR.  Of course in the real world even megacorporations can go bust, and even the most tyrannical governments can be overthrown.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Very good points.  Low magic games do tend to be much more character oriented, and IME the players have had to think much more and use sound tactics to overcome odds rather than blowing through it with obscene amounts of magic.  Characters rely on their skills and knowledge, not on their nifty magical gizmos.  And you are right in that without some sort of modification to the core system, low magic games with the normal D&D classes simply fall apart fairly quickly.




Excellent analysis.

By contrast, "high magic" means that players do not have to think. They will have a magic item or spell to solve every problem-- even death!-- and if they don't, they can just nip down to the corner and buy one. Skills are meaningless, as there is a spell that can do anything you can do better, easier, or quicker.

There is no fear of the unknown (divination).

There is no moral uncertainty (commune).

There are no arduous journeys (teleporation).

There is no heroic sacrifice (raise dead).

A high magic game removes obstacles from the players' path-- those very same obstacles that have traditionally defined a good story.

All that being said, not everyone plays D&D to create a good story. Sometimes it's about killing things and taking their loot, and I enjoy that, too.


Wulf


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL

*Hong*, that's pretty much my take on Grim 'n gritty. Does not need special rules to make it work - unbeatable threats will do!

IME, how easy it is to spot which kind of challenge something is also has a noticable effect on the game:

1: The unbeatable challenges are obviously plastered with 'steer clear signs'. e.g.The kingdom is ruled by an Evil Great Wyrm Dragon. The players are 3rd level.

2: The unbeatable stuff is everywhere. e.g. 1 in every 100 people is a 20th level lich lord with an unbeatable disguise. You fight someone you might get an interesting suprise.

In 1, the players can still be very 'heroic' - they can set their mind to doing things that don't involve fighting the problem directly. For 2, IME, players will become amoral very quickly - won't do anything without severe compulsion or tempted by great rewards...

Both can be fun. (if run right.)

However:
It's simpler breaking into orcs appartments and stealing their TVs. 
Take to dealer. 
Swap for magical 'crystals'. 

Often more fun.   




			
				Hong said:
			
		

> "Gritty" is one of those words that means what you want it to mean. It's a bit like "munchkin" in that regard.




A remarkably good point! 'Low magic' is rather similar - covers a multitude of sins!


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> By contrast, "high magic" means that players do not have to think. They will have a magic item or spell to solve every problem-- even death!-- and if they don't, they can just nip down to the corner and buy one. Skills are meaningless, as there is a spell that can do anything you can do better, easier, or quicker.
> 
> There is no fear of the unknown (divination).
> 
> There is no moral uncertainty (commune).
> 
> There are no arduous journeys (teleporation).
> 
> There is no heroic sacrifice (raise dead).
> 
> A high magic game removes obstacles from the players' path-- those very same obstacles that have traditionally defined a good story.




That is one take on high magic games... Sounds remarkably close to the first high level game I ran.  It wasn't good and eventually imploded.

Viewed differentley, those factors you mention simply change the type of obstacles the players should face. 

It happens all the way along as the game progresses. Certain types of magic render certain obstacles very easy.

Need to cross a river: Craft a raft (1st-4th), Fly (5th), Dimension door (7th), Wall of stone (9th)? It just gets progressively easier as you go!

What I mean is divinations, teleports et al can be worked into a game in interesting ways, rather than removing any semblance of a challenge. You just end up solving new and different challenges?


----------



## S'mon

BTW I wish the 'high magic' and 'low magic' crowds would stop with the slagging off each other's play styles.  We've heard it all before, and you can run a good game in either style.  Core-D&D is built more for one style than the other, but neither is an invalid way to play.


----------



## Calico_Jack73

Low Magic: Magic items are not commonplace.  Wizardly characters are either not allowed for PC's or have serious restrictions put on them (such as a mandatory 18 INT).  Slower spell progression for spell casters (if there are any).  Unless you are a class dedicated to magic no magic is available (no magic using Rangers, Paladins, Bards, etc).

Grim & Gritty: No resurrection magic.  Once you are dead, that's it... you are DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!  Usually they use a more deadly combat system to make PC react appropriately to the threat of death.  I've incorporated an instant death rule for D&D Firearms in my Forgotten Realms campaign and it works well.  When hit with a firearm the victim must make a Fortitude save vs DC 10 plus damage dealt.  If they fail then they are immediately dropped to zero hit points and begin dying.  Firearms only threaten instant death against creatures one size category larger than the gun.  A human sized pistol could kill a Large creature instantly but not a Huge.  Needless to say, my players duck for cover now when firearms come into play.


----------



## rounser

> Reducing magic does not unbalance the game as long as the DM takes into account that magic has been reduced in other areas of the game.
> 
> Obviously, a party without magic will not be able to deal with monsters which can only be harmed by magic. That's a DM call - he needs to design his world, and his adventures, to make sure that the lack of magic is not a disadvantage. This requires some effort on his part, but it is not necessarily unbalancing, and certainly isn't wrong in any way.



In my experience, the low-magic-game-running DMs I've played with don't exactly do that in more than a token sense, and it's been mostly about putting restrictions on the PCs - castrating magic-using classes with house rules and cutting well back on servings of magic items.  They'd go so far as to make NPC wizards rare, but highly magical monsters like demons still turned up in large numbers in these campaigns, for instance (and led to TPKs more than once too).  I suspect a lot of DMs were swayed to react in this way as a response to the magic item creation rules introduced for 3E, which appear to trivialise the specialness or rarity of magic in _their_ settings to a certain extent, by handing over some control of it to players.


----------



## nothing to see here

Maybe its just me, but I always just assumed Grim and Gritty was a term to bridge a barrier that keeps DND scenes from easily being imagined...namely that the rules provide unexplained super-resilliency to all characters.

No matter how you define HP as an 'abstract measure of ability to stay in combat' or what have you, there still is a significant suspension of disbelief, even among many extremely cinematic players that a 10th level fighter can still easily take 5 HITS WITH AN AXE, and still keep on fighting as if nothing was wrong.

Grim and Gritty rulesets (which I do prefer) seek to remedy this situation.  They do tend to increase character mortality (which, depending on your campaign need not be a bad thing)...but at the same time it hads a hint of threat where it was missing, and creates a much more evoctative campaign...true heroes surrounded by a world of danger.


----------



## Hand of Evil

Grim and Gritty - Life is tough, you live, you die and the time between is hard and dirty.  In game terms, hits hurt you more (increase dice range 15-20 critical) and will have some form of lasting effect (infection, scarring, body part lose).  The players fear death, because odds are not good they will make it out of an encounter alive!

Low magic - magic is not as easy to cast or not that common, casting takes a more 'power' / special location / time to perform.


----------



## el-remmen

I have been running a "low magic" game for just over 3 years now and I have not found it unbalanced at all.   Admittedly, I have had to do some tweaking and adjusting as we went along, but for the most part it has been fair, fun and has worked out.

I find that if you do not allow mages to choose any spell they like as they rise in level (i.e. making them work to learn them and dividing spells up into rarity), and craft unique spell lists for clerics depending on which power they worship spell-casters do not outstrip non-spellcasters in the game - and various problems and conflicts and obstacles are overcome by means of ingenuity, not some spell.

I also created a more broad spectrum of types of masterwork weapons (with pluses going up to +3, and depending on how it is crafted applying to attack roll or damage or both).

As for grim/ gritty, yeah. . .I like gritty. I like grim - for me 'grim'
 means tough moral choices and 'gritty' means that if you get killed by a dragon's bite you get bitten in half and partially swallowed, or if you lose an eye you take permanent penalties to attack rolls and spot checks, or crowds of starving diseased commoners will mob a paladin that starts "removing disease" willy-nilly. .  it means that when the party walks down the street in an urban area, people are dumping their chamber pots out their windows, and dead or dying people are found in the gutter, in some places babies are left out to die of exposure if people cannot afford to raise them. . . etc. . .


----------



## doghead

For me, being a dog of small brain, its more simple. I play low level games cos the high level games are too complicated. Magic tends to be rarer at lower levels, and less spectacular - +1 sword, cloak of elvankind, that sort of thing. More powerful magic and magic users exist in the setting, but they are forces that are beyond the characters abilities to defeat or control. So, as hong so nicely put, these games could be described as gng as the players will never truely overcome and master the world they inhabit. A poor decision (by which I mean badly considered, not just unlucky) when encountering these forces will more than likely have adverse consequences. Poor decisions should. The charcaters will however, hopefully, also have great victories and triumphs. I want my players coming to the game eagerly anticipating the challenges ahead, but also keenly aware of the risks that their character takes.

All this I can do better in a low level setting - so I stay at the shallow end of the pool.

_A man's gotta know his limitations._ CE aka DH

Woof!

the head of the dog

Aside: Thanks Morrus.


----------



## Desdichado

It's more a question of style than mechanics, as many have mentioned.  All the various variations on "low magik is teh suxx0rs" responses that this thread has seen are in extremely poor taste, and reveal an incredibly narrow, provincial and ignorant viewpoint.  _Most_ rpgs are low magic and grim and gritty relative to D&D, and to imply that ergo they must be really bad and only can be run by bad GMs is simply insulting.

One of my biggest beefs with D&D is that it is a genre unto itself.  It doesn't resemble Tolkien-style epic fantasy, it doesn't resemble Howard or Leiber style swords & sorcery, it doesn't resemble Lovecraft or Clark Ashton Smith wierd tales, it doesn't resemble Mercedes Lackey romantic fantasy, it doesn't closely resemble Burroughs planetary romance; in short, it really doesn't closely resemble anything other than itself anymore in terms of the conventions, themes and "feel" of the game.

Therefore, it seems completely logical and reasonable to me that a great many players will want to explore other styles and subgenres in fantasy.  Many other games do this.  I personally think d20 is a perfectly fine vehicle for low magic, grim and gritty.

For instance, my newly kicked off campaign features a removal of _all_ spellcasting classes.  No wizard, sorceror, cleric, or druid.  No "minor" casters like paladins, rangers or bards.  I kept the barbarian, the rogue and the fighter, added the Wildlander and Defender from Midnight, the Unfettered from AU, etc. to give a good 7-8 options, but none of them can cast any spells.  

For magic, I'm using the Incantations rules from Urban Arcana/Unearthed Arcana.  Further house rules, mostly from Unearthed Arcana include Sanity, Damage conversion, Class/level based defense bonus, Con score as massive damage threshold (although a failed save drops you to -1, not instant death).

Some of my influences include _Pirates of the Caribbean_, Robert E. Howard, _The X-Files_, Warhammer and John Carter of Mars.  I'm not quite sure that Grim and Gritty and Swashbuckling can both be used to define a setting, but I certainly include elements that derive from all three of those adjectives.


----------



## buzz

I'm with Hong on this one.

Anyway, enough with deifnitions... What I'd really like to know is why "low magic" and "grim & gritty" seem to be such a holy grail among gamers. It may not be as common here, but over at RPG.net, these terms come up all the time--granted, embracing "low n' gritty" seems to go part-and-parcel with the general "hat of d02" over there.

Still, there seems to be this kind of mania, this covetous twinkle gamers get in their eye when it's mentioned that a game is "grim" and "low magic."

How come?


----------



## buzz

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> One of my biggest beefs with D&D is that it is a genre unto itself.  It doesn't resemble Tolkien-style epic fantasy, it doesn't resemble Howard or Leiber style swords & sorcery, it doesn't resemble Lovecraft or Clark Ashton Smith wierd tales, it doesn't resemble Mercedes Lackey romantic fantasy, it doesn't closely resemble Burroughs planetary romance; in short, it really doesn't closely resemble anything other than itself anymore in terms of the conventions, themes and "feel" of the game.



Heh.



> JOHNNY TANGENT: "This whole premise reminds me of every fantasy movie I have ever seen yet it reminds me of none of them."
> 
> ME: "That's D&D for you."



Ab3, The Wrong Room In Ryleh


----------



## jrients

buzz said:
			
		

> It may not be as common here, but over at RPG.net, these terms come up all the time--granted, embracing "low n' gritty" seems to go part-and-parcel with the general "hat of d02" over there.




Clarification:  There's plenty of people who play d20 games over on RPG.net.  There are people who don't like d20 as well.  As a generalist rpg site I think there is room for both side, as long as you keep the most vocal partisans of either side on your ignore list.



> Still, there seems to be this kind of mania, this covetous twinkle gamers get in their eye when it's mentioned that a game is "grim" and "low magic."
> 
> How come?




As a player, I prefer to survive and thrive by my wits and the luck of the roll.  When I achieve success primarily via my magic stuff or when my character continues play _despite dying_, I start to wonder if maybe I'm cheating.  Not cheating the rules, cheating myself out of some of the enjoyment of the game.

As a GM, I like to hand out treasure just as much as the next guy.  I like to see people go up levels plenty fast.  I like happy players and successful characters usually make happy players.  However, this little itch in the back of my head sometimes tells me that my players are a bunch of wusses because they are always relying on their big toys.  Is that a fair assessment?  Probably not, since I gave them the stuff.

So as a player, I prefer "low magic, grim & gritty".  As a DM, I run something between stock D&D and my preferences as a player.


----------



## EricNoah

buzz said:
			
		

> Still, there seems to be this kind of mania, this covetous twinkle gamers get in their eye when it's mentioned that a game is "grim" and "low magic."
> 
> How come?




There may be a perception, possibly correct, that "any chump can run a standard D&D game, but only a master GM can run a successful grim/gritty/low magic game."  So maybe it's a question of (perceived?) bragging rights.


----------



## rounser

> So maybe it's a question of (perceived?) bragging rights.



And ironically, perhaps this "carrot" of bragging rights seems to attract just the kind of DM who'll stuff it up to a degree.  Perhaps that's why the "teh suxxors" comments are coming in...and the DMs who actually run good G&G LM campaigns are protesting in turn.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL

EricNoah said:
			
		

> There may be a perception, possibly correct, that "any chump can run a standard D&D game, but only a master GM can run a successful grim/gritty/low magic game."  So maybe it's a question of (perceived?) bragging rights.




That sounds about right!

FWIW, I'd agree that (some) low magic DnD can be difficult to run - simply because the further from the 'basic' rules a game gets, the more the GM has to keep track of, tweak on the fly and design house rules for. 

Doing all that while making the game fun isn't going to be easy!


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It's more a question of style than mechanics, as many have mentioned. All the various variations on "low magik is teh suxx0rs" responses that this thread has seen are in extremely poor taste, and reveal an incredibly narrow, provincial and ignorant viewpoint. _Most_ rpgs are low magic and grim and gritty relative to D&D, and to imply that ergo they must be really bad and only can be run by bad GMs is simply insulting.
> 
> One of my biggest beefs with D&D is that it is a genre unto itself. It doesn't resemble Tolkien-style epic fantasy, it doesn't resemble Howard or Leiber style swords & sorcery, it doesn't resemble Lovecraft or Clark Ashton Smith wierd tales, it doesn't resemble Mercedes Lackey romantic fantasy, it doesn't closely resemble Burroughs planetary romance; in short, it really doesn't closely resemble anything other than itself anymore in terms of the conventions, themes and "feel" of the game.
> 
> Therefore, it seems completely logical and reasonable to me that a great many players will want to explore other styles and subgenres in fantasy. Many other games do this. I personally think d20 is a perfectly fine vehicle for low magic, grim and gritty.



This is especially true considering that the older editions (and the designers thereof, via Dragon magazine and other outlets) indicated that these other forms of fantasy were the _influence_ of D&D. I mean, if you take a 1E DMG and use a magic marker to black-out everything that was ported in from a literary work, all you'd have left is a bunch of numbers with no context and EGG's thesis on social politics (both of which are rather dry).

I also consider "low magic" a total misnomer, being that *3E D&D* is, itself, "high magic". I only use the term "low magic" because D&D-level magic has become the _expected_ norm for d20 fantasy RPGs (an unfortunate occurance for the d20 system) and thus "low magic" forms a context that will be understood by most people. If I had my way, I'd use the term coined by one of my players: "sane magic".


----------



## buzz

jrients said:
			
		

> Clarification:  There's plenty of people who play d20 games over on RPG.net.  There are people who don't like d20 as well.



Oh, I know. I'm one of them. 

I'm just saying it's a much more common 'tude over there.


----------



## Hand of Evil

It is a long running dedate, fantasy vs reality.  I think gamers want a level of reality in their games, they can't help but to compare what they are playing to what they view as reality.  A good DM/Storyteller can run a fun entertaining game and no one will care one way or the other, they have too much fun that they don't have time to think out it.


----------



## EricNoah

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> That sounds about right!
> 
> FWIW, I'd agree that (some) low magic DnD can be difficult to run - simply because the further from the 'basic' rules a game gets, the more the GM has to keep track of, tweak on the fly and design house rules for.
> 
> Doing all that while making the game fun isn't going to be easy!




Indeed, spot on.  And it's not just the rules/house rules etc. that make it hard -- how do you sustain a long-running campaign where PC death is common and resurrection is not an option?  At some point all the campaign's original PCs will be dead and some players may be on their second, third, fourth PC.  Some players prefer continuity or the ability to continue playing one character, and the threat of not being able to do that isn't always attractive.  Maybe grim/gritty/low magic is more suitable for one-shots or mini-campaigns?


----------



## Woas

I've never played in a "Low-Magic" or "Gritty" campaign...


----------



## Bendris Noulg

EricNoah said:
			
		

> how do you sustain a long-running campaign where PC death is common and resurrection is not an option?



Simple!

Find players that understand that kick-in-the-door is the _least_ viable option in any scenario and you end up with PCs that don't drop like week old Floridian flies.  In 7 years, we've had a total of 3 PC deaths, compared to 5 old-age retirements (2 of which came out of retirement later to be part of a large political/warfare focused campaign which ran just wonderfully and occured along-side a quest-type campaign being occomplished by younger and/or longer lived PCs).

Sure, a poor GM can use low magic or GNG-type rules to crush their players, but that's a GM problem, not a low magic/GNG problem.  On the other hand, "chumps" that _only_ see bad in low magic or GNG...  Well, that's a "chump" problem, and thus beneath me.


----------



## EricNoah

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Simple! [etc.]



I posit that it's not simple.  You are probably just good at running such a campaign!   I would say that it would be a challenge for a typical D&D gamemaster or player to run a grim/gritty/low-magic game and have it be "successful" (by whatever definition one would want to use).  

I have been running an AU campaign with "grittier" house rules that's not exactly low-magic, but healing is harder to come by and more things can hurt you in more ways.  The "shape" of adventuring is quite different.  You can't stack up four mid-to-tough encounters in a row like you can in D&D; yet if you give them too much time to rest in between, they go into each combat ready to completely unload everything they have, so it's a challenge to come up with encounters that they won't walk through but that won't cripple them unfairly.  Not that it's bad, it's fun, but it is different enough that even for an experienced D&D GM, it's going to take a lot of practice and tweaking and fudging to get just the right balance.


----------



## Spatzimaus

Most of the bad experiences I've had with "low magic" campaigns can be traced back to the same mistake: the DM assumes it's a simple change, and doesn't attempt to adjust all the interrelated aspects of the game.

"I just won't allow magic items to be bought."
(The party is nearly wiped out by a low-CR monster with DR, since they don't have magic weapons; only the offensive spellcasters can do much.)

"No one can take a spellcasting class, they're supposed to be rare."
(The party takes a month to heal up from a minor skirmish, and gets wiped out by the first guy they meet who knows _Fireball_)

And so on.  D&D has been balanced to a rock-paper-scissors style of unstable equilibrium, where each class can beat certain types of enemies easily and lose to other types.  Likewise, it assumes the classes have access to some items; if you don't have an Armor AC AND a Natural AC AND a Deflection AC and so on, you'll get hit way too much.
Removing one type of character/enemy without adjusting all the other related parts of the game is just asking for trouble.  A good DM will have no problem with this, because he'll already be considering all the other things he'll have to adjust, but a bad DM won't realize that he needs to tweak DR and resists and regeneration and AC and... you get the idea.

Frankly, in my experience, the best "low magic" settings are those that take a nonmagical system (like D20Modern) and add a relatively open magical system to it, one that doesn't scale with level so well or doesn't give so many spells per day at high level, but that has more flexibility than the D&D slot system.  Or, something like Four Colors To Fantasy, where you add a very flexible "Hero" class; even though practically all of the PCs will take some levels in it, they'll still take the other classes at some levels.  In my opinion, D&D just isn't set up to be low-magic, or at least not without a LOT of work and the need to second-guess everything you bring in from normal D&D sources.


----------



## Gothmog

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Simple!
> 
> Find players that understand that kick-in-the-door is the _least_ viable option in any scenario and you end up with PCs that don't drop like week old Floridian flies.  In 7 years, we've had a total of 3 PC deaths, compared to 5 old-age retirements (2 of which came out of retirement later to be part of a large political/warfare focused campaign which ran just wonderfully and occured along-side a quest-type campaign being occomplished by younger and/or longer lived PCs).
> 
> Sure, a poor GM can use low magic or GNG-type rules to crush their players, but that's a GM problem, not a low magic/GNG problem.  On the other hand, "chumps" that _only_ see bad in low magic or GNG...  Well, that's a "chump" problem, and thus beneath me.




I couldn't agree more.  I have been running a low magic/GnG game since the summer before I started undergrad (12 years now), and in that time there have been 3 PC deaths, 2 retirements, and one PC leaving the adventuring life to become a religious leader.  Still playing in the campaign are 3 of the original 4 characters- a paladin, ranger, and mage.  The players have been careful, smart about tactics, and don't use the kick-in-the-door-and-steal-the-loot mentality.  When they think they are outclassed, they withdraw and come up with a better solution.  I have found that this style of gaming requires a different, more patient outlook on the part of the players, and requires a realization that they aren't supermen, but people existing in a world along with all the NPCs, with the same limitations and obstacles.

The complaint of many of those who don't like low magic/GnG that DMs use it to hammer and screw players is really a non-issue.  That is more of a function of DMing style than magic level or tone of the game.  And its not hard to have campaign continuity in a low magic/GnG game, the DM just has to realize that he'll need to watch the kinds of challenges he puts up against the party (just as any DM needs to).  That said, I think players often play MUCH smarter in a low magic game because they realize there is no quick fix for things like death, mutilation, insanity, etc.


----------



## Gothmog

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I posit that it's not simple.  You are probably just good at running such a campaign!   I would say that it would be a challenge for a typical D&D gamemaster or player to run a grim/gritty/low-magic game and have it be "successful" (by whatever definition one would want to use).
> 
> I have been running an AU campaign with "grittier" house rules that's not exactly low-magic, but healing is harder to come by and more things can hurt you in more ways.  The "shape" of adventuring is quite different.  You can't stack up four mid-to-tough encounters in a row like you can in D&D; yet if you give them too much time to rest in between, they go into each combat ready to completely unload everything they have, so it's a challenge to come up with encounters that they won't walk through but that won't cripple them unfairly.  Not that it's bad, it's fun, but it is different enough that even for an experienced D&D GM, it's going to take a lot of practice and tweaking and fudging to get just the right balance.




Running low magic is definitely different than running standard D&D, and requires a little bit of adjustment on the part of the DM.  One of the first things that the DM has to realize that that 4 consecutive combats with equal CR foes WILL kill the PCs.  You pretty much have to ditch the CR system and come up with encounters that will be tough and fun for the PCs based on the known strengths and weaknesses of the party.  Minor skirmishes on the way to the objective are fine, but smart PCs will avoid a battle until the conditions are most favorable to them.  This might mean sneaking past guards or making diversions rather than killing them.  In most adventures, I usually have just 1-2 combats, with the major fight being very tough, and allowing the characters to bring out all their big guns there rather than in the preceeding encounters.


----------



## jester47

I think a great way to get low magic is to add a backlash component...

Aaron.


----------



## kamosa

I would draw a distinction between a tough game and a "grim and gritty" game.

Tough games are where the players know they can't win every fight and that they won't face challenges that only try to drain their resources.  They know that kicking down the door might be a death sentence, so they look for other ways to solve the adventure.

"grim and gritty" has usually had a completely different conitation.  It has meant you are powerless.  You can't avoid being railroaded into the GM's plots, because, it is a gritty world where you have no allies and you have no tools that will avoid the pitfalls of their world.

The sad thing is that most GM's that say they want  "grim or gritty" or "low magic" think they are really accomplishing something great by running a lame game.  I've seen more pompus GM's that think they are great because they had the "courage" to ban Magic Missile.  

Their arguements all tend to boil down to "D&D would be great, if the players just didn't do anything and just followed my awsome story and plot."  

I'm not saying low magic is neccessarily bad, to each his own, really.  It just always seems to be an excuse to justify running a lame game.  When I meet a new GM, if they start out with "I run low magic" my alarm bells go off and I start marking the exits.


----------



## EricNoah

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Running low magic is definitely different than running standard D&D, and requires a little bit of adjustment on the part of the DM.  One of the first things that the DM has to realize that that 4 consecutive combats with equal CR foes WILL kill the PCs.  You pretty much have to ditch the CR system and come up with encounters that will be tough and fun for the PCs based on the known strengths and weaknesses of the party.  Minor skirmishes on the way to the objective are fine, but smart PCs will avoid a battle until the conditions are most favorable to them.  This might mean sneaking past guards or making diversions rather than killing them.  In most adventures, I usually have just 1-2 combats, with the major fight being very tough, and allowing the characters to bring out all their big guns there rather than in the preceeding encounters.





Yep, and some of the fun comes from the fact that if the PCs are short of resources, you can kind of "nickel-and-dime" them in a way that doesn't always work in standard D&D.


----------



## Desdichado

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Running low magic is definitely different than running standard D&D, and requires a little bit of adjustment on the part of the DM.  One of the first things that the DM has to realize that that 4 consecutive combats with equal CR foes WILL kill the PCs.  You pretty much have to ditch the CR system and come up with encounters that will be tough and fun for the PCs based on the known strengths and weaknesses of the party.  Minor skirmishes on the way to the objective are fine, but smart PCs will avoid a battle until the conditions are most favorable to them.  This might mean sneaking past guards or making diversions rather than killing them.  In most adventures, I usually have just 1-2 combats, with the major fight being very tough, and allowing the characters to bring out all their big guns there rather than in the preceeding encounters.



In other words, it's not necessarily different than old style D&D in some regards.  CR has become (IMO) a crutch for DMs.  Depending too much on it and not actually reading over the abilites of the foes in the encounters, and judging based on that what the party can survive seem to be relatively new problems.  I certainly don't recall my 1e or Basic DMs talking about problems like that.

So, no, it's not necessarily "simple" to run a low magic campaign, but that simplicity is artificial and new-fangled anyway!


----------



## I'm A Banana

> There is no fear of the unknown (divination).




WRONG. Divination doesn't solve all your problems, and there are always counters to any spell.



> There is no moral uncertainty (commune).




WRONG. Since when does knowing an alignment mean there is no moral uncertainty?



> There are no arduous journeys (teleporation).




WRONG. You just have to make the adventure the journey and not the destination.



> There is no heroic sacrifice (raise dead).




WRONG. It's just that heroic sacrifice now is the soul, and not just the body.

So, in conclusion, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Don't tell me my game can't have all that, just because I have those spells. Spells don't define what the story can do. I do.


----------



## milotha

I have found that many GMs that are unable to handle higher powered magic (usually any spell caster above 6th level) are often drawn to "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns.  This allows them to limit the spell caster abilities that interfere with their plot designs: divination, increased movement capablities, any magical distance damage, increased healing, etc.  Thus, you have a selection bias.  With many "low magic, gritty" campaigns being run by poor or inexperieinced GMs.

I would also note that many of us play D&D since it offers a "high magic" world.  Yes, there are many other systems and other settings in d20 that offer this type of play, and if I wanted one of them, I would go play one of those campaigns.  

I've also noted a level of machoism over "low magic gritty" campaigns.  As if one isn't really role playing until one plays in a "low magic gritty" campaigns.  I would beg to differ.  Just because a campaign has high magic, doesn't mean that it isn't challenging or exciting.  It just means that the PCs face different types of challenges.


----------



## Desdichado

kamosa said:
			
		

> "grim and gritty" has usually had a completely different conitation.  It has meant you are powerless.  You can't avoid being railroaded into the GM's plots, because, it is a gritty world where you have no allies and you have no tools that will avoid the pitfalls of their world.



No it doesn't have that at all.  _There is no correlation between grim and gritty and railroading!_  Your continued espousal of this viewpoint is offensive, especially considering the many replies which you've conveniently ignored.


			
				kamosa said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that most GM's that say they want  "grim or gritty" or "low magic" think they are really accomplishing something great by running a lame game.  I've seen more pompus GM's that think they are great because they had the "courage" to ban Magic Missile.
> 
> Their arguements all tend to boil down to "D&D would be great, if the players just didn't do anything and just followed my awsome story and plot."



I've never once heard anything even remotely resembling this.  Are you also suggesting that the White Wolf games are all lame because they don't have Magic Missile and because they are grim?  Or that their GMs are automatically pompous?  How about GURPS players?  Are they all arrogant asses who are foisting some "lame" game on their players?  How about HERO?  The Lord of the Rings game?  Alternity?  etc. etc. ad nauseum?  You can't possibly be that ignorant unless you're deliberately ignoring what people are telling you in this thread.  That comes across as extremely trollish whether you mean it to or not.


			
				kamosa said:
			
		

> I'm not saying low magic is neccessarily bad, to each his own, really.  It just always seems to be an excuse to justify running a lame game.  When I meet a new GM, if they start out with "I run low magic" my alarm bells go off and I start marking the exits.



Actually, I can't see how that isn't _exactly_ what you're saying, but you're right at least about "to each their own."  An absolute refusal of a player to even accept that something non-standard for D&D could possibly be good seems to be much more of an alarm bell to me.


----------



## Desdichado

milotha said:
			
		

> I have found that many GMs that are unable to handle higher powered magic (usually any spell caster above 6th level) are often drawn to "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns.  This allows them to limit the spell caster abilities that interfere with their plot designs: divination, increased movement capablities, any magical distance damage, increased healing, etc.  Thus, you have a selection bias.  With many "low magic, gritty" campaigns being run by poor or inexperieinced GMs.



In my experience, the poor and inexperienced GMs I've played with have instead run "default" D&D.  Usually in a dungeon.  It's odd that we have two conflicting stories from those who are trying to "bash" low magic and gritty games; both that poor and inexperienced GMs run them, and that they are much more difficult to run well.  If both of these are true, then grim and gritty and low magic must result in monumentally bad games.  While I have no doubt that monumentally bad games do exist, to suggest a correlation between "suckiness" and fans of a certain style of game is ludicrous.


----------



## kamosa

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No it doesn't have that at all.  _There is no correlation between grim and gritty and railroading!_  Your continued espousal of this viewpoint is offensive, especially considering the many replies which you've conveniently ignored.




I only see GM's espousing that they love "grim and gritty" I don't see any players jumping up and down for the restrictions.  Pound the table that I am wrong if you must, but it doesn't change my experiences.  



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've never once heard anything even remotely resembling this.  Are you also suggesting that the White Wolf games are all lame because they don't have Magic Missile and because they are grim?  Or that their GMs are automatically pompous?  How about GURPS players?  Are they all arrogant asses who are foisting some "lame" game on their players?  How about HERO?  The Lord of the Rings game?  Alternity?  etc. etc. ad nauseum?  You can't possibly be that ignorant unless you're deliberately ignoring what people are telling you in this thread.




Actually I have found White Wolf that way, but the others are fine.  I'm not ignoring what people are saying.  I'm saying that players don't think it's all that great, and it is a very good warning sign that you are about to have a lame game.   

Sure there are good GM's that can pull it off.  But, for the most part it just falls flat and becomes an excuse to screw over the players and have a boring, lame game.


----------



## Desdichado

The only reason a low magic game would be more likely to be a boring, lame game is if you have a strong taste towards high magic.  That's fine.  The only reason someone would insult someone else over a question of taste is that they're a troll.  That's not fine.

You may have had bad experiences with a DM or two on low magic, but that's not a very good reason to paint with such a broad brush here.


----------



## EricNoah

Well I think we can all agree that...

*it takes a skilled DM to run a high-level standard D&D campaign because of all the possibilities the spells open up;

*it takes a skilled DM to run a low-magic/grim/gritty campaign and have it be "fun" because D&D's core assumptions don't directly support such a game;

*and it takes practice to become a skilled DM no matter what kind of game you are running, and as a consequence sometimes you'll screw up, and sometimes the players will get caught in that.  

What is probably frustrating many players is when the DM isn't good at a particular type of game yet, and instead of changing or growing just starts to limit options.  

Bah, rambling here, sorry...


----------



## I'm A Banana

I think the truth is more that they're hard to get right, and they can be favored by those who can't get the regular rules right, and see a need to change them.

Of course, the better end of the spectrum, the more common one here, is people who can get the regular rules right, but like the mechanical feel of an lmgng style. Which results in games that are just as good as anybody else's, no better, no worse, than the DM's running them and the players in them.

It doesn't take more *skill* to run lmgng. Any more than it takes skill to run a high or epic level D&D campaign. It just requires more desire to change the rules, and make your own. And that desire is held both by people who want a different feel, and by people who think that Magic Missile is overpowered. I think the bashers of lmgng are getting too hung up on the latter to note the existence of the former.


----------



## EricNoah

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The only reason a low magic game would be more likely to be a boring, lame game is if you have a strong taste towards high magic.  That's fine.  The only reason someone would insult someone else over a question of taste is that they're a troll.  That's not fine.
> 
> You may have had bad experiences with a DM or two on low magic, but that's not a very good reason to paint with such a broad brush here.




Ok, we've heard your opinion that you think he's a troll.  I'd say it's time to just let it go, JD.  I do see where he's coming from and it's a legitimate complaint even if you think he's painting everyone with that brush.


----------



## EricNoah

kamosa said:
			
		

> Sure there are good GM's that can pull it off.  But, for the most part it just falls flat and becomes an excuse to screw over the players and have a boring, lame game.




I don't believe there's a single GM out there who wants to run a boring, lame game.  If it turns out that way, it's not because they want it to be that way.  It's because they have an ideal picture of what the campaign should be like, but they maybe don't have the skill to do it.  And as I mentioned elsewhere, maybe there's a stubbornness that keeps them from either admiting that it's not working, or learning how to do it right?


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The only reason someone would insult someone else over a question of taste is that they're a troll.



And there's certainly no lacking of them in this thread...

As usual.

I _love_ the manner that some folks just can't talk about some things without making baseless and *ignorant* attacks on the competance and ability of other gamers without any actual knowledge of what that person's game is actually like.  It says a lot about the people that are making these statements without ever actually addressing the topic (i.e., they're ignorant and have nothing credible or interesting to add to the discussion beyond illustrating their own ignorance).


----------



## Mean DM

kamosa said:
			
		

> Sure there are good GM's that can pull it off.  But, for the most part it just falls flat and becomes an excuse to screw over the players and have a boring, lame game.




I believe this argument can hold true for some high fantasy games too.  While it is clear that a GnG game is not to your liking, why do you feel the need to disparage those that like it?  The need to "screw over the players" is a DM trait and is not specific to any campaign style.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## milotha

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> In my experience, the poor and inexperienced GMs I've played with have instead run "default" D&D.  Usually in a dungeon.  It's odd that we have two conflicting stories from those who are trying to "bash" low magic and gritty games; both that poor and inexperienced GMs run them, and that they are much more difficult to run well.  If both of these are true, then grim and gritty and low magic must result in monumentally bad games.  While I have no doubt that monumentally bad games do exist, to suggest a correlation between "suckiness" and fans of a certain style of game is ludicrous.




They are easier to run, if you are not at all concerned about the much touted "balance" of 3.Xed.  I've seen many a GM strip powers, spells, and classes without providing anything in recompense.  

Often these inexperienced or poor GMs will view higher level spells as plot destroying character abilites.  In an effort to prevent this, they will decide to run "low magic, gritty" campaigns.  Thus, at 1st level they will: nerf any spells they wish, limit access to spells, nerf any magic items above 6th level, nerf magic item creation feats, and nerf the meta-magic feats in pre-emptive fear of the maximized hasted fireball.  

In recompense, they grant no extra abilites.  No increaded hit die for mages, no ability to cast in armour, etc etc.  Then, just as they planned, everyone is playing fighters and rogues.  This is easier on the GM because they will view that fighters and rogues have no "game breaking" abilites.  It's much easier to compute on average how much damage a fighter can dish out in a round.  It's much harder to compute the tactical, game changing abilites that spell casters provide.  So, many poor or inexperienced GMs use the terms "low magic and gritty" as a shield. 

Does this mean that all "low magic gritty" campaigns suck (a word that I never used).  No!  But it does mean that there is a selection bias for poor or inexperienced GMs to be running these types of games.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Well, to me, grim and gritty means that all the combats are tough, very tough.  None of this standard 25% of a party’s resources.  Grim and gritty combats make the PCs use 99% (and then some) of their available resources to survive.  An example would be a Conan-type world campaign I played in a few years ago.  At the end, our PCs got involved in a big combat in the temple of an evil priest.  As we took down bad guy minions, we started getting taken down ourselves.  In the end, we had 4 party members that were unconscious for various reasons (0 or less HP, but stabilized under old 2E rules) and the sole remaining PC ended up with 1 hit point when he landed the killing blow on the BBEG.  To top it off, the temple started collapsing around us when the BBEG died and the sole remaining PC had to make some good rolls to drag our unconscious butts out of the building in time!  That was surviving by the proverbial skin of our teeth.  

Another would be in a Kalamar campaign we ran in '98-'99.  At the end, we had 9 PCs going up against a demon whose demon-bride was about to give birth to a Dark Child that would bring the world 300 years of Darkness (or something like that...)... in the end, 8 of the PCs had to sacrifice themselves to slow down the demon and allow one PC in to kill the demon-bride before she could give birth...

Some DMs run games where the PCs are challenged, but they do not give you that Fear of PC Death feeling.  In a grim and gritty campaign, you always have the fear that death is waiting for you around every corner and it is going to take all your skills and wits as a PC just to survive.

A low magic game is where most people are first level commoners.  The party has one spellcaster at the most and any sort of magic (items, spellcasters, etc) is rare.  Raise Dead is extremely rare, if available at all.  If you go to a local tavern, the guy behind the bar is probably not a retired 15th level fighter with a +5 magic sword or two lying around waiting to bequeath to the PCs while his cook wife is a half-celestial magic-user who loves to make items for low level PCs.  

Low magic is where most enemies, especially in the beginning, are human, demi-human or humanoid.  Things like demons, devils, vampires or dragons are saved for special campaign turning or climactic moments.


----------



## WizarDru

kamosa said:
			
		

> I only see GM's espousing that they love "grim and gritty" I don't see any players jumping up and down for the restrictions. Pound the table that I am wrong if you must, but it doesn't change my experiences.



Well, I play a standard to high-magic D&D game, but I have nothing against low-magic, either.  At Epic-levels, standard magic D&D takes a LOT of work.

I actually don't see players jumping up and down at all in favor of either type of game.  I see mostly gamers who are both, and the only folks who are chiming in who don't like it are mostly folks who've been burned by a bad experience.  That's not very good non-sampling, statisically speaking.

No matter what style of D&D you play, it all comes down to the DM's skill at managing the game.  

When most folks talk about 'grim and gritty' and 'low magic', what I think they really mean is 'a challenging world where our raw abilities and courage are the keys to our victory, and a place where we're never completely without fear of death or danger'.  They don't want to have a Brooch of Shielding to be able to battle the wizard, with magic measures and counter-measures...and they don't want a 10th level fighter to become a demigod who can't be threatened by fifty 1st level warriors.   it's the difference between super heroes and superheroes, so to speak.  Jackie Chan versus Dragonball Z, perhaps.


----------



## Gothmog

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> In other words, it's not necessarily different than old style D&D in some regards.  CR has become (IMO) a crutch for DMs.  Depending too much on it and not actually reading over the abilites of the foes in the encounters, and judging based on that what the party can survive seem to be relatively new problems.  I certainly don't recall my 1e or Basic DMs talking about problems like that.
> 
> So, no, it's not necessarily "simple" to run a low magic campaign, but that simplicity is artificial and new-fangled anyway!




Well, yeah.  You have basically come out and said what I was alluding to.  




			
				kamosa said:
			
		

> "grim and gritty" has usually had a completely different conitation. It has meant you are powerless. You can't avoid being railroaded into the GM's plots, because, it is a gritty world where you have no allies and you have no tools that will avoid the pitfalls of their world.
> 
> The sad thing is that most GM's that say they want "grim or gritty" or "low magic" think they are really accomplishing something great by running a lame game. I've seen more pompus GM's that think they are great because they had the "courage" to ban Magic Missile.
> 
> Their arguements all tend to boil down to "D&D would be great, if the players just didn't do anything and just followed my awsome story and plot."
> 
> I'm not saying low magic is neccessarily bad, to each his own, really. It just always seems to be an excuse to justify running a lame game. When I meet a new GM, if they start out with "I run low magic" my alarm bells go off and I start marking the exits.




Wow, I don't think you could be more wrong.  A DM being a plot nazi/railroader has nothing to do with low magic/GnG type games- its simply the sign of a bad DM.  In fact, most plot nazis I have run into have run default to EXTREMELY high magic games, and want to tell their "epic story".  They usually have invincible pet NPCs, and events that the PCs cannot influence at all, and are punished if they try.  I don't think all high magic games are like this obviously, but bad experience with previous railroading high magic DMs is one reason I don't tend to like high magic/heroic types of games.  That, and I prefer the feel of a game that is more Howard/Leiber like.





			
				milotha said:
			
		

> I have found that many GMs that are unable to handle higher powered magic (usually any spell caster above 6th level) are often drawn to "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns. This allows them to limit the spell caster abilities that interfere with their plot designs: divination, increased movement capablities, any magical distance damage, increased healing, etc. Thus, you have a selection bias. With many "low magic, gritty" campaigns being run by poor or inexperieinced GMs.
> 
> I would also note that many of us play D&D since it offers a "high magic" world. Yes, there are many other systems and other settings in d20 that offer this type of play, and if I wanted one of them, I would go play one of those campaigns.
> 
> I've also noted a level of machoism over "low magic gritty" campaigns. As if one isn't really role playing until one plays in a "low magic gritty" campaigns. I would beg to differ. Just because a campaign has high magic, doesn't mean that it isn't challenging or exciting. It just means that the PCs face different types of challenges.




Ok, I'll give you that I don't really like the high-powered spells in D&D.  Its not that I can't handle them in play, as much as I just don't like the feel and flavor they give the world.  However, I will disagree with you that more inexperienced/bad DMs tend to run low magic games.  Almost all inexperienced DMs run standard D&D since the guidelines are set out for you in the core books.  Think of it this way: in standard D&D, if a character wants to learn something, you use divination/commune/what have you and an answer is provided for you.  In a low magic game, such options often are not available, and the PCs have to do lots of invesigation, legwork, and make contacts to learn the required info.  That takes a HELL of a lot more work on the DMs part to come up with, roleplay through, and make sure the info given makes logical sense.

I really don't understand the vehemence with which some posters attack low magic/GnG gaming.  Yes, I could come on and say how much I hate high magic epic level gaming, but what would be the point?  Its not going to change anyone's mind, and only make me look like a fool.  Its a taste preference, nothing more.  There is no right or wrong way to play the game, as long as you have fun!


----------



## Coredump

The three worst (by far) campaigns I have ever been in were all High magic.

Two entailed plenty of railroading and the players having little/no control of what was happening.

Does this mean High magic is automatically horrible? Nah, just had some bad DM's. (heh, I was one of the three, I did a lousy job that campaign.)

As far as LM=Bad DM.  Well yeah, that is a pretty troll like comment. Same as saying that liking high magic is only because the players are too pathetic to accomplish anything without uber magic at their disposal.


And that is what I think the problem comes down to. Munchkins prefer really high magic.  So there is a backlash that paints all high-magic types as munchkins or potential munchkins.  So those that like high magic blast back with lowmagic types are pompous and too stupid to use the 'real rules'.


BTW, I succeed at using the 'real rules' and still have a pretty low magic campaign.  I make sure the players can get/find/recover/etc enough magic that is 'good enough'; and make sure the monsters/obstacles are appropriate for their abilities and equipment.


The other problem is that different folks define low magic in different ways. I don't have magic shops on every corner. But some of the larger cities might have something resembling one, with a limited selection.


And I disagree that low magic automatically makes magic users uber powerful.  Afterall, it will be harder for them to get spells/scrolls, and wands, etc.


----------



## EricNoah

Gothmog said:
			
		

> However, I will disagree with you that more inexperienced/bad DMs tend to run low magic games.  Almost all inexperienced DMs run standard D&D since the guidelines are set out for you in the core books.




Yes, I agree, I think this is probably true.  



			
				Gothmog said:
			
		

> I really don't understand the vehemence with which some posters attack low magic/GnG gaming.




They must have had some bad gaming experience and now they blame all bad gaming experiences on low-magic/grim/gritty style games instead of blaming their bad DM. Which is pretty silly, as it is quite clear that others have had good, fun experiences with them.


----------



## kamosa

Mean DM said:
			
		

> I believe this argument can hold true for some high fantasy games too.  While it is clear that a GnG game is not to your liking, why do you feel the need to disparage those that like it?  The need to "screw over the players" is a DM trait and is not specific to any campaign style.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark




I would agree that high magic can fall flat, and can go over the top.  The reason I come out so strong on this is that unlike high fantasy, no one ever seems to say that low magic can be bad.   

While I would agree that the problems are tied to certain GM's.  I'd also say the the style is also tied in many cases to those same GM's.


 The GM's I've ranted against could never understand why we were bored.   Would never even consider that they were running a game that just wasn't interesting.  Didn't understand that they were using these terms as a way to crush the players.  

They'd come out to boards like this and get reaffirmed that they were doing the right thing.  That low level is the ultimate style.  That we were just whiny players.  No one ever said to them that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone not just the GM.   In reality they were on an extended ego trip and games would end after a few sessions.

GM's go through several stages as they learn the game.  First they go over the top.  Everything is ok, the players are never challenged and the treasure is ridculous.   The game falls flat, becomes a joke and the GM suddenly is faced with god like PC's that they can't challenge.

But then, many react back and take everything away.  Call it the second stage of learning to be a GM.  The problem is that many in this stage never realise that this is just as big a problem to the game as too high magic.    They lean on the players and take away ability after ability until all you can do is literally sit at the table with folded arms and listen to them prattle on.  

Hey, in their mind the problem is solved.  The players aren't breaking the game and they are getting out their story.   In discussions around the table I've called this subsituting low level with low magic.  IE, you can't keep the players at low levels, so you take away abilities until they are essentially still low level.    

If you don't want a world with Magic shops and insta raise dead potioin despensers modeled on soda machines, good for you.   If you want tough encounters, good. I railed for this last week.  But be honest with yourself as well.  Are you nerfing teleport for flavor reasons, or because you'd rather be playing at low levels?

Disclaimer: broad strokes, doesn't apply to your game, etc.


----------



## Ace

buzz said:
			
		

> I'm with Hong on this one.
> 
> Anyway, enough with deifnitions... What I'd really like to know is why "low magic" and "grim & gritty" seem to be such a holy grail among gamers. It may not be as common here, but over at RPG.net, these terms come up all the time--granted, embracing "low n' gritty" seems to go part-and-parcel with the general "hat of d02" over there.
> 
> Still, there seems to be this kind of mania, this covetous twinkle gamers get in their eye when it's mentioned that a game is "grim" and "low magic."
> 
> How come?




I think many gamers (me included) like the fact that Grim and Gritty and LOw Magic games require the players to use their own abilities and cunning and not resolve problems with a simple spell or magic items

Grim N Gritty world design is also easier than a well thought out D&D world-- I am not talking about a generic D&D world (its uh like a ren faire with dragons) but a world that makes sense. Given the relative power of some Wyrms they could raise whole cities. A decent high level adventuring party can kill small towns

At very high or epic levels charcters are supermen (err ok Superbeings) and untouchable except by massive armies, uber monsters or other supers 

In regular D&D Magic spells like Raise Dead,Create Food and Water, Plant Growth and even Cure Light Wounds can change the world in ways (keep in mind that a Cure Light can take a commoner from Near Death to Hale and Hearty in a day) change the world in ways that boggle the mind

Low Magic allows DM's to say "Ok this is like Imperial Rome or Medieval France or whatever" and minimize the impact of magic. Magic becomes wonderous and not an alternate technology. 

As for Grim and Gritty well D&D combat is very escalatory (i.e Today Orcs Tommorow Gnoll Next Month Great Wyrm) and a lot of G&G DM's want Orcs to be threatening and any level without making Orc Superheros or Big Monsters (See above).

Combat in D&D is deadly at matched levels but if there is a level dichotomy D&D comabt is a massacre (standard military unit as per the DMG is mostly 1st level warriors -- if they meet a party of Adventurers of 9th level or a big monster  they die -- easy as that)

GNG allows DM"s to make monsters much scarrier (a troll is terrifying under GNG) and regular encounters more tense

When they are combined it pushes the focus of the campaign away from combat and more to interaction of a different sorts (stealth, intrigue, social whatever) 

 Before anybody blows a gasket I know not all D&D games are mostly combat.
But  IMO a lot of GNG DM's and players have been stung with hackfest games they didn't enjoy and want to use rules reinforcment to cut back on combat 

The rule in GNG is "if you want to live a long time avoid combat"

This is not satisfactory to a lot of gamers but tastes very 

As for myself I prefer Grim and Gritty -- but YMMV


----------



## Desdichado

Rather than saying "low magic sucks just because" I think a more useful discussion would be how to make low magic, grim and gritty d20 games work.

I've tried a few things, and I like all of the following:

Damage Conversion from Unearthed Arcana is very helpful in keeping PCs from dying if they really like to get into the thick of combat.
Lowered massive damage threshold is complemented by making a failed save result in instant -1 HP rather than instant death.  You still take the PCs out, but he's got a chance to stabilize and live to fight another day.
Treat Injury from d20 Modern, especially with feats like Surgery, etc. to complement it, help to speed up healing without requiring magic.  Some kind of herblore that works to speed up healing times would also be appropriate without "breaking genre" and simply being magic healing.
As Gothmog mentioned, give the PCs obvious outs -- they can navigate some encounters without actually fighting, which only helps to conserve party resources for the fights that really matter.  It's just as tense to try and sneak through some gauntlet, or negotiate your way out of a tight spot as it is to pull out your sword and start chopping.  Retreat should normally be an option as well; nobody wants to be stuck in a hopeless fight.
You have to be really careful about monsters, and essentially take CRs with a grain of salt.  More like a big bag of rock salt; the kind they throw on roads to melt the ice.  Simple abilities like incorporeality (to use one example) can make a "low challenge" opponent become nigh invincible without magic missile, magic weapons, etc.  One way to handle this is limited use magic as well, although make it so the PCs have to make tough choices and not burn up those limited uses before they really need them.
Keep an eye on your players; if they're feeling put upon, they won't enjoy themselves as much.  But most of this is advice that applies for both "standard" and "money haul" campaigns as well, really.


----------



## EricNoah

*Moderator hat, activate!*

Ok, folks, I'm officially tired of the word "troll" in this thread.  If you disagree with someone, fine, talk about that, but let's not go down that road of trying to guess the intent behind someone's incomprehensible (to you) point of view.  Talk about what you think but don't get blamey, snarky, etc.  Thanks!


----------



## Drew

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> To me
> "Low magic" usually means "I hate handing out magical items, so I removed them, inadvertantly making anyone who plays a wizard or cleric significantly more powerful than the rest of the party, but that's ok, because I cover it by saying that wizards and clerics are uncommon. Even though there's one of each in every party."
> 
> "Grim and gritty" usually means "I love save vs death mechanics and I hate hitpoints. I've further devalued the fighters of the party by removing any staying power they have."
> 
> Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences.




Really? I know you're just trying to be insulting but I'm, well, insulted. I'm currently working on my own brand new homebrew world, which will be both low magic and a little more "grim." These are not clumsy mechanics that I'm just throwing into my campaign without thought of consequence. I've been playing 3.0/3.5 since it was released at GenCon 2004. My current campaign has been going almost monthly for almost four years.

I really like D&D, but I need a change. I'm currently deeply engrossed in book three of George Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire", and these books have indeed been an inspiration for the "feel" I'm trying to capture. I want to facilitation a RPG experiance that is a little more focused on trying to find non combat solutions to problems, and dealing with the intrigue and backstabbing that is only possible when there are so such things as Speak with Dead.

In short, I want this new campaign to have PCs that behave less like super heroes and more like literary characters. Tough, powerful, but still mortal. I want PCs to rely on their own abilities and not on magic items. I want to keep the challenging aspects of low level adventuring (long travel distance, bandits, weather and terrain concerns, disease) through mid and even mid-high levels, but I still want the PCs to be heroic men and women who strive (and often succeed) against great odds. We're an experianced group, and I think we can handle a system that rewards creativity and "thinking on your feet."

That's why I want low magic and gritty. I love D&D as written, but I've run it that way since 2000 and I'm looking for a change of style and pace. To say that I'm not thinking this through is wrong.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I think many gamers (me included) like the fact that Grim and Gritty and LOw Magic games require the players to use their own abilities and cunning and not resolve problems with a simple spell or magic items




They do not do this any more than high magic games.

Magic != Easy Solution. Saying that it does is remarkably disengenious to every campaign out there that uses normal or high magic.

I'm of the opinion that "I want a different feel" is a good reason to go lmgng. I'm of the opinion that "I don't like raise dead" really isn't so much. Of course, they can combine to a certain degree.


----------



## milotha

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> They do not do this any more than high magic games.
> 
> Magic != Easy Solution. Saying that it does is remarkably disengenious to every campaign out there that uses normal or high magic.





I agree.  I've been in many high level "regular" magic level games where the PCs still role played, still tried to solve things without combat, and still felt threatened and challenged.  I've often seen PCs resort to non-combat solutions at higher levels because 1) The gloves are off and the combat can be faster and more lethal at higher level 2) They don't necessarily know what they are up against  3) They also have more non-combat solutions open to them by the higher level spells.


----------



## EricNoah

Despite the somewhat outrageous assertions by those on the extreme ends of this discussion, this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a long time.  I think, in some way, it gets at the very heart of why people choose to DM, why they like certain campaign styles over others, and I'm just very curious about those who are firmly attached to one side or the other.  

Me, I could go either way -- I'm playing in a standard/high magic game and enjoying it, and i'm running a lower magic/grittier game and enjoying it.  

There's no right or wrong here and yet some people are talking like the (relatively few) experiences they've had are enough to judge the whole playing style, which is just goofy.  Even if you've played with a hundred different DMs or in a hundred different campaigns and they "all" went a certain way, you have no idea why others are doing what they're doing or if they're having fun at it -- unless you choose to just believe your fellow posters.  

This is a fascinating discussion -- but please don't put yourself in the position of looking foolish simply because you can't conceive that something is true for others when it's not true for you.


----------



## EricNoah

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Rather than saying "low magic sucks just because" I think a more useful discussion would be how to make low magic, grim and gritty d20 games work.




JD, thanks for your list.  You're right -- grim/gritty doesn't mean "insta-death for PCs" -- it means "more shades of grey between 100% healthy/ready to fight and dead."  

I did similar things -- it's easier to get "injured" in my house rules, but in some ways it's harder to "die" because almost all types of blunt attacks, as well as two energy types and two elemental types (cold, sonic, water, and air) cause subdual damage instead of hp damage in my game, and using AU's rules about disabled/dying makes it more likely that they can survive some kinds of attacks.  

Healing isn't as "instant" here because the base healing spell converts some hp damage into subdual damage as it cures the patient; and the higher level healing spell has a chance of permanently scarring you.  The "best" way to get healed in my game is to rest and be tended by a skilled healer or herbalist.  And that's been a fun flavor factor, because it means you're in the dungeon less and in town more, and so they are involved in town politics etc.

edit: the house rules in question can be found here -- http://webpages.charter.net/ericnoah/noahrpg/au/au.htm


----------



## NewJeffCT

EricNoah said:
			
		

> This is a fascinating discussion -- but please don't put yourself in the position of looking foolish simply because you can't conceive that something is true for others when it's not true for you.




I agree 100% on that.  I have played in both very high magic and very low magic campaigns (under the same DM) and had a great time with the campaigns.   A high magic campaign can still be grim & gritty... I described a low magic game where, in the end, we faced down a demon and 8 of the 9 PCs had to sacrifice their lives to slow him down in order for the 9th PC to complete her mission.  

However, a few years later, the same DM ran a campaign in the same gaming world, only this time the group was a bit smaller and it was very high magic.  This time, in one climactic scene, my 12th level paladin and one other PC gave their lives to allow the rest of the party to escape from a horde of the same type of demon as the previous campaign's one demon.  And, since we were on the demon's home plane, we both knew that we were also sacrificing our souls, as our gods would not be able to easily retrieve our souls from that plane.  Great campaign as well, just as deadly and much sacrifice required...


----------



## Fenris

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Ok, its late and my brain isn't working like it should.     If you'd tell me which of the modifications I suggested you were interested in seeing, I'd be happy to oblige.



Gothmog,
The spell tables (if you have them) and the rules for the ritual casting/multiple casters. You mentioned that your solution was in 3E, has this ported well to 3.5? Also di you modify the item creation feats? Thanks.
Fenris


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Rather than saying "low magic sucks just because" I think a more useful discussion would be how to make low magic, grim and gritty d20 games work.



I'm game for that...


Most encounters are with Class-Level creatures.  This includes Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, etc.  Creatures that _require_ lots of magic to defeat are _extremely_ rare, held in reserve for when the PCs _can_ handle it and _never_ used if they can't.  And, especially, allow most encounters (not all, but most) to have a non-combat resolution or means of bypassing.  Most non-avoidable combats are usually integral to the plotline/story, but may also then be much tougher than usual (90%-99% resource depletion with ever-present risk of death rather than 20% with slim-but-increasing risk of death) since it is likely the only combat occuring during that time period.
Legendary Weapons (ala _Swords of Our Fathers_, UA, etc.).  These are handy for giving uber-weapons and items to PCs at low-levels without them becoming uber-characters (ala Arthur the squire drawing Excalibur from the stone).
Spell Points.  Likely doesn't sound low magic, but can be applied in various ways.  For instance, spells have a Minimum Casting Level (ex: _fireball_ is 5th), and when cast they are cast at that level (ex: 20th Level Wizard casts _fireball_ for 5d6 damage).  The mage can then expend _extra_ points to increase the Casting Level (ex: +5 points = Casting Level 10, or 10d6 damage).  This presents spellcasters with a choice: Many low-level low-powered spells or a few major boom-booms.
No RP-assumptions in the Rules: No free spells per level based on non-existat research, no spontaneously sprouting magic spells, no laboratory/library without obtaining it through gameplay, religious obligations for divine casters are _never_ overlooked, etc.
Enemy/Villainous spellcasters are an _extreme_ rarity.  This allows parties without any spellcasters (particularly solo-games or solo-side-treks, both of which I do a lot of) to function without any hindrance.  PCs are also more likely to run into cultists (ala _Freeport_) than Clerics.
Superspells like Resurrection, True Resurrection, Wish, etc., rewritten as True Rituals (ala _Relics & Rituals_), allowing them to remain in play while increasing their cost and risk and adding a chance of failure (Ritual Casting check).  Some spells (mostly 3rd Party spells, but some Core spells as well) are also relegated to the Spell Lists for specific Prestige Classes, increasing their rarity and occurance in-game.
3E Psionics re-defined as Arcane Mysticism with BC/Malhavoc alterations generally ignored and psi att/def removed completely; Psionics system from _Fading Suns d20_ retooled to scale differently than written.
Removing the _presumption_ of needing magic to succeed as a character/group.  A lack of magic can only be viewed as "screwing" the players if that lack translates as an inability to face the challenges presented.  If the magic is both non-existant and non-required, than anyone whining about getting screwed is doing just that...  Whining.
Wounds/Vitality, Defense Bonus, Defense Rolls (opposed by Attack Rolls, Armor Penalty Applies), DR for Armor, Facing, etc.
Remove 20% Exp penalty from uneven multiclassing and instead reward +1 Skill Point per Favored Class level.  This, I have found, permits players to combine combative prowess with decent skill selections without "giving away the farm".
Most important: Inform the players that the game is harsh and will reflect certain real world conditions.  A character jumping from a 100' window will _not_ get up and walk away like nothing happened, a 10th Level Fighter can die at the hands of a mob, equipment needs to be repaired or replaced regularly or penalties will be applied, etc.  Players looking for this sort of game are invited; Those not interested have their names/numbers passed on to other GMs in the area that are more intune with his wants.  (This I don't really have to do too often as my own players are by far more likely to scrutinize a new member than I am as they don't want the game to change or be disrupted by a new member complaining constantly...  Seriously, you should have seen the hoops they made me jump through just to convert to the d20 engine.)
There's more, of course...  There always is.  But the above, I think, sets the main conditions of the "world stage" that my games occur in.


----------



## Dark Jezter

I guess I don't hate "low magic, grim & gritty" as much as I dislike gamers who think that playing such campaigns somehow makes them more mature and enlightened than people who play "standard magic, non-grim & gritty" campaigns.

I mean, so what if you think a campaign setting is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all other settings suck compared to it because magic is rare and encounters usually result in more dead PCs?  In the end, you are still playing a glorified game of make-believe just like the rest of us.


----------



## EricNoah

Thinking back over this thread, and going back to the original question (what is grim & gritty and low magic?), I think we can now safely identify a few things they are not...

1. They are not interchangeable terms (you can have grim & gritty with "normal amount" of magic; you can have low magic without "grim & gritty").

2. They are not inherently the tools, preferences, or outcomes of an inexperienced DM or one with so-called "poor" skills.

3.  They are not inherently the result of a DM who is a control freak or someone who wants to ruin the game for the players.

We may be able to say that they *are*...

1. A spectrum of campaign styles.  It's not on/off, or black/white, but shades of gray -- it can be "a little" grim/gritty or "a lot" low-magic, and you can tweak things a little or a lot.

2. Not well supported by the core D&D rules.  And as with any straying from the core rules, it gets trickier the further afield you go.  However, there are subsystems throughout various D20 and ogl products that could easily lend themselves to such a campaign style.  But integrating them is a real challenge because one change can trickle down through the rules pretty quickly.  

3.  Some people have been burned by bad experiences as players in these kinds of campaigns.  (But just because they got burned doesn't make them whiny munchkins, necessarily!)

4. A matter of taste.  Maybe you only like to read "gritty" fantasy.  It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with people who like to read "high" fantasy.  And the same goes for the games they choose.

5. Is it easier to die?  Eh, maybe.  Is it easier to get hurt?  Possibly.  Does it take longer to recover from being hurt? Probably.  Is coming back from the dead a common occurrance?  Probably not.  Are resources scarce?  Not necessarily -- a good DM will make sure there are resources -- they might not be scrolls of cure light wounds, but they might be, say, herbal ingredients that might accelerate your healing rate or something like that.  

Add more!


----------



## EricNoah

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I guess I don't hate "low magic, grim & gritty" as much as I dislike gamers who think that playing such campaigns somehow makes them more mature and enlightened than people who play "standard magic, non-grim & gritty" campaigns.
> 
> I mean, so what if you think a campaign setting is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all other settings suck compared to it becaues magic is rare and encounters usually result in more dead PCs?  In the end, you are still playing a glorified game of make-believe just like the rest of us.




Amen!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

EricNoah said:
			
		

> There may be a perception, possibly correct, that "any chump can run a standard D&D game, but only a master GM can run a successful grim/gritty/low magic game."  So maybe it's a question of (perceived?) bragging rights.




I'd say it is this:



			
				Josh Dyal said:
			
		

> One of my biggest beefs with D&D is that it is a genre unto itself. It doesn't resemble Tolkien-style epic fantasy, it doesn't resemble Howard or Leiber style swords & sorcery, it doesn't resemble Lovecraft or Clark Ashton Smith wierd tales, it doesn't resemble Mercedes Lackey romantic fantasy, it doesn't closely resemble Burroughs planetary romance; in short, it really doesn't closely resemble anything other than itself anymore in terms of the conventions, themes and "feel" of the game.
> 
> Therefore, it seems completely logical and reasonable to me that a great many players will want to explore other styles and subgenres in fantasy. Many other games do this. I personally think d20 is a perfectly fine vehicle for low magic, grim and gritty.




Fans of low/gritty simply want an experience that more closely approximates the fantasy genre they grew up reading. 

(Raise dead is the real culprit, here. It's damn hard to have an interesting story when you don't have to worry about the death of the characters...)


Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> WRONG. Divination doesn't solve all your problems, and there are always counters to any spell.




Divination, by the default rules of the setting, is the "trump." Nothing can be hidden that cannot be revealed through a higher form of divination, short of DM fiat.



> WRONG. Since when does knowing an alignment mean there is no moral uncertainty?




My comment was in reference to commune. Commune is not an alignment detection spell, so I'm not sure what your argument is. Commune is the act of petitioning the gods _directly_ for the answer to any question-- and the knowledge that whatever action is suggested is the right action. (And if not-- _atonement_.)



> WRONG. You just have to make the adventure the journey and not the destination.




I think you got that backwards. It is impossible to "make the adventure the journey" when the journey is accomplished by teleport and is over in the blink of an eye. That's not much of an adventure. 

Imagine Lord of the Rings with a Helm of Teleportation.



> WRONG. It's just that heroic sacrifice now is the soul, and not just the body.




There is no such thing as a "soul" defined in the game nor is there any finality of "soul"; in fact, the spell description says just the opposite. Unless the player chooses NOT to be resurrected, he's resurrected. Such a choice is not a "sacrifice." Tackling the dragon when you know there's no coming back is a sacrifice. Tackling the dragon knowing you, personally, might just decide, "Ahh, I'm tired, screw it, I'll stay dead." is not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is giving yourself over to things beyond your control. 



> So, in conclusion, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Don't tell me my game can't have all that, just because I have those spells. Spells don't define what the story can do. I do.




So you're saying you are forced to redefine what the spells say they do, in order to make the story do what you want it to do. 

I kinda think that's what the low-magic DMs are doing, too.

Leaving the spells in your game and then completely nerfing them through DM fiat is no better than just removing them in the first place.

Wulf


----------



## EricNoah

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> (Raise dead is the real culprit, here. It's damn hard to have an interesting story when you don't have to worry about the death of the characters...)




I think I have issues with your definition of "interesting".  I've run games that had raise dead in them that I thought were quite interesting.  I think I know what you're getting at -- it certainly changes the way the PCs react (and thus the players react) when they know death is "it".  But I don't think that's the only "interesting" way to play.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well I think we can all agree that...
> 
> *it takes a skilled DM to run a high-level standard D&D campaign because of all the possibilities the spells open up;
> 
> *it takes a skilled DM to run a low-magic/grim/gritty campaign and have it be "fun" because D&D's core assumptions don't directly support such a game;
> 
> *and it takes practice to become a skilled DM no matter what kind of game you are running, and as a consequence sometimes you'll screw up, and sometimes the players will get caught in that.




Amen.

I am not particularly skilled in either high-level, high-magic DMing, nor am I in low-level, low-magic DMing. 

But I can say with certainty, all things being equal and a good DM at the helm, I find a low magic game more compelling in the long term.

And a high magic game better in the short term--- ahhhhh, for makin' big piles of dead bad guys on a Sunday afternoon...


Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I think I have issues with your definition of "interesting".




Compelling?

Personally invested in the game?

There's already a "barrier" between player and character, in that the player knows that his character is simply a fiction-- he (the player) can't "die."

Removing death-- finality, heroism, sacrifice-- divests the player even more from the character and the conflict the DM presents.

Granted, I'm assuming the DM is presenting a greater conflict than, "Where's the next dungeon?" 


Wulf


----------



## Kaodi

*Low Magic*

I just read through pages 1 and 2, and I have been itching to get to my reply, so I apologize to anyone on page 3 and 4 who I may be echoing.

Of all the low magic types I would consider running a game with, I would personally go for the " magic level = relative technology level " route. And that said I would use a rule like " Your maximum spellcaster level in any class cannot exceed your HD/2 rounded up. " . Not particularily my favourite type of mechanic, but it does have a few advantages, i.e. multiclass fighter/wizards can cast the highest level spells, paladins and rangers (if you have them) can cast comparable level spells, etc, etc, best of all, if you are running a game with monster PCs, their spellcasting levels doesn't have to suck compared to non-monster PCs... in your 9th level party, you might have a Wizard 5/Sorcerer 4 and a Lizardman Druid 4/Ranger 2 as opposed to a wizard 9 and a lizardman druid 6. Magic items are just as abundant, but can't have a caster level of more than 10. In such a campaign, your grand finale may even have something to do with PCs ' discovering ' the 6th level of spells.

Just a thought.


----------



## EricNoah

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There's already a "barrier" between player and character, in that the player knows that his character is simply a fiction-- he (the player) can't "die."
> 
> Removing death-- finality, heroism, sacrifice-- divests the player even more from the character and the conflict the DM presents.




But if the player can just roll up a new character...?  (and I've seen it -- "JimBob the fighter is dead.  Meet ... LarryBill the fighter!")

Now, if you've got a rule that says "if your PC dies, you (the player) are out of the group!" -- now that's interesting!  

(tongue in cheek here...)

Seriously, though, what happens after PC death in your "ideal" game?  (I'm curious -- I'm running a game where one of the PCs could very well die soon, and there's no real easy solution like raise dead IMC.  I'd like to hear what my options are when that happens...)


----------



## rounser

> But if the player can just roll up a new character...?



You've still got morale issues.  Players get rather attached to their characters, remember....and campaigns with a string of deaths seems to result in loss of player motivation (thinking anecdotes about RttToEE here).


----------



## EricNoah

Again, though, it doesn't necessarily follow that low-magic or grim/gritty instantly equals more deaths -- in some ways IMC it's harder to just outright die without going through a couple of different stages of disability ("injured", "disabled" or "staggered", "unconscious", "dying", etc.).

But you're right -- some players would rather stick to one character for as long as possible.  Which of course is the motivation that presumably makes them more careful with their characters.  Unfortunately, sometimes players who are being too careful end up bored -- avoiding everything, less motivation to explore the unknown/dangerous, etc...  It's a hard balance, and certainly not for everyone...


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Divination, by the default rules of the setting, is the "trump." Nothing can be hidden that cannot be revealed through a higher form of divination, short of DM fiat.




Except when things are guarded by higher levels of illusion/obscuring. One of the greatest forms of divination, _Discern Location_, still can be trumped by another spell _Mind Blank_, or by simply never meeting the person or seeing the object. One of the most potent illusions, _Screen_ *specifically* foils scrying. Even _True Seeing_ can be foiled by a wall. Even _Commune_ has significant limitations. These spells have existed for millenia, to not make use of the counter-measures offered for them is just not playing the rules as they are written, IMHO. Even the local farmer knows that if Magey McMagicpants can get a lock of your daughter's hair, he can find her.

You posited that there is no fear of the unknown. Even when the PC's can ask their god "Is there something looming in the dark?" "Is it dangerous?" "Can we rest safely here tonight?" "What is the alignment of King Steve?" "Is that approaching dragon real?", that doesn't dispel the unknown. At most, they know there *is* something in the dark, that king steve *is* strongly chaotic evil, that they *cannot* rest safely here tonight......that's plenty scary. There is still fear of the unknown, because the known is never, ever complete.



> Commune is the act of petitioning the gods directly for the answer to any question-- and the knowledge that whatever action is suggested is the right action. (And if not-- atonement.)




See, just asking a deity whether it is 'right' or not is useless....it's the effects of the actions that the PC's will have to live with, wether they're moral or not. I can ask Pelor if killing the evil king is Right, and regardless of what he says, still come to the descision myself. If he says 'no,' maybe I just need to think of a way to incapacitate the king without killing him......is letting the people suffer right?

Commune only answers yes or no questions, man. And even if it did provide a 'trump card divination,' you don't need to change to a low magic setting just because you don't like one spell, or even a handful of spells.

And it can still be an alignment detector...("Is McBaine Evil?")

You posited that there was no moral uncertainty. I'm saying that's patently untrue because even if you know what is right, what is good, what is wrong, what is evil, the circumstances that the players are in will dictate their actions. Even if harming King Steve in any way is the most vile act you could comit, if he comes at you swinging a flail, the character has two choices -- die or sin. This is very much morally challenging.



> I think you got that backwards. It is impossible to "make the adventure the journey" when the journey is accomplished by teleport and is over in the blink of an eye. That's not much of an adventure.
> 
> Imagine Lord of the Rings with a Helm of Teleportation.




The fact of the matter is, Lord of the Rings != D&D. To imagine LotR within the D&D rules, you'd have to assume Sauron knew about Teleportation, and that he either took that into account....Gandalf had never been to Mount Doom, he couldn't've teleported there if he wanted to, since the spell requires a knowledge of the area. And the hobbits were in an even worse boat. 

And you make the adventure the journey by making the goal something to be accomplished on the way. "Getting from Point A to Point B" is a very simplistic plot idea, and it works for the low levels. After that, especially in going back to places where you've already been, it's just annoying. But if the Epic Gewgaw lay lost somewhere near the Mount of Evil, all the teleporting in the world won't help you to *find* it. And when you do find it, using it is a quest in and of itself. Or heck, if you have it in your hands immediately, and have even been to Mount of Evil before, Teleport is still unreliable....methinks the fate of the free world is a bit too much to risk on a potential mishap with the Epic Gewgaw. And if it's the PC's that are doin' it, and they still arive on target, they should still have enough fire elementals, orcs, and goblins to keep them busy on their way up the mount.

Mordor in LotR was about one character's struggle with the burden of evil. Combat was avoided because it was deadly. If LotR met D&D it would've been a different story, but it wouldn't have removed all the arduous journey out of it.



> Tackling the dragon when you know there's no coming back is a sacrifice. Tackling the dragon knowing you, personally, might just decide, "Ahh, I'm tired, screw it, I'll stay dead." is not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is giving yourself over to things beyond your control.




You need a body part, or at least a piece of one, for all but the highest level of resurrection -- tackling a dragon who might kill you might also kill your friends, and would definately kill them if they had to drag your corpse around. Also, this is why you burn them, slash them, smash them, eat them -- no corpse = no resurrection. Throwing yourself down the mouth of a dragon is VERY heroic, because you DO sacrifice yourself, except with maybe a lot of gold and a true resurrection, I don't see you comin' back from that, or most of your friends. It's not in your control anymore, it's in control of your buds. And by the time they can afford to True Res you, they can also afford to have the dragon wished out of existence, so the concept of sacrificing yourself to a single monster is very much lost anyway.

You posited that there was no noble sacrifice. Gold, XP, time, and your friends, are plenty of things to sacrifice. And you still sacrifice your life, if but for a day or two, in order to further the cause, to ensure your friends escape, etc. You give up a lot, and make your party give up a lot, every time you die -- it's not something to be considered lightly just because it can be done. 



> So you're saying you are forced to redefine what the spells say they do, in order to make the story do what you want it to do.
> 
> I kinda think that's what the low-magic DMs are doing, too.
> 
> Leaving the spells in your game and then completely nerfing them through DM fiat is no better than just removing them in the first place.




I'm not redefining anything, or using DM fiat. And yes, simply getting rid of a problematic spell or three is vastly superior to restructuring the entire bloody magic system. All I'm doing is RTFM, and assuming that these spells are not rare and once-in-a-lifetime events, because the rules almost posit specifically that they are not. 

Divinations do not remove fear of the unknown, because knowing, say, 20 things doesn't make you know it all. Commune doesn't equal no moral ambiguity, because the tasks you must accomplish are sometimes at cross-purposes to what you believe. Teleportation doesn't negate arduous journeys, because new places still must be journeyed to, and epic gewgaws are far too important to trust to a roll of the dice. Raising the dead does not negate noble sacrifice, because you still make the sacrifice in terms not measured in life, and it's still for a 'greater cause.' I'm not re-defining the spells, I'm simply applying the rules as they are written. As they are written, the rules allow anyone to use the unknown, moral ambiguity, arduous journeys, and noble sacrifice in their campiaign without changing a word.

And if you can't wrap your brain around a noble sacrifice that you can come back to life from, you don't need to overhaul the spell system -- just alter or remove the spells you have a problem with. That's making a mountain out of a molehill.

Now, if you don't like the feel of a lot of magic or an impermanent death in general, now we're in territory I can cede.


----------



## Arthur Tealeaf

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences.




From personal opinions to ignorant insults in the course of a sentence. 

You deserve Domokun.


----------



## Desdichado

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And yes, simply getting rid of a problematic spell or three is vastly superior to restructuring the entire bloody magic system.



Only if you believe the default bloody magic system is any bloody good.    I'm not really partial to it, myself.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Except when things are guarded by higher levels of illusion/obscuring. One of the greatest forms of divination, _Discern Location_, still can be trumped by another spell _Mind Blank_, or by simply never meeting the person or seeing the object. One of the most potent illusions, _Screen_ *specifically* foils scrying. Even _True Seeing_ can be foiled by a wall. Even _Commune_ has significant limitations. These spells have existed for millenia, to not make use of the counter-measures offered for them is just not playing the rules as they are written, IMHO. Even the local farmer knows that if Magey McMagicpants can get a lock of your daughter's hair, he can find her.



Granted, this is true.  However, it is also one of the issues that some people (myself included) have with high magic games: I, as a GM, must constantly and continuously hunt out the exceptions, the counters, and the trumps.  True, as a GM, this is part of the territory, but there comes a time when you put so much of your effort into countering what the high magic rules give to the PCs that it takes away from the _reason_ RPGs exist: Story, setting, and plot.

When the game is more of an arms race instead of a vehicle for interactive story making, it comes to feel as if the rules have lost their place in the scheme of things, becoming _the reason_ to play instead being the tool by which play is possible.  When that happens, I (and I'm going to assume others) begin to loose their interest in playing at all, and GMing and campaign design go from being a labor of love to a laborous chore you try to get out of along with taking out the trash.


----------



## nothing to see here

I'm quite enjoying this thread...

Role Playing is an act of imagination...I think everybody agrees on that.  What I'm seeing in this thread is a basic break down into two different TYPES of imagination.

Group one -- who's imagination focusses on their role in the world...and playing the part of a character with exceptional (and sometimes magical) powers, in a world otherwise based around the same assumptions as ours.

Group two -- who'se imagination focusses insteas around the changing the assumptions of the world...whose PC's/NPC's are seemless parts of a world, the entire context of which is changed from our own.

It's not splitting hairs, when you think of it.  Group one, while willing to suspend disbelief about many things (the existence of magic & monsters) expects the rules (and the DM's interpretation of them) to uphold certain preconceptions of reality (e.g. that each time you get with a sword, there should be a chance of serious injury or death).  Group number two are willing to do away with the notion of reality which they feel bogs down the cinematic escapism of playing...therefore group two would tend not to favour grim & gritty playing (and would probably, more often than not prefer high magic)

Perhaps the difference can best be analogised to those whose imagination tends towards reflecting historical dramas, to those whose imagination reflects many cartoons.  There are many shades of gray, and one approach is no better than the other.

Sorry to get esoteric on you here.  I just think, on many of these debates, what is often overlooked is the role of personality.  There is a real continium of the kind of escape people desire from roleplaying...and fascilitating this escape, more than anything else, is the deciding factor on the kind of rules players prefer.

On a totally unrelated point...

IF you work from the premise that grim & gritty means a higher danger level (i.e. risk of character death) from mundane encounters, then I'd reccomend Bastion's Press's 'Torn Asumder' book...which adds tremendous 'gritty' impact through the critical hit mechanic...

I've done up a little ditty that ties this mechanic to the instant death mechanics in UA. Haven't tried it in a game yet.  But am itching to.

thanks for providing the entertaining read, folks


----------



## Bendris Noulg

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Perhaps the difference can best be analogised to those whose imagination tends towards reflecting historical dramas, to those whose imagination reflects many cartoons.



Like _Excalibur_ vs He-Man?


----------



## kamosa

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Granted, this is true.  However, it is also one of the issues that some people (myself included) have with high magic games: I, as a GM, must constantly and continuously hunt out the exceptions, the counters, and the trumps.  True, as a GM, this is part of the territory, but there comes a time when you put so much of your effort into countering what the high magic rules give to the PCs that it takes away from the _reason_ RPGs exist: Story, setting, and plot.
> 
> When the game is more of an arms race instead of a vehicle for interactive story making, it comes to feel as if the rules have lost their place in the scheme of things, becoming _the reason_ to play instead being the tool by which play is possible.  When that happens, I (and I'm going to assume others) begin to loose their interest in playing at all, and GMing and campaign design go from being a labor of love to a laborous chore you try to get out of along with taking out the trash.





So why not just play at low levels?  It is perfectly acceptable to not give out as much experience and keep the game at the low levels that you seem to prefer.  When players advance to higher levels they gain more powers.  If they can't use those powers, what did they really gain?     If you squik the powers of clerics and mages are you also taking away great cleave and power attack from the fighters?    If your not, does that seem fair to you?

I can definitly appreciate you comments on the rock paper scissors nature of high level gaming.  However, I've played in great games that stayed at low levels and avoided this.  My awful experiences with GnG have come in games where the GM wanted to act like they were playing high level D&D, without actually dealing with these issues.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

kamosa said:
			
		

> So why not just play at low levels? It is perfectly acceptable to not give out as much experience and keep the game at the low levels that you seem to prefer. When players advance to higher levels they gain more powers. If they can't use those powers, what did they really gain?



Well, there's a difference between more powers and more powerful powers.  My own group tends to focus on ability and versatility (multiclassing actually occurs a lot), prefering combative prowess mixed in with good skills.  By restricting a game to lower levels, you limit the potential growth of the PCs.  So it's not really a question of the number of abilities/powers available, but the continuous upscaling of these abilities that detract from the flavor(s) lower magic helps generate.



> If you squik the powers of clerics and mages are you also taking away great cleave and power attack from the fighters? If your not, does that seem fair to you?



House Rule Alert:

Cleave, Prereqs: Strength 15, BAB +3, Power Attack

Great Cleave, Prereqs: Strength 17, BAB +6, Power Attack, Cleave

A Channeler at this time (6th Level) can cast _fireball _at 5th Level (8 Spell Points, Major Fatigue), 6th Level (9 Spell Points, Severe Fatigue), or higher (+1 Spell Point per level, Mortal Fatigue with chance of death).

Alternately, he can cast _magic missile_ at 1st Level (2 Spell Points, no Fatigue), 3rd Level (4 Spell Points, Light Fatigue), 5th Level (6 Spell Points, Major Fatigue), or higher (+1 Spell Point per level, Mortal Fatigue with chance of death).

(Spell Points: 1 per Spell Level + 1 per Casting Level, with Minimum Casting Level = Class Level that Spell Level becomes available, so a _fireball_ costs 3 + 5 points minimum, +1 per additional Casting Level.  As an FYI, I went this route to keep Spell Resistance from becoming overpowered against Arcane Casters.)

However, I think some clarification regarding my own gaming (at the moment) might be in order:

I currently GM over 3 games.  One game has a Channeler (5th Level), while the other games are casterless (although one PC is a Psychic per the Fading Suns psi system).  So I have one PC in one game that I have no issues with running; I can easily continue this game well into the higher levels knowing that this PC is an exception in a world nearly devoid of spellcasters (except for a few key cultures, and most of them focus on divine magic).  However, beside it, I have two games where spellcasting _almost_ never comes into play.  The PCs all chose not to be spellcasters (and there is player overlap between these groups), and thus only one villainous spellcaster has made an appearance throughout the last five years.

This, again, turns back to the statement made earlier that low magic is different things to different people.  Heck, the campaign that I've only set up the basic structures for is looking more and more like it will be _completely_ devoid of magic in the classical sense (that is, everything will be driven by the Fading Suns psi system without exception, although I'm trying very hard to find a way to keep Divine Magic).  As a result, how the game is adjusted is going to change depending on who you ask and how they define "low magic".  If someone says, "I want a low magic game that [list of qualities wanted for campaign world]", I have a basis from which to suggest various changes and adjustments.  However, when someone says, "I want a low magic game" and leaves it at that, all I can really say is, "go for it."

But this also works in reverse; When I say, "I run a low magic, grim-n-gritty game", you don't know Aedon from Toril, and thus you automatically visualize your worst experience with a LMGnG game and will likely post accordingly.


----------



## Snoweel

As a matter of taste, I really do not like Grim and Gritty as a gaming style - I prefer a more cartoonish, swashbuckling style, where the PCs *are* different to everybody else in the world because they are more *lucky* (ie. they don't get assassinated in their sleep or run into other fatal problems that they are unable to solve, like 1st level PCs wandering into a cave that was designed for a 9th level party and filled with unreasonable and hungry trolls (and all apologies for use of the offensive term 'troll')).

I guess I just like my PCs to have a higher-than-realistic surviveability, and I make sure the players know that.

For this reason, I like AC and hp, and while the VP side of WP/VP is cool, it seems the danger of dying from a crit is too high for me to consider using WP/VP, however reserve points and defence bonus seem pretty cool (though I haven't yet used them in-game).

Anyway, as for high- or low-magic, I can have fun in a campaign with either flavour.

The main difference is world-building. I find it *too damn hard* to envision what a world would look like with D&D-standard magic levels, but let me tell you, *NOTHING* I have ever read, whether published or otherwise 'makes sense' from a social/cultural/economic/technological standpoint, and the more I try to tweak a world to fit the rules, the more I realise just how much *every little thing* in the world would be different.

And the world I end up with never seems fun to play in.

So if I played high-magic, I would just have to suck it up and try not to think too hard about the why (Oh God WHY?!?!?) of things and just focus on combat and problem solving.

For that reason, I generally go low-magic, and nerf a bunch of spells and so on so that I can develop my setting without my ears bleeding from the continual trial-and-error postulation inherent in making the setting match the rules.

In the words of a wise man around here, the rules should fit the setting, not the other way round.


----------



## kamosa

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Well, there's a difference between more powers and more powerful powers.  My own group tends to focus on ability and versatility (multiclassing actually occurs a lot), prefering combative prowess mixed in with good skills.  By restricting a game to lower levels, you limit the potential growth of the PCs.  So it's not really a question of the number of abilities/powers available, but the continuous upscaling of these abilities that detract from the flavor(s) lower magic helps generate.
> 
> However, beside it, I have two games where spellcasting _almost_ never comes into play.  The PCs all chose not to be spellcasters (and there is player overlap between these groups), and thus only one villainous spellcaster has made an appearance throughout the last five years.




I throw you much respect for taking on the fighter feats while you knock down mage power.  

Without judging the fun you or the players are having, it seems odd that in three games you have only one spell caster and a bunch of rogue-fighters(I don't know exactly, just guessing from the skills and abilities quote).

Do you think this is because you changed the casting rules in a way that is fun to play?  Do you believe that if casters were at full strength this ratio of casters to non casters would be the same?  Do you feel that your game is improved by having driven out this side of the game?  

Sounds like you have fun and you have good players, so more power to you.   However, I wouldn't take it as a good sign if a large part of the game suddenly came up missing from the campaign after I made up special rules for it.

Why not play GURPS if you want a game of all skills and combat power?


----------



## kamosa

Snoweel said:
			
		

> The main difference is world-building. I find it *too damn hard* to envision what a world would look like with D&D-standard magic levels, but let me tell you, *NOTHING* I have ever read, whether published or otherwise 'makes sense' from a social/cultural/economic/technological standpoint, and the more I try to tweak a world to fit the rules, the more I realise just how much *every little thing* in the world would be different.




If you can find it, read some Jack Vance.  That is the world the D&D magic system is based on.   It might not be your flavor, but it is a fun read, world and some pretty good rogue like main characters.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

kamosa said:
			
		

> Without judging the fun you or the players are having, it seems odd that in three games you have only one spell caster and a bunch of rogue-fighters(I don't know exactly, just guessing from the skills and abilities quote).
> 
> Do you think this is because you changed the casting rules in a way that is fun to play? Do you believe that if casters were at full strength this ratio of casters to non casters would be the same? Do you feel that your game is improved by having driven out this side of the game?



Y'know, I've no idea.  Two of my players were new to the game when they signed on (app. 5 years ago) and both chose non-casters I think for the purpose of simplicity.  When we converted to d20, they chose not to deviate from this (although one switched from Fighter to Fighter/Rogue/Ranger).  On top, Divine Casters (Druids and Shaman from the Primal Codex) don't have the same pull-back as Arcane Casters (essentially, I play up the RP-side of religion, faith, duty, etc., while leaving them mostly unchanged mechanically), and they aren't popular choices either.  I think we just have similar tastes in fantasy, with D&D magic distracting from it rather than contributing.

That said, I'll bring it up in pre-game tomorrow.

As for it improving the game, I'm going to say yes, but only in practice (that is to say, it works with our group at our table).  Characters seem more grounded in reality (i.e., more like "real people" in a fantasy setting), which likely makes them easier for the group to relate to.  I will say that there are other games locally and my players know it; While my wife remaining faithful is half-expected (  ), the fact that the other two have remained with us despite other options would seem to be a good sign that I'm doing _something_ right.



> Sounds like you have fun and you have good players, so more power to you. However, I wouldn't take it as a good sign if a large part of the game suddenly came up missing from the campaign after I made up special rules for it.



Actually, the rules for spellcasters are converted to d20 from the 2E Player's Option: Spells & Magic.  It took _some_ tweaking for d20, but not that incredibly difficult.  (The slapped-together version for ESD conversion is on my website, while the "official Aedon model" should be up next week...  The later will be a bit more detailed and presented cleaner, but the ESD Conversion Agreement states that conversions must be straight conversions, not "how I would have done it", so I did just that...)



> Why not play GURPS if you want a game of all skills and combat power?



Ah, this is more of an edition issue...

With 1E/2E, we were presented with all these tools and basically told, "do as you wish."  High Magic, ala Planescape, or Low Magic, ala early FR, or whatever.  So I did.  It's only now, with 3E, that someone decided to say, "this is how the game is balanced and therefore how it is played".  Personally, I think it's a load of crap (I half-think someone at WotC was picked on for being a Munchkin during his childhood and thus used 3E as an instrument of vendetta, which is beside the point), but after 3 years of trying to argue about it, I've finally resigned myself as a d20 gamer rather than a D&D gamer (in other words...  Ah, never mind, it's in my sig, after all.).  At any rate, when 3E came out, and after 6 months of contemplating the rules and debating the issue with my players (who were _very_ resistant to 3E), I was faced with a choice: Stay with 2E or go 3E.  And while there was a multitude of flavor issues with 3E, I saw the superiority of the d20 engine that it ran on, and decided the long-term benefits would be worth it.

Thus far, it's paid off quite well.

As is, though, I've contemplated another possible system (or, that is to say, another take on d20), being with one class, group weapons as Skills, Spell Seeds broken down into Skills, and thus make everything either a Skill or a Feat (say, as a working model, 10 Skill Points per Level and Feats every even level).  Of course, eventually it starts looking like an exceedingly trimmed down M&M game, which is why I'll probably not go that route, but it was a thought.  (And having written this, new ideas on making it work are formulating!!!  AAAAAHHHHH!!!!)


----------



## Gothmog

Fenris said:
			
		

> Gothmog,
> The spell tables (if you have them) and the rules for the ritual casting/multiple casters. You mentioned that your solution was in 3E, has this ported well to 3.5? Also di you modify the item creation feats? Thanks.
> Fenris




Ok, since a couple people have asked about this, I posted my low magic house rules in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1420956#post1420956

And to answer your question, yes I developed these rules in 3E, and they work perfectly well in 3.5 as well.  In fact, I didn't have to change a single thing with them.  I didn't really modify the item creation feats except for the fact that I require any items to be made to also require essentia to construct.  Essentia is detailed in this document, but basically it is inherently magical material of variable type (necromancy, abjuration, etc) that is consumed in making the item.  For every 2500GP value of the item, one use of essentia is required to enchant the item, with a minimum of one use of essentia for any item.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Kinda like a mandatory power component..?

Hmmm...  I'll check that out.


----------



## Enkhidu

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For instance, my newly kicked off campaign features a removal of _all_ spellcasting classes.  No wizard, sorceror, cleric, or druid.  No "minor" casters like paladins, rangers or bards.  I kept the barbarian, the rogue and the fighter, added the Wildlander and Defender from Midnight, the Unfettered from AU, etc. to give a good 7-8 options, but none of them can cast any spells.
> 
> For magic, I'm using the Incantations rules from Urban Arcana/Unearthed Arcana.  Further house rules, mostly from Unearthed Arcana include Sanity, Damage conversion, Class/level based defense bonus, Con score as massive damage threshold (although a failed save drops you to -1, not instant death).




How are the Incantations as magic working for you, JD? Are you reserving them for the "big" magic, or have you found a way to create a few minor incantations that model existing low and mid level spells (like the various _summon_ spells or _animate dead_ for example)?


----------



## ManicFuel

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Rather than saying "low magic sucks just because" I think a more useful discussion would be how to make low magic, grim and gritty d20 games work.




I'll jump back in on this one.


Removing spells from the game tends to cause player revolt, so I limit spell availablity to magic schools. Finding the School of Fire and convincing the master to teach a few spells is an adventure.
Allow any spellcasting class, but require a feat (Magical Aptitude from 3.5 works well) and a tutor for class entry.
Make magic items count. No +1 anything or cure light wounds potions. If magic is rare, those few who can enchant items will create something special. +3 mithral plate, _heal_ potions, +4 flaming scimitar, etc, are examples of the types of treasures I hand out.  
Don't be shy about giving these items to PCs of a lower level than normal. It is the usually the only item of that type they will find! 
Introduce low magic and grim and gritty seperately. When PCs can still "get hit 5 times with an axe" and live, it gives them some leeway when judging encounter strength. Learn the nuances of each side independently.
I second the use of humanoids as antagonists, especially under 3.x, where monsters can have class levels. This makes encounter balance simpler.
I also second the escape routes. Running from or talking your way out of an encounter should ALWAYS be an option.
General advice for every campaign style, but it bears repeating. In every adventure, present the each PC with opportunities to do what they do best, and with situations where they must try something they do not do well. These go well in tandem: Fighter must make successive Spot/Listen checks or be surprised by low level warriors. Let him sweat why he needs to make these skill checks, then cut him loose on a few thugs.


----------



## Campbell

> I can definitly appreciate you comments on the rock paper scissors nature of high level gaming. However, I've played in great games that stayed at low levels and avoided this. My awful experiences with GnG have come in games where the GM wanted to act like they were playing high level D&D, without actually dealing with these issues.




While I can't speak for anyone else, I'll address as it pertains to me. For me, it's not always about the actual power dichotomy. For some campaigns the supernatural quotient is simply too high for my personal tastes. The teleportation and planar travel spells sometimes don't suit the flavor of a given campaign, for example. For a given game, I might not want those spells to work as written in the PHB.

Now I wouldn't really consider a campaign with variants of these spells or without them altogether all that low magic, but I believe that it's important to discuss these changes with any potential players. I want to run a game other people will enjoy, but I also want to enjoy running the game. Since people get to choose who they game with, I feel like this gives me the impetus to change a few things to suit a given campaign world. 

Now I also have been part of games that stick to the core that were very enjoyable. I currently run both a Forgotten Realms game that sticks very closely to the core rules, and a homebrew that widely diverges from it. While I enjoy running both games, the homebrew just feels better when I'm running it. What can I say, I like to tinker.

Edit: An Afterthought: Is it really a problem with a lower-magic style of play or perhaps more of an issue with House Rules in general?


----------



## Fenris

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Ok, since a couple people have asked about this, I posted my low magic house rules in this thread:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1420956#post1420956
> 
> And to answer your question, yes I developed these rules in 3E, and they work perfectly well in 3.5 as well.  In fact, I didn't have to change a single thing with them.  I didn't really modify the item creation feats except for the fact that I require any items to be made to also require essentia to construct.  Essentia is detailed in this document, but basically it is inherently magical material of variable type (necromancy, abjuration, etc) that is consumed in making the item.  For every 2500GP value of the item, one use of essentia is required to enchant the item, with a minimum of one use of essentia for any item.




Thanks Gothmog.


And to the Mods: I hereby nominate this thread with all of it's excellent ideas, variants and cautionary tales to be archived when it peters out.


----------



## MerricB

There is a certain assumption built into D&D (of any edition) that does not conform to most fantasy tales: that of the level of personal magic available to wizards. 

Consider the _fireball_ spell, and then consider the power of wizards in most fantasy fiction. (Admittedly, modern fantasy fiction often owes much to D&D in its form). It is rarely a level of immediate power that can be seen - especially without consequences!

The mere existence of the AD&D magic-user _as a hero_ immediately changes the landscape from one in which magic is hidden to one in which it is extremely apparent.

However, it is not merely the D&D wizard that contributes to the "high" magic level of 3E; there are also related issues concerning the hiring of magic-users to cast spells, the creation of magic items, the availability of magic items in treasure hordes, and the easy purchase of magic items - the types of such magic are also important!

AD&D had high availability for magic items in treasure hordes, and low for the creation of magic items. 

3E makes all of those levels "high" by default; though this is not the only factor that has made 3E divergent from 1E - there are scaling issues that relate directly to the use of ability scores for monsters.

Indeed, it is in the nature of the challenges that a PC can overcome that the game is most interested. The level of magic just changes the point at which a certain monster can be overcome - if it can be! After all, if there was no magic weapon more potent than +1, then some creatures would be near impossible to defeat!

Because of the greater number of options in 3E, it also makes judging the difficulty of challenges more difficult, especially when fundamental judgements about the system are changed. Some changes, in fact, would not alter the balance equation overmuch - however, it's not always easy to tell which changes would do what.

Add to that the nature of advancment in 3E versus 1E (consider both how Hit Dice work, and the entire power level - including magic - begins to be pushed higher than it once was - which, as I said at the start of my post, is higher than what is normal in fantasy!

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana

I've got no problems with going for a lmgng style game for the feel the particular mechanics give you -- if the idea of a magical arms race doesn't appeal to you, good on ya, and go for something different, something I'd probably even play in (though I'll still come back to the magical arms race......D&D for me is solidly in 'game' territory, sice I can actually get paid for the stories I write, and the one-upmanship plays out like a magical tactical warfare, and I dig that).

I just find myself getting defensive when people suggest that LM/GnG settings are *nessecarily* better at things like, say, weeding out powergamers, or intrigue, or ambiguity, or sacrifice. From where I sit, in a campaign with pretty normal magic, no powergamers, plenty of intrigue, ambiguity, and sacrifice (and level 5 becoming my base starting level), it's just patently false. To overhaul the entire system based on a false misconception about what a few spells can do is a bit reckless, I think. 

To overhaul it based on what magic in general can actually do -- that's a bit more of a solid basis for turning the game on it's ear, I think. Again, it's a mountain/molehill problem, and, I think, where a lot of the "lmgng suxxors" sentiment is coming from -- DM's who have had _commune_ foil a plot once or twice and who have thus developed a grudge against all divination because of their wasted campaign effort. DM's who see _raise dead_ as being not just not their taste, but patently abusive and destructive to their stories. It's this reaction that I'm not a fan of, because (a) the problem almost never is as big as they think it is and (b) they'd change the entire system based on a few spells that they personally don't like existing.

Campaign flavor is one thing......but telling me that I can't have ambiguity and intrigue just because I have divination is pretty narrowminded, and not at all a flavor argument. It's just saying "Normal D&D is inferior to my epic challenge homebrew system!" Which is wrong. Just 'cuz you like your system better doesn't mean that the rest is crap.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> To overhaul it based on what magic in general can actually do -- that's a bit more of a solid basis for turning the game on it's ear, I think. Again, it's a mountain/molehill problem, and, I think, where a lot of the "lmgng suxxors" sentiment is coming from -- DM's who have had _commune_ foil a plot once or twice and who have thus developed a grudge against all divination because of their wasted campaign effort. DM's who see _raise dead_ as being not just not their taste, but patently abusive and destructive to their stories. It's this reaction that I'm not a fan of, because (a) the problem almost never is as big as they think it is and (b) they'd change the entire system based on a few spells that they personally don't like existing.




You're not paying very good attention to the thread as a whole, and that's a shame.

I regret calling out specific problem spells as you've seized on that as my only gripe. That's not the case. I'd go through the entire list of spells and magic items if I had the time or inclination to instruct you.

I don't have a problem with high magic as a DM-- I have a problem with it _as a player_. It is not that I have had plots foiled, it is that I have, as a player, seen them foiled, helped to foil them, with high level magic.

The longer you play in a game, the higher level you ascend, the more magic becomes a crutch and a cure-all. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a simple fact of the CORE DESIGN of D&D-- characters are expected to use magic in order to be heroic and achieve their goals.

And as others have already pointed out, that is simply inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth, that experience that we hope to capture or emulate.

Those of us who enjoy playing characters of wits, skill, and resourcefulness-- the qualities ascribed to classic heroes-- are given short shrift in a game where magic is a cure-all.

I'd wager there is no plot, no situation, no moral quandary faced by a hero in any classic tale that cannot be solved by a 20th level cleric or wizard in six spells or less.

Fire away if you like, that'd be an interesting game... Sort of a six degrees to solution kinda thing.


Wulf


----------



## FireLance

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'd wager there is no plot, no situation, no moral quandary faced by a hero in any classic tale that cannot be solved by a 20th level cleric or wizard in six spells or less.
> 
> Fire away if you like, that'd be an interesting game... Sort of a six degrees to solution kinda thing.
> 
> Wulf




Let's go with a classic: an invasion of githyanki from the Astral plane into your world.

Yeah, a band of 20th-level heros could probably take out the leader in a short, sharp battle, but what do you do to the tens of thousands of githyanki warriors (I use the term loosely) still at large and dangerous?

What if a particularly successful warlord manages to conquer an entire realm for himself?

Even if all the githyanki are defeated, what do you do with the survivors?  Do you rehabilitate them or execute them?  What if two nominally Lawful Good faiths argue for different resolutions with the tacit backing of their deities?


----------



## Remathilis

Wow! Ask a simple question and look at the answer I get! Thanks to everyone for answering, debating, and discussing this one.

That said, my personal feelings have been wavering of late. I was once in the category of "high magic" because most of the "low magic" games I saw were ill thought out and tended to be poorly run (by good DM's mind you). However, the current level of D&D magic makes it hard to have a game that runs smoothly without alot of constant DM one-upmanship and such. Some days I'd like to go to a lower level magic, more grim and gritty setting, but others I prefer D&D's escapism. 

I asked for the definitions because somewhere in them I wanted to see how people deal with classic D&D issues like magical items, monsters, flashy spells, etc in a low magic setting, and how many people use alternatives to D&D. That, and it gave me some ideas to sell to my players.

I'll throw out another nugget: Would a d20 hardcover book that covered "low magic/G&G" rules in a generic way be useful? Things like alternate spellcaster classes, different combat/healing rules, variant spell lists, and monsters that don't require magic to beat? UA makes alot of this possible now...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

FireLance said:
			
		

> Let's go with a classic: an invasion of githyanki from the Astral plane into your world.




I must have missed that one in classical mythology.   



> Yeah, a band of 20th-level heros could probably take out the leader in a short, sharp battle, but what do you do to the tens of thousands of githyanki warriors (I use the term loosely) still at large and dangerous?




You leave them to the tens of thousands of 10th level high magic heroes.



> What if a particularly successful warlord manages to conquer an entire realm for himself?




Why, scry, buff, and teleport, of course.    


Wulf


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'll throw out another nugget: Would a d20 hardcover book that covered "low magic/G&G" rules in a generic way be useful?




Gosh, I certainly hope so.

http://www.badaxegames.com/html/products/grim_tales/index.html

Wulf


----------



## kamosa

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The longer you play in a game, the higher level you ascend, the more magic becomes a crutch and a cure-all. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a simple fact of the CORE DESIGN of D&D-- characters are expected to use magic in order to be heroic and achieve their goals.
> 
> And as others have already pointed out, that is simply inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth, that experience that we hope to capture or emulate.
> 
> Wulf




I would say that most fantasy is low level D&D.   I know it would pain most people to admit this, but LOTR is a low level D&D game.  Gandolf was not much more then a 5th level wizard based on the D&D game.  Aragorn was not much more then a 4th to 6th level fighter.   The hobits started out as at best 1st level rogues.   If you want to play the setting, why not just have your campaign have a level limit and reduce the XP awards?  I played in a great campaign that ran 2 to 3 times a month for three years and we ended it with the characters just crossing into 7th level at the end of the last adventure.

It's fine to want your game to fit in the fantasy worlds you read.  What ends up being boo is the forcing of high level gaming into a low level straight jacket, because you don't want to admit you only want to play at low levels.


----------



## nopantsyet

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'll throw out another nugget: Would a d20 hardcover book that covered "low magic/G&G" rules in a generic way be useful? Things like alternate spellcaster classes, different combat/healing rules, variant spell lists, and monsters that don't require magic to beat? UA makes alot of this possible now...




I'll chime in here, as a DM who runs games of varying levels of magic and grittiness.

First of all, I have not had to make much in the adjustments to the core rules to evoke the feel I want.  I don't necessarily want to make the game more lethal, nor do I want to weaken magic.  But death and magic are an important part of any fantasy RPG, so how you define and deal with them goes a long way to defining the flavor of your game.  What I want out of that is consistency.

Think, for example, of the ramifications of standard D&D magic in a large city.  How are safety and security maintained when people can Ethereal Jaunt their way anywhere they want, taking what they please?  How do they contain threats when they do appear?  

On to weapons.  Do they allow citizens to walk around armed?  Is a permit of some kind required?  What about peace bonding?  What are the penalties for brandishing or fighting?  No doubt both sides will be imprisoned until some or all parties are found guilty of something.

Answer those questions, and you've got yourself not just an interesting city, but probably lots of opportunities for danger and moral ambiguity.

I'm a firm believer that magic can solve lots, but not all.  So you use divination to learn that a powerful noble is plotting to overthrow the king.  What proof can you provide to satisfy the rules of law and society that protect his rights?  How will you answer to the law for the murder of a presumably innocent nobleman?  How are his co-consipirators going to take to all of this.  

In my mind, magic and combat are just tools.  They can open a can of worms, but it takes resourcefulness and wit to get them back in without making a bigger mess.

I use house rules sparingly to help fine-tune the flavor of my game.  Mostly I rely on how I define the setting and I make sure that there are consequences to character actions.  I like to have a gritty, dystopic feel to my games.  
I like the players to feel like the odds are stacked against them, and their goal is desperate.

And while I draw inspiration from LM and GnG mechanics and settings out there, I don't need them, nor do I define my game using those terms.  Even though the feel is grittier and lower magic than something like Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Desdichado

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> How are the Incantations as magic working for you, JD? Are you reserving them for the "big" magic, or have you found a way to create a few minor incantations that model existing low and mid level spells (like the various _summon_ spells or _animate dead_ for example)?



Well, I'm only one session in, and half the session was chargen.  I haven't actually used any yet.  The PCs don't actually know any at this point either, although through the course of the first adventure I anticipate they can learn a few.  I'm planning on converting some somewhat standard spells into incantations, making them more specific rather than generic.  Obviously, very few evocation type spells make for good incantations.


----------



## Desdichado

kamosa said:
			
		

> I would say that most fantasy is low level D&D.   [...]  It's fine to want your game to fit in the fantasy worlds you read.  What ends up being boo is the forcing of high level gaming into a low level straight jacket, because you don't want to admit you only want to play at low levels.



I'd say your reaching with that analogy; and I'd disagree with it simply based on the fact that I've seen a lot of systems, even within d20 that work much better at "simulating" the kind of fantasy I read than D&D, low or high level.  Most fantasy has characters that are fairly capable across a broad spectrum of situations (i.e., they are probably higher level, with many class abilities, feats and skill points) yet they are not clearly as superhuman in terms of magic and HP as D&D characters are.  Your example of Gandalf as a 5th level wizard, for example, only works for his spells, not for his many other abilities.  Same with Aragorn as a 6th level fighter, which is an extremely poor fit  altogether (I"d argue that building a character that can do what Aragorn does is practically impossible in D&D without a great deal of fudging.)  The hobbits as 1st level rogues?  I'd say 3-4 level aristocrat more likely, at least for Frodo, Merry and Pippin.  Most fantasy is _not_ D&D pure and simple, although low level D&D does approximate it better in many ways than high level D&D.  Then again, GURPS across the board probably approximates a lot of it better than any level of D&D.  Sovereign Stone at any level approximates a lot of it better than any level of D&D.  Midnight at any level approximates most of it better than any level of D&D, etc.


----------



## Olorin

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Those of us who enjoy playing characters of wits, skill, and resourcefulness-- the qualities ascribed to classic heroes-- are given short shrift in a game where magic is a cure-all.





This implies that you can't play a character of wit, skill and resourcefulness in a standard D&D game. I can't disagree more.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Olorin said:
			
		

> This implies that you can't play a character of wit, skill and resourcefulness in a standard D&D game. I can't disagree more.




No, of course you can. I have done.

But such characters are soon eclipsed in their abilities by even the simplest magic.

Consider that a cloak and boots of elvenkind (which a 3rd level caster can make) grant 20 skill ranks.

An 8th level fighter strives to master his weapon and gain improved critical; meanwhile the elven wizard has had keen edge since 3rd level (and true strike since first).

And on and on...

Wulf


----------



## Remathilis

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ...Most fantasy is _not_ D&D pure and simple, although low level D&D does approximate it better in many ways than high level D&D. Then again, GURPS across the board probably approximates a lot of it better than any level of D&D. Sovereign Stone at any level approximates a lot of it better than any level of D&D. Midnight at any level approximates most of it better than any level of D&D, etc.



I think thats the crux of the matter, to an extent.

D&D is its own mythology. Think about it, it has its own monsters, spells, beliefs and assumptions that are completely its own. D&D is not a fantasy-game simulator, its its own world/game.

I think WotC (or any other really daring d20 company) could produce a d20 Generic Fantasy Toolkit that doesn't even reference the core rule books or assumptions. I think it would sell like hotcakes. It would be like d20 Modern, with some generic classes, staple races, sample spells and monsters, but a module build that allows plenty of DM tinkering rather than kitbashing D&D.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

kamosa said:
			
		

> I would say that most fantasy is low level D&D.



I would venture another outlook: Low Level D&D is the only part of D&D that even _remotely_ resembles the fantasy genre, and the higher level you get, the less the game resembles the genre from which it was born.

In the end, this is the general complaint many LM/GnG gamers have: They don't want to be _confined_ to low levels in order to emulate the genre.  I've not seen Wulf's book yet (it's near the top of my list, though...), but what you find most of "us" doing is making an attempt to open high level play to characters without the burden/dependance of magic that Core balance/expectations _appears_ to impose.  The idea that low magic games should be confined to low levels is patently false; It illustrates a misconception that magic is _necessary_ in order to play the game right and that low magic games should be _confined_ to low levels because that's when magic is "light".  However, what this belief translates as is "because you have chosen not to use high magic, your characters are mentally and physically crippled and can't get past 5th Level."  That is just as rediculous as it is wrong.  I would posit the opposite: That without depending on magic as a crutch and cure all, characters will be tougher, smarter, faster, and more heroic because genetic evolution dictates that it _must_ be so.



> I know it would pain most people to admit this, but LOTR is a low level D&D game. Gandolf was not much more then a 5th level wizard based on the D&D game.



You do realize that Gandolf is listed on page 5 of the ELH as an expample of an Epic Character.  Consequently, so are Conan, Fafhrd, and the Gray Mouser, three characters not exactly known for their huge stock piles of gold and endless lists of magical trinkets.



> The hobits started out as at best 1st level rogues.



Experts, being that (1) they existed within a farming community and while likely not farmers themselves, they likely have suitable Skills, and (2) they were intended to represent the "common folk" during World War I (i.e., "little people" caught up in sweeping world events that changed history).  By the end of FotR, they likely have Rogue Levels, and by the end of RotK, Merry has Fighter Levels while the others likely continued as Rogues (although Samwise and Frodo likely qualify for Ranger Levels from their journey).



> It's fine to want your game to fit in the fantasy worlds you read. What ends up being boo is the forcing of high level gaming into a low level straight jacket, because you don't want to admit you only want to play at low levels.



What I see is the opposite: The game that used to only be limited by our imaginations is now wearing a high magic straight jacket and those that are comfortable in that straight jacket can't understand why someone else would want to get it off and scratch an itch.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think WotC (or any other really daring d20 company) could produce a d20 Generic Fantasy Toolkit that doesn't even reference the core rule books or assumptions. I think it would sell like hotcakes. It would be like d20 Modern, with some generic classes, staple races, sample spells and monsters, but a module build that allows plenty of DM tinkering rather than kitbashing D&D.



You have my absolute agreement on this statement.


----------



## Spatzimaus

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Rather than saying "low magic sucks just because" I think a more useful discussion would be how to make low magic, grim and gritty d20 games work.




Nice idea.  Okay, here are a few for me:

> You need a more detailed Masterwork system, with multiple levels of bonus and a lot more "exotic material" modifiers.  That way, the famous Excalibur-type weapons can still be better than a plain old sword, without requiring magic.
> You need better rules for nonmagical healing.  The Heal skill isn't really effective enough; if you've played NWN, you know how the Heal skill in that game is significantly more useful.  Make it too good and it's simply a healing potion in another form, but there needs to be some ability to patch up wounds without waiting a week.
> Creatures with DR, regeneration, resists, incorporeality, or any undead need to be reassessed for purposes of CR before being used.
> You need to add a "wound" system, nonmagical defense bonuses, and possibly armor-as-DR system to keep player combat scaling correctly as level increases.

And on the magical side,
> Clarify what you intend by "low magic".  If spellcasting classes are rare, it's still easily possible that the majority of the party would be that rare exception, since those'd be the types drawn to the adventuring lifestyle.  If you don't want the players to have access to magic either, then it's a lot more work.
> Magic-using classes need to have a less exponential power curve.  While their max spell level can keep increasing, they shouldn't ALSO get so many more spells per day.
> Mages need to be prevented from casting all their biggest spells in one shot (the 1-encounter problem that is exemplified by the Scry-Buff-Teleport debate).  For example, a drain-based magic system works nicely here; if you have to recover between big spells, it spaces things out nicely.
> If you still want to keep magic in the game, you need to compensate for the fact that the typical person will no longer have the +save items and feats that'd allow him to resist the magic.  Otherwise, PC wizards would be unstoppable killing machines, and enemy wizards would be worse.  For example, you could give everyone Spell Resistance equal to their CHA plus their racial HD.  When the average commoner has SR 10, no one will be playing a low-level Wizard.  And, it keeps CHA from being a dump stat.  Or, just add a straight save bonus for non-magic classes.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make earlier was that the changes needed to make a good* low-magic system are so extensive that you're better off working the other direction, adding a magic system to a game already balanced for zero-magic.  My friends and I have already done that, and it's worked VERY nicely for us.  One of these days I'll get around to posting it on the House Rules forum.

*- "Good system" and "system that can lead to good games" are two different things.  If I took D&D and removed every spell above 4th level, I could still make a good campaign out of it, as long as the players cooperated, but that wouldn't make it a balanced game system.


----------



## hong

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Consider that a cloak and boots of elvenkind (which a 3rd level caster can make) grant 20 skill ranks.




No they don't. They grant a +5 bonus to the relevant skills. Further, if you're playing 3.5E, these items cost more than a magic sword. You can certainly have +20 skill bonus items, but they'll be pretty expensive. Not things that a 3rd level character should be worrying about.

If your beef is with the process by which these bonuses are gained, as opposed to their mechanics, the simplest solution is to change the process. I've mentioned imbued magic too many times already, but once more can't hurt.

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm




> An 8th level fighter strives to master his weapon and gain improved critical; meanwhile the elven wizard has had keen edge since 3rd level (and true strike since first).




You can't seriously be saying that keen edge for 1 minute/level and true strike for 1 attack threatens the fighter's niche as master of weapons.

If a wizard really wanted to show a fighter up, they wouldn't waste their time on this piddly stuff. Fly + greater invis + wind wall + fireball is perhaps the canonical method, but that tends to raise everyone's hackles. If you want to do the arcane caster/fighter thing, GMW + polymorph + displacement + stoneskin + mage armour + shield + haste + Tenser's transform is the way to go. Note that most of these spells are 3rd level or higher. By simply cutting down on the rate of advancement, as mentioned by Kamosa, you go a long way to solving your problems.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think WotC (or any other really daring d20 company) could produce a d20 Generic Fantasy Toolkit that doesn't even reference the core rule books or assumptions. I think it would sell like hotcakes. It would be like d20 Modern, with some generic classes, staple races, sample spells and monsters, but a module build that allows plenty of DM tinkering rather than kitbashing D&D.




Like d20 Modern... generic classes... module build... DM tinkering...

Golly, you keep that up, I'm going to have to start paying you.

http://www.badaxegames.com/html/products/grim_tales/index.html

Course I never thought of myself as "really daring."


Wulf


----------



## Gothmog

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, of course you can. I have done.
> 
> But such characters are soon eclipsed in their abilities by even the simplest magic.
> 
> Consider that a cloak and boots of elvenkind (which a 3rd level caster can make) grant 20 skill ranks.
> 
> An 8th level fighter strives to master his weapon and gain improved critical; meanwhile the elven wizard has had keen edge since 3rd level (and true strike since first).
> 
> And on and on...
> 
> Wulf




Exactly, very well stated.  The way the core rules are set up, its MUCH more economical and efficient to simply use magic to enhance your character's abilities than have the character develop those skills himself.  While King Arthur had Excalibur, and Frodo had the One Ring and Sting, these items didn't define the character or his abilities as absolutely as items and magic do in D&D.  This is a notion that peculiar to D&D, and nowhere else in fantasy fiction or myth.   

The low magic/GnG crowd seeks to downplay the role of magic in the game so that the characters can shine.  While its possible to have wit, skill, and resourcefulness be defining character traits in a standard D&D game, those qualities often take a back seat to acquiring more potent abilities and magical solutions IME.  The scry/buff/teleport or greater invis/fly/fireball phenomena of dealing with high-level threats in D&D is proof of this, and is something NEVER found in fiction or legend.  This isn't relying on the resourcefulness of characters, but instead it is the "optimal" way of dealing with high level threats according to the core rules.  If even ONE player in a standard D&D game goes for magical power over skill, wit, and resourcefulness, then all the other players are FORCED to comply with the same power escalation or be left in the dust.  Obviously, not all high magic games are like this, as evidenced by some posters here, but all the high magic games I have ever played in (and unfotunately run once) ended up this way.  To me, this is when the soul of the game and fantasy is lost.  Reducing the magic level is one way to preserve character balance across the board if the DM wants to make sure the game focuses on the characters rather than a magical arms race.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *- "Good system" and "system that can lead to good games" are two different things. If I took D&D and removed every spell above 4th level, I could still make a good campaign out of it, as long as the players cooperated, but that wouldn't make it a balanced game system.



I would venture that the former (a good campaign) is far more important than the later (a balanced game system).  For instance, I know that, looking at the game market, my material isn't exactly balanced; However, I also know that, at my table, with my players, playing the way we like, it is balanced far better than the Core Rules themselves because it's a more exact fit to our tastes, styles, and genre preferences.

All a "balanced game system" did was make the task of customization more problematic.


----------



## hong

Sigh.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> I would venture another outlook: Low Level D&D is the only part of D&D that even _remotely_ resembles the fantasy genre, and the higher level you get, the less the game resembles the genre from which it was born.




This has been a part of D&D ever since day one. It's a bit late to complain about that, don't you think?




> In the end, this is the general complaint many LM/GnG gamers have: They don't want to be _confined_ to low levels in order to emulate the genre.




From what I've seen, many such gamers want to be confined by the expectations of that one particular genre. They have no particular desire to do things that fall outside that genre: teleporting, flying, taking on armies single-handed, etc. Therefore, it's only logical that if mechanically speaking they don't want to change much, their levels shouldn't change much, relatively speaking.




> I've not seen Wulf's book yet (it's near the top of my list, though...), but what you find most of "us" doing is making an attempt to open high level play to characters without the burden/dependance of magic that Core balance/expectations _appears_ to impose.  The idea that low magic games should be confined to low levels is patently false; It illustrates a misconception that magic is _necessary_ in order to play the game right and that low magic games should be _confined_ to low levels because that's when magic is "light".




There is no such thing as "playing the game right", at least not in the way you seem to be implying. D&D handles low magic perfectly well, and high magic perfectly well. It handles low magic at low levels, and high magic at high levels. The two are different games. You can certainly try to shoehorn the low magic style into high levels, but why bother? You'll be doing nothing that you couldn't already do at low levels.

And yes, you get lots of feats and skill points and whatnot at high levels. This is irrelevant. You can just as easily give out more feats and skill points at low levels, and this has the benefit of not having to deal with the other baggage of high-level play: more hit points, better BAB and saves, tougher monsters, etc. Or you could just play out these things freeform, without the need for game mechanics. It would save a lot of time and hassle, and furthermore, get around another of the common complaints: "it's all die rolling, there's no roleplaying anymore".




> However, what this belief translates as is "because you have chosen not to use high magic, your characters are mentally and physically crippled and can't get past 5th Level."  That is just as rediculous as it is wrong.




The only thing that's wrong is this silly strawman of yours. Who, exactly, is crippled at 5th level? Even if you take bog-standard D&D, a 5th level fighter can take on a platoon of orcs without too much trouble, a 5th level rogue can sneak into most places untouched, etc.

The only thing that could possibly make a 5th level fighter look "crippled" by comparison is a 20th level fighter. But if your campaign ends at 5th or 10th level, then 20TH LEVEL FIGHTERS DON'T EXIST. The ceiling is redefined, and that's what counts. Why do you care if, in Joe Munchkin's campaign down the road, 40th level wizard/paladins are matching up with balors and whatnot? Within the reality of your game world, Joe Munchkin is irrelevant.




> You do realize that Gandolf is listed on page 5 of the ELH as an expample of an Epic Character.  Consequently, so are Conan, Fafhrd, and the Gray Mouser, three characters not exactly known for their huge stock piles of gold and endless lists of magical trinkets.




The ELH is a pile of garbage. There is nothing particularly "epic" about Gandalf, except maybe the fact that he's an angel. The ELH conflates two entirely different meanings of the word epic, and befuddles more than it illuminates.




> What I see is the opposite: The game that used to only be limited by our imaginations is now wearing a high magic straight jacket and those that are comfortable in that straight jacket can't understand why someone else would want to get it off and scratch an itch.




The people who play in one, rather narrowly-defined genre, and want a game to support only that genre, are the ones who aren't wearing the straitjacket. Right.


----------



## kamosa

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> I would venture another outlook: Low Level D&D is the only part of D&D that even _remotely_ resembles the fantasy genre, and the higher level you get, the less the game resembles the genre from which it was born.
> 
> In the end, this is the general complaint many LM/GnG gamers have: They don't want to be _confined_ to low levels in order to emulate the genre.




I would agree with this, and think that this is exactly what I have been saying.  GM's don't want to admit they are playing low level D&D, so they rip out all the stuff that makes a game high level and then say they are playing high level.  

When characters advance they get feats, spells, skills and BAB.  Each class is strong in one or two of those catagories.  Since the mages aren't ever going to challenge the parties theif or fighter on hitpoints, skills, BAB or feats, the only real thing they gain in comparison to the party is spells.  If you take away the spells or cripple the spells system, the caster esentially falls behind at every level.  Until finally they are the same level in name only, and they are really just third or fourth class citizens in the party.  

DC's for skills increase, hitpoints and AC's for monsters increase, but so does the skill level and damage per round of the fighters and rogues.  So, in that sense the challenge to the party stays the same for those classes. They have around the same chance of success killing the monster as they did at first level, and they have about the same success rate of picking the tricky locks at high levels as they did the low level locks at first level.

So, you get a situation where the challenges get increasingly hard for the casters, while the challenges stay relatively the same for the fighters and rogues.  Add into this the SR and other mage beating stuff that higher level monsters have and  guess who isn't having a good time and isn't able effectively participate in the combats.

IMHO, a fighter is just as interesting to play at low levels as high levels.  I actually think a rogue is most interesting upto 5th level.   Since, their game doesn't change that much at high levels, the only thing you gain, or fear from going to high levels is the caster threat to game stability.  So why not just admit it and play at those levels.  Casters won't ruin your game, and it won't actually change the core play of the other core classes.


----------



## ManicFuel

I'm not sure I understand why it's a big deal that folks have espoused and supported the low magic / grim and gritty style of play in this thread, _since that is what the original poster asked for_. 



> How do you define low magic? How do you define grim and gritty? What makes these seemingly more attractive than standard Core Rules D&D for many? Is this a direction more campaign settings and sourcebooks should go in? What about the core rules?




Of course everyone has an opinion of the game and the way they like to play it. I don't spend my time evangelizing the "lmgng" style of play, but when a fellow board member specifically asks about it, I put my 2 cents in. No one is overtly trying to attack the default 3.x systems, but it is going to come out that way from anyone who can answer the question asked: What makes these seemingly more attractive than standard core D&D? That is the topic.

On the flip side of this, I have no problem with all the comments that start "I played/DMd this style and hated it." That answers the question, too, and it comes from experience. If you need to explain the position further, I'd suggest a thread called "Why core D&D is seemingly more attractive than other game systems". But _this_ topic isn't why the core system is just fine. So why all the flak on both sides?


----------



## Bendris Noulg

kamosa said:
			
		

> I would agree with this, and think that this is exactly what I have been saying. GM's don't want to admit they are playing low level D&D, so they rip out all the stuff that makes a game high level and then say they are playing high level.



Actually, what I posted and what you posted are the opposite...

You say low magic games should stay low level.

I'm saying that's arrogant, elitist, and ignorant thinking.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

[sarcasm]



			
				ManicFuel said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand why it's a big deal that folks have espoused and supported the low magic / grim and gritty style of play in this thread, _since that is what the original poster asked for_.



Oh, that's simple.


See, when someone posts, "I like low magic games", what we're really saying is, "high magic sux and those that like it are loosers."

Didn't you know that?

[/sarcasm]


----------



## el-remmen

This is the best thread I've read in a while.


----------



## EricNoah

nemmerle said:
			
		

> This is the best thread I've read in a while.




Agreed, though again folks: watch the tone.  Throwing words like "arrogant, ignorant and elitist" around at your fellow gamers isn't going to get you far.  This isn't DefCon 1 here, we're just trying to figure out why some people like it one way and some people like it another.  If you think someone is snapping at you, snapping back doesn't make the situation better.


----------



## EricNoah

I've had some additional thoughts based on something Wulf said a few posts back about the "distance" between the player and the character.

I think some people want to be closer to their character, and some want to be further away.  And it may not be consistent for a particular player.  

If my goal is to have a close-to-reality or close-to-plausible experience, LM/GnG is right up my alley because the character I play is going to be closer to what I personally could do or be if I were transported into that setting.  When I play such a character and the character succeeds, it may feel more like it was "me" who succeeded because it wasn't my high AC or my stats in general that won the day, it was my own cleverness.  

Conversely, if my goal in gaming is to get to "be" someone I never really could be (like a wizard or a tiefling or an awakened rust monster), maybe standard-magic D&D is going to get me there.  My spells, my magic items, my supernatural powers, my better-than-humanly-possible skills help the character achieve things that normally no one could achieve.  I still have to use my own cleverness to "win the day" though because (if the DM is doing a good job) the opposition may have similar or superior powers.  But maybe (and this is up for debate) more of my character's success is due to the stuff he earns as a reward/consequence of playing the game (from his race, class, magic items, etc.).

Is this making any kind of sense?  I kind of lost my train of thought.  I'll come back and try again in a bit...


----------



## Alcareru

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I've had some additional thoughts based on something Wulf said a few posts back about the "distance" between the player and the character.
> 
> I think some people want to be closer to their character, and some want to be further away. And it may not be consistent for a particular player.
> 
> If my goal is to have a close-to-reality or close-to-plausible experience, LM/GnG is right up my alley because the character I play is going to be closer to what I personally could do or be if I were transported into that setting. When I play such a character and the character succeeds, it may feel more like it was "me" who succeeded because it wasn't my high AC or my stats in general that won the day, it was my own cleverness.
> 
> Conversely, if my goal in gaming is to get to "be" someone I never really could be (like a wizard or a tiefling or an awakened rust monster), maybe standard-magic D&D is going to get me there. My spells, my magic items, my supernatural powers, my better-than-humanly-possible skills help the character achieve things that normally no one could achieve. I still have to use my own cleverness to "win the day" though because (if the DM is doing a good job) the opposition may have similar or superior powers. But maybe (and this is up for debate) more of my character's success is due to the stuff he earns as a reward/consequence of playing the game (from his race, class, magic items, etc.).
> 
> Is this making any kind of sense? I kind of lost my train of thought. I'll come back and try again in a bit...



I dont think your off. Mechanics aside, I think the idea of "distance" between RL and your character ideal is a big part of the debate. Whether you think high magic takes away from a characters ability to "shine" or becomes a crutch really I think depends on how you view your character.

For instance, as stated before DnD at this stage of its lifecycle isnt like alot of fantasy. It has its own mythos, creatures, and ways of dealing with problems-alot of times with powerful magics.

I happen to like this approach. I want to play a being alot different than the one I am. I live in a "grim and gritty" world. With training and discipline I could perhaps attain "spell like effects" or be able to create masterwork items. But in no way could I learn to scry or cast fireballs. I like this ability to experience a perception of reality I otherwise never could. Others may not.

In the end it does come down to a matter of plausibility- whether theres no magic; a little- but of a kind we think is scientifically possible; or complete over-the-top-destroy-worlds magic.


----------



## EricNoah

I was participating in a high level game earlier this week (PCs are around 18th level).  And there was a moment when I thought, "My god ... I'm a frickin' superhero!  I can fly, I can kill a giant in one blow, I can become invisible any time I want, I can teleport anywhere in the world..."  I was having a blast.  And it wasn't like the battle wasn't a challenge -- I was getting my butt handed to me.  But I can easily see how someone can look at that and think, "That's not fulfilling to me."  

At the same time, I'm (as I've said) running a lower-magic, grittier game.  It took me a LONG time to set up the basics of the house rules so that it would be different, maybe more "realistic" in terms of healing, etc., but still fun.  One change to the rules trickled down in many ways through the whole system.  I would have paid good money for a product that would have done that work for me -- helped tweak D&D down while still allowing for a variety of character types, long-term campaigning, a variety of challenges and a variety of resources PCs can use to deal with those challenges, doling out the "rewards" at an appropriate pace, all that stuff.  I have a feeling, though, that if a product came out like that, there's a good chance that most of it wouldn't be "quite right for me".  I'm not sure a single product could tackle all of the shades of gray between no magic/extremely lethal and moderate magic/moderately lethal.


----------



## milotha

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Conversely, if my goal in gaming is to get to "be" someone I never really could be (like a wizard or a tiefling or an awakened rust monster), maybe standard-magic D&D is going to get me there.  My spells, my magic items, my supernatural powers, my better-than-humanly-possible skills help the character achieve things that normally no one could achieve.  I still have to use my own cleverness to "win the day" though because (if the DM is doing a good job) the opposition may have similar or superior powers.  But maybe (and this is up for debate) more of my character's success is due to the stuff he earns as a reward/consequence of playing the game (from his race, class, magic items, etc.).




This is a fairly close representation to one of the reasons I enjoy gaming.  I enjoy getting to play things I could never really be.  I think this is one of the reasons that fantasy games are so popular and that D&D has prevailed.  It doesn't matter to me that it doesn't represent the common "low magic" novel fantasy motif (note: there are high magic fantasy books)  If I wanted real life where I'm ineffectual and easily killed, I would just live it.  I guess I'm a get your reality out of my fantasy person.


----------



## Nightfall

In my opinion?

Low magic and grim and gritty is all essentially one place: Midnight.

You run that, you don't need much else.


----------



## MerricB

The superhero analogy is a good one. High-level D&D is high-powered D&D.

The gap in abilities between 1st and 20th level characters, _regardless of their magic_ is huge. If you play low-magic, you must necessarily remove many challenges from the game, because they cannot be overcome by mundane means alone!

If you take the view that the one thing that should distinguish a high-level character from a low-level character is their _survivability_, and that measured in high hit points and good saving throws, then the nature of the game changes profoundly. Consider a low-magic fighter who has a Base Attack progression of 1 per 3 levels (with +1 at 1st level)- so at 20th level he has a +7 base attack. His hit points have increased to normal levels (so 20d10+40, say - or 150 hp), but his Armour Class, devoid of magic, remains at lower levels: 20 AC or so.

It's all about the scaling of offense versus defense. It's my one complaint about 3E - the scaling is even more extreme than in AD&D, so that a 1st level character can't even _hit_ the foes faced by a 10th level character.

Reduce all bonuses to do something by a half or a third or more, whilst leaving hit points and saving throws alone, and you have a feel to the game that is much more low-powered - and thus supports low magic far better.

Cheers!


----------



## Nightfall

Just explain to me one thing Merric,

Why WOULD a 1st level party of PCs want to face a 10th level challenge? If they are smart they'd find something a little less tough.


----------



## MerricB

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Just explain to me one thing Merric,
> 
> Why WOULD a 1st level party of PCs want to face a 10th level challenge? If they are smart they'd find something a little less tough.




They would.  

It's not exactly that I'm talking about. If you put a 10th level D&D 3.5E fighter up against 100 goblins, who is going to win? My money is on the fighter. There's a gap between their abilities that is extreme - the attack bonus/armour class differential is huge. It's far greater in 3.5E than in 1E. 

That may not be a problem to you, and that's fine; I merely think it's more of a problem in a low-magic game than in standard D&D.

Cheers!


----------



## Bendris Noulg

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Agreed, though again folks: watch the tone.



Fair enough...  Allow me to refraise.

Komosa, by your reasoning, there are a number of products out now that are simply a waste of money because the same effects can be achieved just by sticking to low levels.  These products include:

Grim Adventures
Midnight
Slain
Conan
And the upcoming Black Company

However, one reading of these books will present you with _exactly_ what you speak out against: Settings that permit _high level play_ in a campaign world environment that is not as permeated by magic as standard D&D is.  And, when someone posts on a message board that they have a low magic campaign, that is _also_ exactly what they are trying to accomplish, albeit at a smaller for-our-own-group scale.  And the ways posters/fans will seek to accomplish this goal is going to be even more varied and experimental than those on the above list.

The problems you perceive and keep returning to have been dealt with a hundred times over, in this thread and others, and does get really tiring.  After all, isn't 3E supposed to be about options?  Why must _this_ option be considered tabboo, impossible, power-GMing, or any other negative inclination?  Doesn't the continued success and popularity of the above products as well as the successes of individual GMing throughout the world dispel the myth that low magic isn't a _functional_ preference?

Or does WotC have to actually do it themselves?


----------



## nopantsyet

As long as you're not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I have no problem with either stance.  I enjoy running and playing games of varying feel and power level, and I'm willing to try anything without the predisposition that it's just a waste of time because I'm going to hate it anyway.

What I don't like is people who equate, "I tried X and didn't like it," with "X really sucks, why do you idiots think it's so great, anyway?"  Each DM, campaign and player is different, and what works in one situation may not in another.  If I tell my players the next campaign is going to be lmgng and somebody says, "Oh, I tried that and it sucked; I don't want to do it," my response will be, "Well you haven't played this setting with this group, so why not give it a shot and if we find it's just not working we'll move on to something else."

It's a little thing I like to call, "flexibility."  Works well with "open-mindedness."  Doesn't seem too many people are familiar with these, gamers or not.  Most people like what's comfortable.  What's rote. Which is precisely what I try to avoid, whether it's lmgng, Forgotten Realms or another game altogether.


----------



## Nightfall

(I just like Midnight cause I might yet get an NPC appearance and Ash is my Pimp Daddy alt self for Midnight.  )


----------



## kamosa

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> The problems you perceive and keep returning to have been dealt with a hundred times over, in this thread and others, and does get really tiring.  After all, isn't 3E supposed to be about options?  Why must _this_ option be considered tabboo, impossible, power-GMing, or any other negative inclination?  Doesn't the continued success and popularity of the above products as well as the successes of individual GMing throughout the world dispel the myth that low magic isn't a _functional_ preference?
> 
> Or does WotC have to actually do it themselves?




I haven't seen the sales numbers for the products you mentioned above, so I wouldn't agree that they are popular settings.  In fact, even though I go to a pretty good game store two or three times a month, I had only seen a couple of those supliments.  So, I guess I wouldn't conceed that they demonstrate that people really want low level gaming.  In the age of self publishing, just putting out a product proves nothing.

However, I would say that I have heard of a number of attempts to launch low power systems.  I would say the continued failure of any  system that plays low magic is pretty good evidence that there isn't some ground swell of support for those products.  On the other hand, standard D&D keeps chugging along.


----------



## Nightfall

MerricB said:
			
		

> They would.
> 
> It's not exactly that I'm talking about. If you put a 10th level D&D 3.5E fighter up against 100 goblins, who is going to win? My money is on the fighter. There's a gap between their abilities that is extreme - the attack bonus/armour class differential is huge. It's far greater in 3.5E than in 1E.
> 
> That may not be a problem to you, and that's fine; I merely think it's more of a problem in a low-magic game than in standard D&D.
> 
> Cheers!



Well I'd rule there'd be a lot of bonuses going around for those 100 goblins, especially if some were lycanthropes.


----------



## milotha

Just curious.  Several of you have posted that this is an interesting thread.  What exactly about the thread makes it interesting.  Has it sparked any insights, and if so please share them.


----------



## Nightfall

It's interesting cause Ben hasn't been ban yet!  (Just kidding Ben.  )


----------



## Bendris Noulg

EricNoah said:
			
		

> If my goal is to have a close-to-reality or close-to-plausible experience, LM/GnG is right up my alley because the character I play is going to be closer to what I personally could do or be if I were transported into that setting. When I play such a character and the character succeeds, it may feel more like it was "me" who succeeded because it wasn't my high AC or my stats in general that won the day, it was my own cleverness.
> 
> Conversely, if my goal in gaming is to get to "be" someone I never really could be (like a wizard or a tiefling or an awakened rust monster), maybe standard-magic D&D is going to get me there. My spells, my magic items, my supernatural powers, my better-than-humanly-possible skills help the character achieve things that normally no one could achieve. I still have to use my own cleverness to "win the day" though because (if the DM is doing a good job) the opposition may have similar or superior powers. But maybe (and this is up for debate) more of my character's success is due to the stuff he earns as a reward/consequence of playing the game (from his race, class, magic items, etc.).
> 
> Is this making any kind of sense? I kind of lost my train of thought. I'll come back and try again in a bit...



Close... At least, close to my own view of it, which would include a 3rd (and I'm afraid is opposed to Merrik's post) character type: A character born into a "mostly normal" world that begins as a "mostly normal" mortal being but then, through chance, luck, and iron gonads, manages to become "the exception", rising above his peers and able to deal with the threats and enemies and retrieve items, relics and lore that no one in a mellinia or longer have been able to.

Edit: Oh, and some folks might remember Forgotten Realms being like that when it was first released for 1E.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Nightfall said:
			
		

> It's interesting cause Ben hasn't been ban yet!  (Just kidding Ben.  )



Hey, now...  If Hong hasn't been banned yet, then I've certainly got plenty of play room left.


----------



## ManicFuel

I wouldn't call low magic and grim and gritty more realistic, though I can see that it might be seen that way. At least, I'm not _striving_ for realism when I insert low magic, grim and gritty, or any other house rules. I do it to set the game's stage more to our liking.

My view is that an RPGs mechanics shape and foster the genre and style in which the games are played. That's where a lot of the campaign flavor comes from, and perhaps why I found generic RPG systems like HERO and GURPS to be somewhat bland. Altering mechanics via house rules is common in any campaign to tweak the flavor of the setting. It's not railroading to narrow the rules' scope to better depict a style, genre or era.

What gives low magic a higher profile is that magic is such an important part of D&D. But some published supplements do much the same without so much as a whisper of controversy - Testament and Iron Kingdoms, for example. These settings are play tested rules limitations and additions enforced to promote a distinct play quality in these settings. That's all low magic or grim and gritty are, too.

I've never had a player complain when I say "there is no such thing as a halfling", or "there is no such thing as full plate". But say "there is no such thing as magic missile", and watch the fur fly. I've "nerfed" magic. I guess I "nerfed" the races and armor too? Mechanically, these changes are really no different, since there are still other options available. But a lot of players really do lean heavily on certain mechanics, usually magic. In fact, if a player does not want to participate in a campaign that doesn't have _teleport_ as a spell, or hafling as a race, for example, then that spell or race is a crutch for that player.

I've never made available every race, class, feat, monster and spell, etc that are in the books, and I never will. The books offer options and recommendations, not requirements. Rule 0 and all that.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

kamosa said:
			
		

> In fact, even though I go to a pretty good game store two or three times a month, I had only seen a couple of those supliments.



Being that two are by Mongoose, two are by Green Ronin, and one is by Fantasy Flight, I'd question how "good" your gaming store really is.

Then again, maybe they just sold out that fast.


----------



## Piratecat

My campaign is a little odd because we've moved through all the stages. Wulf joined it when the average PC level was 17th; since we're deep in world-spanning plots and many PCs have 9th lvl spells, it certainly doesn't qualify as gritty. That being said, the PCs have worked their way up over 12 years of real time, so we've gone through long periods of low magic adventures as well. I wince a little when I see the things that Wulf loves in a grim campaign, because my own game is so different than that. In my experience, though, having a higher level/higher magic game does not exclude complex and engaging plots.

Personally, I think magic is tremendous fun; it's probably why I play D&D instead of d20 Modern or a different game. I don't think I'd want to change how I've handled things in the game.


----------



## drothgery

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Fair enough... Allow me to refraise.
> 
> The problems you perceive and keep returning to have been dealt with a hundred times over, in this thread and others, and does get really tiring. After all, isn't 3E supposed to be about options? Why must _this_ option be considered tabboo, impossible, power-GMing, or any other negative inclination? Doesn't the continued success and popularity of the above products as well as the successes of individual GMing throughout the world dispel the myth that low magic isn't a _functional_ preference?
> 
> Or does WotC have to actually do it themselves?



WotC did do a game with rare magic items and strong social constraints on magic use, in d20 Wheel of Time. And if you put d20 WoT PCs in a situation where the game's version of magic can be used freely, those that can use magic kick butt and take names, because magic isn't significanly less _powerful_ in d20 WoT than it is in D&D -- and there are no minor spellcasters and few magic items around that would let the others keep up.

I expect Black Company to be pretty similar, actually; if they want to be able to model the Taken without going heavily Epic, it almost has to be set up that way.


----------



## Belegbeth

ManicFuel said:
			
		

> I'll jump back in on this one.
> 
> 
> Removing spells from the game tends to cause player revolt, so I limit spell availablity to magic schools. Finding the School of Fire and convincing the master to teach a few spells is an adventure.
> Allow any spellcasting class, but require a feat (Magical Aptitude from 3.5 works well) and a tutor for class entry.
> Make magic items count. No +1 anything or cure light wounds potions. If magic is rare, those few who can enchant items will create something special. +3 mithral plate, _heal_ potions, +4 flaming scimitar, etc, are examples of the types of treasures I hand out.
> Don't be shy about giving these items to PCs of a lower level than normal. It is the usually the only item of that type they will find!
> Introduce low magic and grim and gritty seperately. When PCs can still "get hit 5 times with an axe" and live, it gives them some leeway when judging encounter strength. Learn the nuances of each side independently.
> I second the use of humanoids as antagonists, especially under 3.x, where monsters can have class levels. This makes encounter balance simpler.
> I also second the escape routes. Running from or talking your way out of an encounter should ALWAYS be an option.
> General advice for every campaign style, but it bears repeating. In every adventure, present the each PC with opportunities to do what they do best, and with situations where they must try something they do not do well. These go well in tandem: Fighter must make successive Spot/Listen checks or be surprised by low level warriors. Let him sweat why he needs to make these skill checks, then cut him loose on a few thugs.




These suggestions are all excellent.    

I ran a very exciting "low magic" campaign two years ago using many of these ideas.  The key to doing this -- as pointed out in this post -- is not to nerf or fiddle too much with the mechanics themselves.  Rather, the DM needs to use the features of his campaign world in order to encourage a "low magic" feel.  Secretive 'colleges of magic,' or mysterious 'divine cults,' that are reluctant to impart their 'esoteric lore' without some kind of service is a great way to further good PC role-playing, exciting plots and adventures within the campaign, and a 'low magic' feel within the world as a whole (in which magic remains 'mysterious' and 'dangerous').

Requiring pure spellcasters (wizards, clerics, etc.) to take a few levels in another class before being 'introduced' to the ways of magic maintains game balance, since the game rules accommodate multi-class characters. 

The only mechanical change I introduced in my game was to treat all spell-casting as a full-round action.


----------



## Gothmog

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I've had some additional thoughts based on something Wulf said a few posts back about the "distance" between the player and the character.
> 
> I think some people want to be closer to their character, and some want to be further away.  And it may not be consistent for a particular player.
> 
> If my goal is to have a close-to-reality or close-to-plausible experience, LM/GnG is right up my alley because the character I play is going to be closer to what I personally could do or be if I were transported into that setting.  When I play such a character and the character succeeds, it may feel more like it was "me" who succeeded because it wasn't my high AC or my stats in general that won the day, it was my own cleverness.
> 
> Conversely, if my goal in gaming is to get to "be" someone I never really could be (like a wizard or a tiefling or an awakened rust monster), maybe standard-magic D&D is going to get me there.  My spells, my magic items, my supernatural powers, my better-than-humanly-possible skills help the character achieve things that normally no one could achieve.  I still have to use my own cleverness to "win the day" though because (if the DM is doing a good job) the opposition may have similar or superior powers.  But maybe (and this is up for debate) more of my character's success is due to the stuff he earns as a reward/consequence of playing the game (from his race, class, magic items, etc.).
> 
> Is this making any kind of sense?  I kind of lost my train of thought.  I'll come back and try again in a bit...




I think you've hit pretty close to home for most of us here, although I hadn't really considered it this way before.  Personally, I don't tend to enjoy high-magic games as much since I cannot identify at all with my character, the world, and it just seems ridiculous after a certain point that hundreds or thousands of different sentient species share the same world.  Plus, playing a half celestial high elf wizard/rogue/arcane trickster just stretched believabilty past the breaking point for me.  It would take a truly exceptional DM to run a high fantasy world that really sucked me in.  Unfortunatly, most DMs run high magic games where all non-human creatures have very human-like mindsets and motives, and the thing just falls apart.  I can't really even think of a published high-magic world where this principle isn't strained to the point of breaking.

I find low magic/GnG much more compelling since I can identify with the character, his concerns, fears, and aspirations.  True, its more like real life, but thats the frame of reference we come from, and can relate to easily.  Besides, real life ain't that bad at all.  And I can personally attest that a success in a low magic game gives me a much greater sense of accomplishment- I feel like I figured things out and came through, rather than shooting my most powerful magic whatzit to solve the problem.  And you haven't really gamed until you've been in a situation that scared you/made you uneasy based on the events in game- and fear is a VERY hard emotion to capture in fantasy, let alone in a high magic game.  Also, I have found as a DM that it is easier to motivate players to really become invested in the game if they can identify strongly with their character, and in the case of 90% of the players I have known, this is MUCH easier to do in a low magic/GnG game.


----------



## milotha

Gothmog said:
			
		

> And I can personally attest that a success in a low magic game gives me a much greater sense of accomplishment- I feel like I figured things out and came through, rather than shooting my most powerful magic whatzit to solve the problem.  And you haven't really gamed until you've been in a situation that scared you/made you uneasy based on the events in game- and fear is a VERY hard emotion to capture in fantasy, let alone in a high magic game.





I've been in numerous normal or high magic games where the GM has been able to instill a sense of fear or emotion in the characters.  I find that that has nothing to do with the level of magic in the world.  The fear of a TPK can be very real in either type of campaign setting.  If you really care about your character, their death can be traumatic no matter the level of magic.  I've also gamed in low magic campaigns where my character seemed ineffectual and inconsequential, and thus when they died, I didn't care as much.  So, I guess "I've really gamed" in both high magic and normal magic worlds.   

I must once again object to the view that you cannot really game in a high or normal magic campaign.  I think this is a personal preference, and if people enjoy either/both type, more power to them.  Your preference and the style of play that you choose doesn't invalidate your ability to be a good role player.


----------



## Desdichado

milotha said:
			
		

> I must once again object to the view that you cannot really game in a high or normal magic campaign.  I think this is a personal preference, and if people enjoy either/both type, more power to them.  Your preference and the style of play that you choose doesn't invalidate your ability to be a good role player.



Why must you object to that, since Gothmog specifically said that _he_ does not find high or "normal" magic campaigns engaging?  He's saying it's a personal preference too, and not his.     

I have no problem with folks who like to play D&D exactly as written.  I do too, actually, although the games I _really_ like have elements of LM/GnG due to my personal preference.  I don't particularly like folks who don't care for LM/GnG telling me how I should play, or that I should just stick to low level, or that I should pick up a different game, or questioning why such a discussion even has any value.  That really isn't very helpful in light of the question the original post in the thread asked.

Or in any light, come to think of it.


----------



## Orius

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> To me
> "Low magic" usually means "I hate handing out magical items, so I removed them, inadvertantly making anyone who plays a wizard or cleric significantly more powerful than the rest of the party, but that's ok, because I cover it by saying that wizards and clerics are uncommon. Even though there's one of each in every party."
> 
> "Grim and gritty" usually means "I love save vs death mechanics and I hate hitpoints. I've further devalued the fighters of the party by removing any staying power they have."




I generally agree.  To put it bluntly, many times, it seems that people advocate low magic grim & gritty games to cover lazy DMing.  They don't like magical healing because it makes it harder to threaten the party.  They hate _raise dead or worse, resurrection and often ban the spells from the game, because there's no fear of death.  They hate divination magic because the players get clues too easily.  They hate magic weapons because they boost attack and damage rolls.  They hate hit points because fighters don't take a dagger in the back or a crossbow pinted at them seriously, and because that same fighter can "fall off a cliff and walk away".  Then they play up the "realistic" aspects of medievialism, meaning the utter ignorance, rampant poverty, filth, disease, and prejudice of that horrid age.  Not the type of setting I'd enjoy, given that I consider the Dark Ages (a term I find utterly appropriate) to be fairly close to hell on earth.

Maybe it seems like I'm being insulting, and maybe some people will accuse me of trolling.  But the simple fact is that D&D is slanted somewhat towards heroic fantasy.  Thus the hit points, and the existance of magic.  It's part of the flavor of D&D.  Certainly too much magic can wreck a campaign, I won't deny that.  But I think all too often, DMs don't like to take magic into account and seem to prefer nerfing the party rather than preparing scenarios and building campaigns around it._


----------



## Gothmog

milotha said:
			
		

> I've been in numerous normal or high magic games where the GM has been able to instill a sense of fear or emotion in the characters.  I find that that has nothing to do with the level of magic in the world.  The fear of a TPK can be very real in either type of campaign setting.  If you really care about your character, their death can be traumatic no matter the level of magic.  I've also gamed in low magic campaigns where my character seemed ineffectual and inconsequential, and thus when they died, I didn't care as much.  So, I guess "I've really gamed" in both high magic and normal magic worlds.
> 
> I must once again object to the view that you cannot really game in a high or normal magic campaign.  I think this is a personal preference, and if people enjoy either/both type, more power to them.  Your preference and the style of play that you choose doesn't invalidate your ability to be a good role player.




You are correct in saying that each person's experiences and preferecnes determine what they find enjoyable and engrossing, and good roleplaying doesn't occur in any one style of game.  However, when I made the comment about being uneasy/afraid, it wasn't in reference to a TPK, losing magic items, or even having the character killed.  It was more in reference to a fear of dark unknown places- the kind of thing that makes you look around the dimmed gaming room wondering what might happen if you go down the dark hallway to the bathroom.  I have played in three adventures that evoked this kind of dread and unease in the players, and all three were low magic games.  In my experience, this kind of engrossing factor is hard to achieve in a high magic game, because the characters are more like superheroes than normal people, and its hard to evoke fear/dread in empowered people.  There is a reason horror games don't have superpowered characters, and why more "mundane" games (where players play characters more like their real-life selves) typically evoke a greater emotional response or attachment in players.  I'm not saying its impossible in a high magic game, just much harder (and believe me, I have tried).


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> To me
> "Low magic" usually means "I hate handing out magical items, so I removed them, inadvertantly making anyone who plays a wizard or cleric significantly more powerful than the rest of the party, but that's ok, because I cover it by saying that wizards and clerics are uncommon. Even though there's one of each in every party."




"One of each in every party" in a game world I designed would be... let's see... ONE additional wizard and ONE additional cleric in the world, beyond the few dozen that already would exist.  How does that negate the idea that clerics and wizards are rare?  Members of PC classes should be rare and exceptional.  Paladins are rare, rangers are rare, bards are rare, even true fighters are rare.  I'd be against restricting player choice in this area, because a) they're supposed to be exceptional and b) they're only 4-8 people out of a world of perhaps a million.  Not enough to change the assertion "clerics and wizards are rare."


----------



## Orius

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> In my experience, the poor and inexperienced GMs I've played with have instead run "default" D&D.  Usually in a dungeon.  It's odd that we have two conflicting stories from those who are trying to "bash" low magic and gritty games; both that poor and inexperienced GMs run them, and that they are much more difficult to run well.  If both of these are true, then grim and gritty and low magic must result in monumentally bad games.  While I have no doubt that monumentally bad games do exist, to suggest a correlation between "suckiness" and fans of a certain style of game is ludicrous.




While I'm certainly not a fan of the low magic, grim & gritty stuff, I have to agree somewhat.  

I'd say you're right when you say inexperienced DMs tend to gravitate to default D&D.  Or more accurately, inexperienced DMs don't realize D&D rules aren't quite set in stone, and use every variant they can, even throwing all sorts of contradictory and imbalanced rules together.  I know _I_ certainly did this at one time, and I'm sure a lot of green DMs and players do the same.

I think what happens is that after a while, all DMs learn more about the game.  Some DMs I think get bitter or cynical about the unbalanced games and then start nerfing everything saying it's more "realistic", and I think they do that because they _are_ bad DMs.  Some people don't belong behind the screen.  It's that simple.

So yes, while some poor DMs go for low magic grim & gritty, not all do.  And not all DMs that run such games are lousy either.


----------



## Belegbeth

Orius said:
			
		

> I generally agree.  To put it bluntly, many times, it seems that people advocate low magic grim & gritty games to cover lazy DMing.  They don't like magical healing because it makes it harder to threaten the party.  They hate _raise dead or worse, resurrection and often ban the spells from the game, because there's no fear of death.  They hate divination magic because the players get clues too easily.  They hate magic weapons because they boost attack and damage rolls.  They hate hit points because fighters don't take a dagger in the back or a crossbow pinted at them seriously, and because that same fighter can "fall off a cliff and walk away".  Then they play up the "realistic" aspects of medievialism, meaning the utter ignorance, rampant poverty, filth, disease, and prejudice of that horrid age.  Not the type of setting I'd enjoy, given that I consider the Dark Ages (a term I find utterly appropriate) to be fairly close to hell on earth.
> 
> Maybe it seems like I'm being insulting, and maybe some people will accuse me of trolling.._



_

Well, yes, you ARE being insulting.  At the very least it is clear that you have not bothered to read many of the posts in this thread.  If you had, you would realize that your generalizations are completely unfounded._


----------



## Snoweel

Gothmog said:
			
		

> There is a reason horror games don't have superpowered characters, and why more "mundane" games (where players play characters more like their real-life selves) typically evoke a greater emotional response or attachment in players. I'm not saying its impossible in a high magic game, just much harder (and believe me, I have tried).




I'll second that.

I have a how-to book on writing that states, in relation to the vulnerability of protagonists, something to the effect of "it is easier to write a good Batman story than a good Superman story".

I agree.

And since my DM focus is on creating a story (and I'm actually not creative enough to railroad my PCs, so I rely on their decisions, as the protagonists, to drive the tale and provide me with the stimulus with which to spark my imagination and therefore create *interesting challenges* which often lie outside the scope of Challenge Ratings and game balance - ie. mysteries), it's important that I make this process as easy as possible.

The logic being that energy expended on an easy task will produce more fruit than the same amount of energy expended on a more difficult task.

It is easier to challenge PCs with less resources and thus I can devote more time and energy to crafting evocative and intriguing locales and situations - 'fluff' if you will.


----------



## Orius

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I guess I don't hate "low magic, grim & gritty" as much as I dislike gamers who think that playing such campaigns somehow makes them more mature and enlightened than people who play "standard magic, non-grim & gritty" campaigns.




I have to agree.  I don't really care much for the opinion of the "real roleplayers" that D&D sucks because of hit points, alignments, or any other such features they don't particularly care for.  I like a certain amount of power-gaming, but I also like a certain amount of game balance.  There's no real satisfaction in easy victories.

Game that are too high-magic, high fantasy can suck too.  I think though, there's more vocal criticism of G&G and low magic, because those are accepted, sometimes haughtily, while horribly overpowered games don't seem to have many defenders at all.

Also note that my arguments apply to D&D _specifically_.  Certainly d20 is flexible enough to make a fantasy campaign that is tougher and less fantastic than D&D.


----------



## el-remmen

Th reason I find this thread so intgeresting is because we are discussing not only what comprises a "low magic" or a "GnG" game, but really what our expectations of a campaign are and what it is we identify with in our characters and what we want our characters to be/accomplish.

For myself, I much prefer running a low magic/gritty game (well, actually I  think my game is "moderate magic", but others say it is low, but only in comparison to "standard" D&D - it would actually be "high" in comparison to Howard's Hyborean world, for example), and I think it is as hard as to run as a good high level (10+) campaign - if only because you have to keep the game engaging and fun when often there are no clear resolutions to and feelings of accomplishment in morally gray and "gritty" sitautions, and much like "real life" every action has a number of bad consequences along with the intended good ones.

I think "low magic" is problem in terms of how the rules are built  and supposedly balanced, while "grit" is a problem of the actual flavor and fun of the game.

For myself, I have not changed how many spells spell-casters can cast or learn, etc. . . though I have greatly lowered the number of "free" spells for wizards (1 every 2 level, instead of 2 every 1 level, and it has to be of a school of magic of a spell you already know in order to understand the under-pinnings behind the magic spell), and except for certain spells I have not removed or changed spells (spells I have made "rare" are _Make Whole_, because a spell like that not only makes worrying about gear a thing of the past, it also would change the fundamental economic of society), thouhg I have added certian requirments to spells like raise dead or resurrection (being a devout follower of the god in question, or being raised comes along with a geas (no save) to fulfill some quest for the god/church (adventure hooks, anyone?). . .

But I have creatured cultural and  societal rules and customs for how magic is handled in order to keep it under control and to add a certain amount of flavor (heck, even Sepulcrave's high magic masterpiece has "the Great Injunction") to help reinforce that low magic awe-filled feeling that I and my players like.

Another way of accomplishing this (which I do also) is by potentially changing the assumptions about certain monsters and magical items, - demons remain fearsome and mysterious foes, for example - are they immune to electrical attacks?  Maybe, maybe not. . . 

Another thing I do is making skills a lot more important to survival. . .  I had one session that was detailed in my story hour not too long ago, that was all just making jumping, climbing, balance, tumble, etc. . . checks to escape a collapsing underground complex, while fighting zombies and avoiding falling stones, etc. . .  The party wizard did not even have levitation at that point - but the players had a blast!  And when the session was over I got a round of applause for how I had handled it (the first and only time that has happened for me as DM).  A few stoneskins, levitate, fly, dimension door, teleport, passwall, phase door (is that even a spell anymore?), or what have you and that escape would have been over in a few minutes and while the description of the collapse might have been exciting the escape would have been much less so. . .


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

What I haven't really seen discussed too much are campaign reasons that include "low magic," middle-of-the-road, and "high" magic all in one campaign world.

Remember, I won't examine specific PCs in general; only the general "level" of society.

Say you have a campaign world where people of higher than 9th level are quite rare (not that dissimilar from a standard dnd game).  This world has 4 continents, 2 of which are at least the size of Western Europe.  You're going to have a lot of cultural seperation.  I'd imagine this division of cultures would look at magic differently, so you may have 3 different cultural views about magic.

Consider a one small country that legally forces _all_ spellcasters to register themselves with the government and swear a bind oath that they will never use magic to destroy or enhance tools of war.  This oath is made binding by a special item upon which the spellcasters must swear (Wheel of Time's Oathrod).  Perhaps this country has highly-trained, elite military, with a few wizards per unit that serve to magically buff the troops.  Likewise, this culture might be more inclined to create magic items that heal and benefit society on the whole, focusing their efforts to keep the country clean, healthy, etc.  This could lead to a very cosmopolitan society, without necessarily "crippling" them should another nation threaten them with force.  Also, this does not necessarily raise or lower the magic level.  It's still there.  However, adventurers would have a tough time finding arms and armaments, but might be able to get their hands on potions, scrolls, this sort of thing.  Offensive magic in general would be hard to come by.

This sort of keeps things middle-of-the-road, but alters it in such a way that in some illusive ways it gives off the appearance of both high and low magic.

You could also have another country far across the country that has developed such wonderful processes with metallurgy, architecture, etc. that they don't really use magic in their society.  Mages have never been interested in this country (lack of useful magical resources, strange fluxes in magical "zones," whatever) and society has adjusted itself to get along without them.  The land could have that "gritty" medieval europe style as well as some very romanesque feelings as well (highly innovative peoples).  This gives off the illusion of "low" magic, however, this nation has developed weapon- and armorsmithing skills like no other, and thus its equipment is highly sought-after, and highly expensive.  By some quirk, the metal they have developed is no better when enchanted...

My point (I think) is:  in a campaign world that is large, fluid, and has a history, a good DM will provide a plethora of different "styles" of play as there are cultures, giving a certain feel to the campaign.  8th level PCs have more than enough funds to travel _very_ far by mundane means, and travelling long distances just gets easy from there.  I don't think a large world shold necessarily be all low or high magic (though it could be) or all grim n' gritty (though, again, this is possible).  Consider the level of technology the Middle East had back around 900-1300 compared to western europe.  It's very different.

I hope this makes sense, because I thought I had some valuable things to say, but it's 3am here, and this huge conference of highly experienced and intelligent gamers has left me somewhat intimidated.

I hope I could contribute meaningfully...


----------



## Bendris Noulg

drothgery said:
			
		

> WotC did do a game with rare magic items and strong social constraints on magic use, in d20 Wheel of Time. And if you put d20 WoT PCs in a situation where the game's version of magic can be used freely, those that can use magic kick butt and take names, because magic isn't significanly less _powerful_ in d20 WoT than it is in D&D -- and there are no minor spellcasters and few magic items around that would let the others keep up.



Quite right, here, aside from sanity damage or some such; my memories of WoT are waned...  I left the book with my brother in Chicago, as it had no re-usable OGC, but as I recall, the spells didn't scale as dramatically as D&D spells do (aren't there 3 or 4 different _fireballs_ to account for it?).

One thing I remember vividly was the threads at the WotC boards proclaiming WoT "under powered", which was a big indicator that few people understood the difference between "under powered" and "lower powered game".



> I expect Black Company to be pretty similar, actually; if they want to be able to model the Taken without going heavily Epic, it almost has to be set up that way.



I'm not sure what's up exactly, but at the GR boards, Chris Pramas has pretty much promised an entirely new magic system to account for the disparity between casters like Silent, One-Eye, Tom-Tom, and Goblin and casters like Limper, Lady, Soulcatcher, and the others.  I'm personally looking forward to it on all fronts (with GR being one of the 3 companies I would have trusted with the project).


----------



## Brother MacLaren

nemmerle said:
			
		

> (spells I have made "rare" are _Make Whole_, because a spell like that not only makes worrying about gear a thing of the past, it also would change the fundamental economic of society),




This is one big reason why I like rare-NPC-magic (which can be accomplished a number of ways without nerfing PC casters).  As a DM, I would consider it my duty to develop a plausible world, which requires evaluating the logical in-game impact of having every one of the spells in the PHB exist and giving every village access to multiple spellcasters (as per the DMG demographics).

And that drives me nuts.  I know I can't do a really great job of this, I must end up under-stating the effect of magic somewhat (missing the impact of some spells on the world economy and society), but then I think most game worlds have the same "flaw."  The world isn't as alien and unrecognizable as the stipulated prevalence of magic should cause it to be.

3E helped out here by adding a spell component cost to continual light.  Con Light no longer has quite as big and obvious a world-altering effect.  But there are probably still dozens of other spells that do, where I just haven't though of the effect.

One other shortcut is to say "There just aren't a whole lot of NPC spellcasters.  Only those with The Gift can learn magic - fortunately, being a PC means you have The Gift."  Presto.  No spell-nerfing required, but you've helped solve the question of "Why doesn't Spell Y change the world like it should?"


----------



## Snoweel

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Consider a one small country that legally forces _all_ spellcasters to register themselves with the government and swear a bind oath that they will never use magic to destroy or enhance tools of war.




I can't see why any state would do anything like this.

I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to *go the furthest* to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.

A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.

No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.


----------



## kamosa

Snoweel said:
			
		

> I can't see why any state would do anything like this.
> 
> I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to *go the furthest* to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.
> 
> A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.
> 
> No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.




There are several examples of similar situations both in life and in literature.  

In the real world we seek to know who is using and can create explosives. You need permits to purchase key elements.  Another example is pilots licences.  We don't want anarchy in the sky, so we seek to regulate it by ensuring that all those that fly know the rules and we know where they are flying.  

In the relations between nations, there are disarmament treaties and agreements not to develope certain types of weapons.

A more sci-fi based example is the Psi-corp in B-5.  In that universe, those that did not bend to the will of the government were forced to give up their Psi powers.  

In D&D there was the Darksun setting that had a very similar view of magic

Now I would agree that these thing are not universally upheld, in either fact or fiction, but that's just part of the story.  

I'm not saying that I'm in a rush to join that particular campaign, but I don't think the idea is pattenly stupid either.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Snoweel said:
			
		

> I can't see why any state would do anything like this.
> 
> I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to *go the furthest* to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.
> 
> A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.
> 
> No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.




Because that continent's god of magic prohibits it.
Because each casting of Fireball strengthens the power of Surtur and brings him one step closer to the Prime Material Plane.
Because each spell calls on a unique spirit of limited power; not an issue if only a few casters are using it, but give 1,000 army wizards the spell Magic Missile and it degrades into uselessness
Because they have separate laws for use of magic against outsiders.
Because they would rather die than live as slaves under their own wizards.
Because prolonged exposure to magic drives insane their war-beasts.
Because their honor is more important than "winning by any means necessary."
Because any commoner can learn magic, threatening the power of the nobles
Because magic is unpredictable and dangerous, not reliable and safe
Because wounds caused by magic do not heal on their own, and the various nations on the continent have decided that a war fought with magic is too horrible to endure again

No offense, but you're wrong.  There are a great many cases historically when countries have restricted the use of some offensive options.  Crossbows in Europe in the Middle Ages (except for use against the Muslims); firearms in medieval Japan; chemical weapons in the 20th Century.  In a fantasy setting, there could be far more reasons for restricting certain options.


----------



## Snoweel

Ok.

All these creative and flavourful and interesting and blatantly arbitrary explanations aside, what exactly is stopping this nation-of-limitations from being overrun by it's not-similarly-limited neighbours?

More house rules?


----------



## milotha

Gothmog said:
			
		

> You are correct in saying that each person's experiences and preferecnes determine what they find enjoyable and engrossing, and good roleplaying doesn't occur in any one style of game.  However, when I made the comment about being uneasy/afraid, it wasn't in reference to a TPK, losing magic items, or even having the character killed.  It was more in reference to a fear of dark unknown places- the kind of thing that makes you look around the dimmed gaming room wondering what might happen if you go down the dark hallway to the bathroom.  I have played in three adventures that evoked this kind of dread and unease in the players, and all three were low magic games.  In my experience, this kind of engrossing factor is hard to achieve in a high magic game, because the characters are more like superheroes than normal people, and its hard to evoke fear/dread in empowered people.  There is a reason horror games don't have superpowered characters, and why more "mundane" games (where players play characters more like their real-life selves) typically evoke a greater emotional response or attachment in players.  I'm not saying its impossible in a high magic game, just much harder (and believe me, I have tried).




I've had very different gaming experiences from yours.  I've been in many high/ normal magic campaigns where the GM made us feel afraid. One time in a gaming session the entire group screamed in unison, and other characters got up and hid behind the sofa.  I've had times in normal/high magic games where the life of my high level character played for 5 years was completely on the line- one die roll away from permenant death.  I was tense, I was worried, I was having fun.   Though, I never chalked this up to the level of magic in the game.  Sure, it helped us get into these situations, but it never created the mood or sense of character attachment.  I always thought it was the result of GMing skill.  

Yes, drama and suspense and terror can all be parts of fun gaming.  But laughter is also part of gaming.  I've witnessed much hilarity at absurd magical situtations, fantastical spell combinations, silly items and spells, and other things that only come through normal/high magic gaming.  I've seen much fun from wands of wonder, decks of many things, wizard/priests with insane spell combinations, crazy magical contraptions, and ego weapons.   This to me is also part of D&D, and I miss it in low magic grim and gritty campaigns.  This isn't to say that you can't have laughter in grim and gritty, but really the grim mood kinda discourages it.

So, I think this thread is not only about what the terms grim and gritty and low magic mean, but also about why people choose to play or not to play them.  I think that it is a player preference/taste, and there is no wrong or right flavor.  I just don't want to be told that I'm not a good player because of my preference.


----------



## Enkhidu

Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:

I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).

Anyway, when we made the switch to 3e (which we did because we felt that the basic mechanics were simply superior), I found myself in sort of unfamiliar territory - by default level advancement was at lightspeed in comparison to what I was used to, and characters just didn't feel "finished" at 10 level, and the default for the seemed to assume that a PC wasn't ready for retirement into NPC-dom until 20th (or, when the ELH came out, beyond). So, instead of  seeing teleportation and raising the dead as the signposts for the end of the game, those spells served as signs that the characters were finally getting ready to come into their own. As an example - our current campaign is following a metastory arc that will likely end up with the PCs at about 18th level by the time we're said and done(we're currently an average of 10th/11). When we ran a 2e campaign that was similar in scope to this one, we ended up wrapping the whole thing up as 9th level characters (who qualified for 10th after the session).

Basically, what was once a campaign pinnacle has just become another mile marker. And I believe that as a result, we've become desensatized to magic - its no longer wondrous for us, and simply becomes another tool (and an ubiquitous one at that, considering the slew of magic that high level adventurers are expected to have). So when I say that I like lower magic campaigns, for me its simply an attempt recapture that wonder.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Piratecat said:
			
		

> My campaign is a little odd because we've moved through all the stages. Wulf joined it when the average PC level was 17th; since we're deep in world-spanning plots and many PCs have 9th lvl spells, it certainly doesn't qualify as gritty. That being said, the PCs have worked their way up over 12 years of real time, so we've gone through long periods of low magic adventures as well. I wince a little when I see the things that Wulf loves in a grim campaign, because my own game is so different than that.




Well, you have to look at some of the things that I have done with Stone Bear to compensate.

1) I have a boatload of skill ranks in Knowledge (arcana). When the opportunity arises to engage in a bit of thinky-doo in the magical "arms race," I feel a little more justified bringing my player knowledge to the table. And you'll note, I get the chance to do that probably 2 or 3 times a session. So, hey! I have a skill that remains useful at high level.

2) I am deliberately self-limiting in terms of power. Stone Bear's highest spell level is 4th (one per day). His highest attribute bonus is +3 (Dex), +4 counting his Str enhancer. His stats are 14, 16, 14, 12, 14, 12. He has sworn an oath against magic weapons, can wear only light armor, and considers it taboo to loot the dead.

3) Stone Bear does not control powerful forces, he puts himself at the mercy of powerful forces. 

So basically, I enforce low-magic on myself. 



> In my experience, though, having a higher level/higher magic game does not exclude complex and engaging plots.




As for whether or not you can have engaging plots with high magic, what I said before was that it can't be done without DM fiat-- the DM has to "trump" the rules of high magic with "higher magic" that is outside the abilities of the PCs. 

In your last big "plot," after all, there was no divination, no teleportation/etherealness/astral, and to some degree even ressurrection was affected-- I think, I don't know that we ever experienced a death during the crisis with Imbindarla (with one notable exception, and unfortunately I missed the session that explained why it wasn't immediately corrected with a true ressurrection).

So, basically, your campaign is kinda an example with regards to my high points, my "big three" spells.

I am having a good time, however-- don't be concerned! I don't think I've said in this thread that I am only capable of having a good time in a low magic game, I have merely taken the position of defending it, because I understand it.



			
				Snoweel said:
			
		

> I have a how-to book on writing that states, in relation to the vulnerability of protagonists, something to the effect of "it is easier to write a good Batman story than a good Superman story".




That is an awesome analogy, Snoweel. Superman eventually reached the point where DC was _forced_ to reign in the "power creep" that had affected the character, because the threats to Superman were no longer compelling reading. He could do, and overcome, anything.


Wulf


----------



## Djeta Thernadier

I have actually never heard the phrase "grim & gritty" (why is it that that phrase makes me think more of a rodeo than an RPG?).

To me a low magic campaign would be one where magic was just not a big focus. The PCs and majority of NPCs would rely on cunning and physical ability, not magic. Or a game where magic wouldn't make sense, like say something set in modern times, like SpyCraft, where PCs rely on modern weapons to get by.

In a fantasy game, I like playing a spellcaster, because, lets face it, it's something that you could not do in real life (not that I will ever be a Bond girl in real life...but hey...). I am not opposed to playing non magic games that are not fantasy related though. Just in a traditional fantasy setting, I like magic.

Of course, too much magic might be silly. Like if everyone was high magic and the entire population of the world could solve all their problems with spells and potions. 

Just my 2 cents.

~Sheri


----------



## Tom Cashel

The magic is rare and the combat is gritty--sand getting rubbed in the wounds and whatnot.


----------



## Belegbeth

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:
> 
> I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).
> 
> [...]
> 
> Basically, what was once a campaign pinnacle has just become another mile marker. And I believe that as a result, we've become desensatized to magic - its no longer wondrous for us, and simply becomes another tool (and an ubiquitous one at that, considering the slew of magic that high level adventurers are expected to have). So when I say that I like lower magic campaigns, for me its simply an attempt recapture that wonder.




Excellent point!    

This is part of the reason why I prefer "low magic" or "rare magic" campaigns as well -- it just feels more like original D&D.  

Another reason, mentioned many times in earlier posts, is that most great fantasy novels have a "low magic" or "rare magic" character (Tolkien, Leiber, etc.).

And another reason, also mentioned many times, is that it is easier to promote a sense of drama and excitement in low magic, grim and gritty games.  This is *not* to say that it is impossible in standard DnD.  It is just that low magic lends itself more readily to this kind of game.  Where magic is rare and mysterious, and not an obvious solution to most problems, characters have to struggle more, and find creative solutions to problems.

This thread makes for great procrastination reading!


----------



## kamosa

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:
> 
> I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).
> 
> Anyway, when we made the switch to 3e (which we did because we felt that the basic mechanics were simply superior), I found myself in sort of unfamiliar territory - by default level advancement was at lightspeed in comparison to what I was used to, and characters just didn't feel "finished" at 10 level, and the default for the seemed to assume that a PC wasn't ready for retirement into NPC-dom until 20th (or, when the ELH came out, beyond). So, instead of  seeing teleportation and raising the dead as the signposts for the end of the game, those spells served as signs that the characters were finally getting ready to come into their own. As an example - our current campaign is following a metastory arc that will likely end up with the PCs at about 18th level by the time we're said and done(we're currently an average of 10th/11). When we ran a 2e campaign that was similar in scope to this one, we ended up wrapping the whole thing up as 9th level characters (who qualified for 10th after the session).
> 
> Basically, what was once a campaign pinnacle has just become another mile marker. And I believe that as a result, we've become desensatized to magic - its no longer wondrous for us, and simply becomes another tool (and an ubiquitous one at that, considering the slew of magic that high level adventurers are expected to have). So when I say that I like lower magic campaigns, for me its simply an attempt recapture that wonder.




I would call this lower level, not lower magic.  It's fine to have a campaign that stops at 10th level, but that doesn't make it low magic.  It sounds like you play standard D&D and just prefer to restart the campaign when it gets to a certain level.  Cool.


----------



## Snoweel

I'm inclined to agree with you. I, myself, have toyed with the idea of slooooowing level advancement and capping the pinnacle of sentient achievement at 10th level.

However, there *are* some spells and effects of higher than 5th level that I want in my game.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Snoweel said:
			
		

> Ok.
> 
> All these creative and flavourful and interesting and blatantly arbitrary explanations aside, what exactly is stopping this nation-of-limitations from being overrun by it's not-similarly-limited neighbours?
> 
> More house rules?




What stopped Japan - which chose to avoid the use of firearms in warfare - from being overrun by European nations in the 1700's?  Distance, among other factors.  

Keep in mind, GodKingJay's post had a campaign world where NPC characters of over 9th level were quite rare (so teleporting entire armies is not an issue).  And the various continents were far apart.  PCs have the financial resources for long-distance travel and may get to encounter the various cultures, but normally the various cultures won't directly interact much (except through traders).  Or, one other possibility that I listed was the magic-restraining nations having no such taboo regarding magic use against outsiders.  Or maybe the wizards are only forbidden to use magic against mundane opponents.

In terms of a single wizard or a small band teleporting into the magic-restraining lands and trying to take over - maybe that's where the PCs come in.  Or maybe the "restrained" wizards band together to eliminate this threat without bringing armies into the equation.  Or maybe the continent's god of magic - the same one who forces mages to take the vow - also plays havoc with the magic of outsider wizards who haven't taken the vow.

Yes, my examples are "arbitrary" in the sense that they involve the DM making up something to make his game work the way he wants it to, but what isn't?  If you want your setting to look a certain way and have internal consistency, you *have* to make some "arbitrary" determinations.  Every setting has them.  The key is making them flavorful and creative (which I am glad you think I have done) and providing a sound basis for game world consistency.  Also, the barriers I suggested?  They don't have to be real.  Maybe casting fireball *doesn't* bring Surtur closer to the Prime, but the greatest sages are mostly in agreement on the fact that it does.  History is full of people believing stuff that isn't true and reacting accordingly.


----------



## Nightfall

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Hey, now... If Hong hasn't been banned yet, then I've certainly got plenty of play room left.



Right-o Ben.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Snoweel said:
			
		

> I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to *go the furthest* to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.
> 
> A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.




I don't quite see how this is crippling.  The nation doesn't create magical arms and armor.  Ok, that's fine.  What about scrying?  In war, knowledge is power, and if you are observing your enemies plans and actions, you can easily prepare and counter them.  Or perhaps many of the wizards are simply abjurers, and this nation has the best magical defenses anywhere in the world.  Good luck penetrating their wards.

Nations adapt to compensate for their own weaknesses.  Perhaps the country was dominated for 200 years, and recently liberated.  So it's still learning to adapt.  So what?  That just makes it more interesting, to me at least.



			
				snoweel said:
			
		

> No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.




None taken.  Maybe it's an idea you don't care for, but that does not make it stupid by any means.  When a DM takes the time and effort to create a unique and interesting campaign world, I am intrigued.  It may not be the type of world I want to play in, but that doesn't make it stupid.  I'm not really sure how that's DM Fiat;  It's world-building.  If you don't like the kind of game a DM runs, then just find other people to play with.  It's not that hard.

The point I was trying to make was that in a campaign world that is large and diverse, you can run a number of different kinds of games.  If you want a high-technology, high-magic, utopian-type society, then start a group of players in the first country I mentioned.  If you want a roman/medieval, low-tech, low-magic game, run it in the second country I mentioned.  As was said, high level PCs can go wherever they want.

As a DM and a player, I find a multi-faceted campaign world much more intriguing than a world that is "high magic" or "grim-n-gritty."  People have already been saying this already, I was just trying to lend some ideas as to how one might create a world with _both_ those facets, along with others.

You could implement some of the rules already mentioned, modify spell lists, and create other houserules to get the kind of overall feel you want.  But that doesn't mean you can't have some diversity and verisimilitude.

But if I'm in a world that is always "dark, smelly, dirty, where everyone sacrifices 12 virgins to the blood god, considers baby arms a delicacy, and plays dodgeball with puppies," then my interest in that game will rapidly plummet.


----------



## rounser

> I'd wager there is no plot, no situation, no moral quandary faced by a hero in any classic tale that cannot be solved by a 20th level cleric or wizard in six spells or less.



I think you're forgetting that even with high level casters, spells tend to bounce off of things, and that there are usually countermeasures in place (e.g. they're _expecting_ you to scry).  A lot of that power begins to pale when you factor in the opposition.


----------



## National Acrobat

*Low Magic to me...*

As a Dm, low magic to me is simply that folks have to find magic items while adventuring, they can't purchase them. That's about it for my definition.


----------



## el-remmen

You know, I recently started reading Sepulchrave's "Wyre" story hour and as much as I have been enjoying it, it really seems to highlight the things I like and _don't_ like about high level play at the same time.

For example, I love the scying and counter-scrying to try to get the jump on your enemies and vice-versa, and all the earth-shattering theological consequences of the PCs' actions, etc. . .  

I also love all the speculation on theological and planar and societal issues and forces that goes on and the moral quandries (though I do not think these are limited to high level play, I just like how they are developed in this particular SH).

What I don't like is how much the combats are basically who gets off the most powerful spells first.  At the risk if posting spoilers in teh combat I read last night, one side kept summoning balors so the "good guys" brought in a Solar and that Solar brought in another and then wham wham wham the fight was over - but really the PCs were not doing much, it was their summoned celestials of great power that were doing everything (in fact the "main" character was sitting drooling on the ground _feebleminded_), and while I have no doubt the game would be fun to play in from the former aspect, I think I would find such fights boring and like my character was guest-star in his own story.


----------



## Orius

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:
> 
> I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).
> 
> Anyway, when we made the switch to 3e (which we did because we felt that the basic mechanics were simply superior), I found myself in sort of unfamiliar territory - by default level advancement was at lightspeed in comparison to what I was used to, and characters just didn't feel "finished" at 10 level, and the default for the seemed to assume that a PC wasn't ready for retirement into NPC-dom until 20th (or, when the ELH came out, beyond). So, instead of  seeing teleportation and raising the dead as the signposts for the end of the game, those spells served as signs that the characters were finally getting ready to come into their own. As an example - our current campaign is following a metastory arc that will likely end up with the PCs at about 18th level by the time we're said and done(we're currently an average of 10th/11). When we ran a 2e campaign that was similar in scope to this one, we ended up wrapping the whole thing up as 9th level characters (who qualified for 10th after the session).




Perhaps, but I'd disagree with this argument for two reason:

First, I think a preference for lmgng has as little to do with age as DMing ability.  Just as not all people who prefer lmgng are imcompetant, I don't think it follows that not all of them are jaded, bitter 30-something or older players looking to recapture a classic D&D feel.

Second, it tends to impy (at least to me) that high magic high fantasy appeals to only young players, and I think that's almost akin to munchkin arguments made about similarly aged players.

Also, I think PCs who gain abilities like raise dead and teleport should be given chances to use them.  It's not as much fun if the campaign ends after you've gotten maybe 2 uses of great abilities. 

I do agree that 3e advancement is hard for someone of the 2e or earlier experience to get used to.  It can seem _too_ fast for long time D&D players.  But I remember someone saying that people also don't have the time to play long campaigns that stretch out over 3 or 4 years of real time either, and that makes a valid counter-argument.

And the impression I've got from discussions about the ELH is that some epic stuff gets ridiculous in terms of power.  In my games, 20th level is about the pinnacle of power reached only by the most powerful characters.  I can handle the PCs going to as high as maybe 30th level, but past that it seems things break down.  I would view stuff with like 60-80 levels or more to be totally overpowered in terms of how I set up my campaigns.


----------



## Belegbeth

*What settings?*

What published settings are good examples of "low magic" and/or "grim and gritty"? 

Midnight has been mentioned.  Why is Midnight a good example of this style?  (I don't own it myself.)  What others are there?

And what is done in these settings to maintain "game balance"?  

(This latter question is asked to address a common concern expressed by those critical of "low magic" games.)


----------



## Enkhidu

Orius said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but I'd disagree with this argument for two reason:
> 
> First, I think a preference for lmgng has as little to do with age as DMing ability.  Just as not all people who prefer lmgng are imcompetant, I don't think it follows that not all of them are jaded, bitter 30-something or older players looking to recapture a classic D&D feel.
> 
> Second, it tends to impy (at least to me) that high magic high fantasy appeals to only young players, and I think that's almost akin to munchkin arguments made about similarly aged players.
> 
> Also, I think PCs who gain abilities like raise dead and teleport should be given chances to use them.  It's not as much fun if the campaign ends after you've gotten maybe 2 uses of great abilities.
> 
> I do agree that 3e advancement is hard for someone of the 2e or earlier experience to get used to.  It can seem _too_ fast for long time D&D players.  But I remember someone saying that people also don't have the time to play long campaigns that stretch out over 3 or 4 years of real time either, and that makes a valid counter-argument.
> 
> And the impression I've got from discussions about the ELH is that some epic stuff gets ridiculous in terms of power.  In my games, 20th level is about the pinnacle of power reached only by the most powerful characters.  I can handle the PCs going to as high as maybe 30th level, but past that it seems things break down.  I would view stuff with like 60-80 levels or more to be totally overpowered in terms of how I set up my campaigns.




OK. I'm going to take a moment away from being both jaded _and_ bitter to say a few things - 1) I wasn't making an arguement but was instead in effect asking for information (my words were "I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down" and I said as much because my belief is that I am not alone in my experiences), 2) my statements were anecdotal in nature (as in I never said that this is true for everyone but is instead what is true in my direct experience). And now on with more meaty comments:

Really, all of this comes down to a matter of taste. I've been called a "simulationist" by others on the boards, and I think that my simulationist bent is responsible for my predeliction toward lower magic as both DM _and_ player. And a magic level lower than the default for 3e D&D better allows me to create the kinds of characters and scenarios that I enjoy (and my "ultimate campaign world" shares more with Hyboria or Lankhmar than with Melnibone). This isn't necessarily better or worse than someone who enjoys higher magic campaigns, just different. And that's OK. Its more about the fit than the style.


----------



## heimdall

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> What published settings are good examples of "low magic" and/or "grim and gritty"?




I believe Ravenloft would be considered Low Magic. Call of Cthulhu D20 (and Chaosium's version as well) would be considered grim and gritty.

My definitions when I use those terms to describe my homebrew world:

*Low Magic* - The average person rarely, if ever comes into contact with magic. Even the village priest may be pious, but not necessarily blessed with the ability to heal. 

This makes PCs the true heroes or villians of the world, along with their primary antagonists. Magic is viewed with a bit of distrust, so there are social implications, of course. Magical items are therefore rarer among the common stuff ("Look, honey, a new broom of sweeping for your birthday!") and tend more towards the items that can be used for conflict and war (the stuff an average party wants anyway). Yes, this does put the PCs at a higher point than the average two-bit warlord. But it also puts the main antagonists on a similar level. Which means to the average populace, they are held in awe, good or bad.

*Grim and Gritty* - You could die at any time. Therefore, be smart about your decisions. Unlike some worlds where priests with the ability to hit you with a true res are a dime a dozen, you had best expect to pay a ton IF you can find such a guy or gal. The same rules apply to the antagonists. They're intelligent. Should the odds turn against them, they'll cut and run in a heartbeat. None of this, "Didn't we kill this guy last month and he's back again?!?" 

However, the standard brutish orcs, ogres, and the like will still march on in their barbaric ways using meat-wave tactics to overrun civilization. Therefore, you had best have a plan when dealing with 'em because charging in without one will get you killed and rolling a new character.


----------



## Uruush

Belegbeth said:
			
		

> What published settings are good examples of "low magic" and/or "grim and gritty"?
> 
> Midnight has been mentioned.  Why is Midnight a good example of this style?  (I don't own it myself.)  What others are there?
> 
> And what is done in these settings to maintain "game balance"?
> 
> (This latter question is asked to address a common concern expressed by those critical of "low magic" games.)




I can offer my take on Midnight.  Midnight is just bandwidth on an infinite spectrum of magic power, magic rarity, grimness, and grit, and it's wide enough to allow it to be played quite a ways up and down the spectrum.

To shoehorn it into a "grim and gritty low magic" shoe would be simplistic, and a disservice to the depth and richness of the setting.

Its main mage class, the Channeler,has higher hp and BAB than a standard Sorcerer or Wizard.  The spell system is basically a fatigue point system.  At any given level, Channelers probably know fewer spell than most Sorc or Wizards in other settings, but they might know more after a time (further spells can be learned from teachers, tomes, etc. using exp to gain mastery)
Spells are divided into schools; beginning channelers know a couple schools, and can gain more with level progression or feats.  Some of the "problematic spells" that some DMs describe as causing problems with fantasy genre emulation are only available to higher level mages than standard (spells like Fly, Teleport, Magic Missle, Fireball, Summon Monster, etc) by picking appropriate feats  Moreover, any class can learn spell casting by taking the appropriate feats.  Many non-human races have some innate magical talent - cantrips and such. 

I think the game balance is actually much better than core D&D.  The Channeler is probably more powerful at lower levels, about the same at mid-levels, and less powerful at high-levels  Ever play a 18th level Fighter in a standard D&D game and feel like you were just along for the ride while the spell casting classes moved worlds and slew armies?  Ever play a 1st level wizard in a standard D&D game and quail at your frailty relative to the party barbarian?  Midnight changes some balance in a lot of ways, but to start from the position that core D&D gets balance right, is a poor assumption in my view.  (See the plethora of house rules in almost every D&D campaign for evidence of this)

Magic items are rare.  Hell, even things like swords and chainmail are rare in terms of their availability to PCs because they are forbidden to PC races.  The dark god Izrador reigns over the world of Ayrth.  Unless you are a chosen minion of the Shadow, weapons are generally illegal.

Some gritty-ness is present from the general rarity of healing.  There are no PC Clerics, only NPC "Legates," priests of the order of Shadow.  Legates are, among other things, tasked with hunting down users of magic - Izrador is drawing all magic on Ayrth to himself and does not approve those that use it aside from his dispensation.  

Things are grim.  The PCs are heroes that have a lot of hills to climb in front of them, something like rebels in the Star Wars universe at the height of Imperial power, or Cyberpunk 2020 characters in a corporate dystopian future.  Others have described the setting as "Middle Earth had Sauron won," and that is pretty apt in terms of the feel - both the grimness and the relative rarity of magic, as in Tolkein.  The settings main hook, I think, is that the heroes have so much to overcome, some would call their situation hopeless - and yet they must try.  That they strive against the Shadow and seek to free the world (or some small part of it) from the grip of Izrador, against such odds, sets them in the mold of Nietzschean supermen.

The races and classes of Midnight are generally more powerful than those of core D&D, in part to compensate for their difficult situation and for a scarcity of magic items.  PCs have "Heroic Path" abilities that grant them power along a given theme/character type: Philosopher, Ironborn, Dragonblooded, etc. 

Another twist - Covenant magic items that gain in power as a character progresses in level.  No piles of +1 Rings of Resistance and + 1 swords in a character's wake, filling the marketplace and creating a distinctly non-genre environment.

There's a lot more too it, but I've got to go make dinner.  Here's a nice link for those interested in a much better description:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/mnland.html

When I ran across it, I thought, "This is it.  The d20 setting I am interested in running."  YMMV.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> You're not paying very good attention to the thread as a whole, and that's a shame.
> 
> I regret calling out specific problem spells as you've seized on that as my only gripe. That's not the case. I'd go through the entire list of spells and magic items if I had the time or inclination to instruct you.




And I'd give you how they really are not all that abusive in the context of the game or the story. As an aside, claiming that I "haven't paid attention" or that you need to "instruct" me is pretty insulting. Just because I like more magic in my games than you does not mean I'm any 'worse' at this glorified game of make-believe than you.



> I don't have a problem with high magic as a DM-- I have a problem with it as a player. It is not that I have had plots foiled, it is that I have, as a player, seen them foiled, helped to foil them, with high level magic.




Potayto, potahto, it's the same problem, just from the other side of the screen. 



> The longer you play in a game, the higher level you ascend, the more magic becomes a crutch and a cure-all. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a simple fact of the CORE DESIGN of D&D-- characters are expected to use magic in order to be heroic and achieve their goals.




Heroic and achieving goals != crutch and cure all. I'm aruging that magic IS NOT a crutch and a cure all, and that you calling it such is just like people calling lm/gng games bags of unfun run by power-mad DM's.



> And as others have already pointed out, that is simply inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth, that experience that we hope to capture or emulate.




#1, the above is simply not true. The level and type of magic in D&D is NOT inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth.
#2, not everyone wants to emulate or capture that experience. Some of us want to play a game.



> Those of us who enjoy playing characters of wits, skill, and resourcefulness-- the qualities ascribed to classic heroes-- are given short shrift in a game where magic is a cure-all.




But that's the mistake, right there. In the campaigns I have run or been a part of, the vast majority have been default D&D, where your perception of magic as a cure all is just blatantly misguided. Magic is a tool; it's no more a cure-all than a sword, axe, or stick of dynamite. And just like those tools, they don't replace character's capabilities, but become extensions of the character's abilities. And thus, a character of wits, skills, and resourcefulness does not get the short shrift in the slightest, because that is as useful to a guy with a nuclear weapon as it is to a guy with a pointy stick as it is to a guy who can cast _commune_ as it is to a guy who makes auguries with entrails as it is to someone who can _wish_ the most powerful entitiy in the world simply out of existence. Characters of wits, skills, and resourcefulness all have a chance to shine, no matter what a spell can do, because magic has always had significant limitations. Even if you can scry-buff-teleport, that only lets you (maybe) beat up your enemies, it does not solve the problem any more than spying on them as a rogue and then stabbing them in their sleep does.



> While King Arthur had Excalibur, and Frodo had the One Ring and Sting, these items didn't define the character or his abilities as absolutely as items and magic do in D&D. This is a notion that peculiar to D&D, and nowhere else in fantasy fiction or myth.




Why do I care about fiction or myth? Why does being present in some book suddenly make the game a deeper, better experience? Why is a literature-inspired setting better?

It's not. If you'd like to play a campaign that mirrors that, be my guest, but don't tell me that because I have a spell or three that I can't include situations of dramatic tension as found in those. I don't want to make-believe Lord of the Rings. I want to play a game. That game can have fear, the unknown, darkness, a deep history, character risk, permanent death, sacrifice, long journeys, and deep emotional investment in the characters just as well as Lord of the Rings. I can't use the specific situations, of course, but I *can* use other situations that have stirred the same emotions. So what if Arthur wasn't defined by Excalibur? I'm playing a game, not penning a national epic. And within that game, with all it's trappings on magic items, I can *still* make one sword thrown by a watery tart seem special and significant to the character. And who are you to tell me I can't?



> The low magic/GnG crowd seeks to downplay the role of magic in the game so that the characters can shine.




The characters can shine even in a campaign with the role of magic UPplayed. Shining characters are not an exclusive of the lm/gng crowd.



> While its possible to have wit, skill, and resourcefulness be defining character traits in a standard D&D game, those qualities often take a back seat to acquiring more potent abilities and magical solutions IME. The scry/buff/teleport or greater invis/fly/fireball phenomena of dealing with high-level threats in D&D is proof of this, and is something NEVER found in fiction or legend. This isn't relying on the resourcefulness of characters, but instead it is the "optimal" way of dealing with high level threats according to the core rules.




Wouldn't a resourceful character in D&D make use of the tools available to them? Most notably things like spell combinations? Isn't the job of wit and creativity to overcome the threats such a being faces? If you have a problem with magic being the tools of that wit, that's remarkably different then there being a problem with the magic to begin with. 



> ...if the DM wants to make sure the game focuses on the characters rather than a magical arms race.




It's also not the only way, nor even potentially the best way.



> It was more in reference to a fear of dark unknown places- the kind of thing that makes you look around the dimmed gaming room wondering what might happen if you go down the dark hallway to the bathroom. I have played in three adventures that evoked this kind of dread and unease in the players, and all three were low magic games.




That doesn't mean that a normal or high magic game doesn't have this element, though. It doesn't mean that low magic games are any better at acheiving that effect than high magic. 



> In my experience, this kind of engrossing factor is hard to achieve in a high magic game, because the characters are more like superheroes than normal people, and its hard to evoke fear/dread in empowered people. There is a reason horror games don't have superpowered characters, and why more "mundane" games (where players play characters more like their real-life selves) typically evoke a greater emotional response or attachment in players. I'm not saying its impossible in a high magic game, just much harder (and believe me, I have tried).




I've made players *weep* with emotion, using a VERY high magic world where they were regularly using effects like _Scry_ to uncover the mysteries, regularly using _teleport_ to go across the world, and regularly using save-or-die effects to dispatch the bad guys. The magic level has ZERO effect on how dramatic or emotional the game is -- that power lays exclusively with the DM and the players. Either that, or I am unknowingly a very exceptional DM. I tend to think the former, myself.



> only because you have to keep the game engaging and fun when often there are no clear resolutions to and feelings of accomplishment in morally gray and "gritty" sitautions, and much like "real life" every action has a number of bad consequences along with the intended good ones.




There's no reason high magic has to disregard the accomplishment in a morally gray or gritty situation, or has to have only good conseqeunces.



> As for whether or not you can have engaging plots with high magic, what I said before was that it can't be done without DM fiat-- the DM has to "trump" the rules of high magic with "higher magic" that is outside the abilities of the PCs.




Whatever a DM does falls into the field of things that are "outside of the abilities of PC's." PC's only decide their own actions. Everything else is the DM's purview. I don't know how making sure enemies know how to use magic just as well as the PC's is any more "trumping" than making sure monsters present a reasonable challenge or the adventure caters to all the characters. The entire bloody night is entirely DM fiat....how is adversaries with spellcasting capability any different?



> I have merely taken the position of defending it, because I understand it.




I'm not attacking lm/gng campaigns, so much. They're perfectly reasonable, and there is a market for them, and they have their place. I just don't think 'their place' is in telling normal DM's that their campaigns can't have grand emotional elements or the core ideas of plot and conflict simply because of a few spells. Which it really did seem like when things like



> "high magic" means that players do not have to think. They will have a magic item or spell to solve every problem-- even death!-- and if they don't, they can just nip down to the corner and buy one. Skills are meaningless, as there is a spell that can do anything you can do better, easier, or quicker.
> 
> There is no fear of the unknown (divination).
> 
> There is no moral uncertainty (commune).
> 
> There are no arduous journeys (teleporation).
> 
> There is no heroic sacrifice (raise dead).
> 
> A high magic game removes obstacles from the players' path-- those very same obstacles that have traditionally defined a good story.




were typed. So really, I'm defending normal D&D, because lm/gng is different, but it's not any holistically better. It works for a different feel, but it's not a 'better' feel, and having normal magic does NOT yeild an easy solution to every problem, nor does it destroy the emotional investment in the game. It's the DM's that do that, not the level of magic. Normal or high magic doesn't have to be a simple game of killing things and taking their loot, any more than low magic has to be a game of killing all the impotent PC's.


----------



## heimdall

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So really, I'm defending normal D&D, because lm/gng is different, but it's not any holistically better. It works for a different feel, but it's not a 'better' feel, and having normal magic does NOT yeild an easy solution to every problem, nor does it destroy the emotional investment in the game. It's the DM's that do that, not the level of magic. Normal or high magic doesn't have to be a simple game of killing things and taking their loot, any more than low magic has to be a game of killing all the impotent PC's.




I'm a DM who prefers a low magic game. I've explained what that means in my campaigns in an earlier post. Maybe it's because I like to roleplay the awe of the villagers when the evil wizard PC whips out lightning bolt to make his point and subject the village to his will. But I also run a lot of high magic games because my players prefer those kinds of settings. Look, in Forgotten Realms Silverymoon has a mythal, a magical shield protecting the city. In my homebrew setting, nothing like a mythal exists. Do I like the mythal over Silverymoon? Yup. It adds a different element. It requires different solutions than a low magic game without such a concept does. But that doesn't change the emotion. It doesn't cause the players to think any less. It doesn't subtract from the enjoyment.

I would say in general LM games I've been a player in had less margin for error because dead tended to be dead. But you know, that's a *very* general statement. And it has more to do with the DMs who I've played under who ran either low magic or high magic settings, so it's not so much the amount of magic itself but the guy/gal running the show. Low magic versus high magic... they're different genres of gaming. Neither is necessarily better than the other. It's the complete experience.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

> #1, the above is simply not true. The level and type of magic in D&D is NOT inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth.




And your counter example would be...? 



> #2, not everyone wants to emulate or capture that experience. Some of us want to play a game.
> 
> Why do I care about fiction or myth? Why does being present in some book suddenly make the game a deeper, better experience? Why is a literature-inspired setting better?




Apparently we're going to play a game of "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" from here on out.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As an aside, claiming that I "haven't paid attention" or that you need to "instruct" me is pretty insulting.




I, among others, have pointed out repeatedly the ways that "standard" D&D differs from stories of fiction and myth. It is a wholly unique experience. You have not provided a single counter-example that rises to the level of pervasive magic found in D&D.

And it is important because there are elements of myth (and by extension, good fiction) that are _diminished or destroyed_ as a result of high magic.

You are correct, not everyone wants to recapture that experience. We gng's have already conceded that point _repeatedly_. That doesn't change the fact that gng does a demonstrably better job of emulating classic myth. The question was asked, "What is grim and gritty?" and this has been put forward as the most demonstrable, explainable analogy. Grim and gritty is Conan. It is Lankhmar. It is Beowulf. It is Cthulhu. It is La Morte d'Artur. It is Lord of the Rings. 

I congratulate you on the fine high magic game you run. That it appears to be a grand time, what with all the emotional weeping, does not change the fact that it does not emulate the struggles, conflict, and tension of classic myth as well as a low magic game.

Wulf


----------



## Snoweel

Yes it does.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I, among others, have pointed out repeatedly the ways that "standard" D&D differs from stories of fiction and myth. It is a wholly unique experience. You have not provided a single counter-example that rises to the level of pervasive magic found in D&D.



He-Man and She-Ra.  Or how about Hercules: The Legendary Journies?  Oh, and you can't forget Xena: The Warrior Princess.

No, wait, I got it!  Dragonball Z!!!


----------



## S'mon

I think Dragonball-Z epitomises what I don't like about power-overload settings... 

I think my own D&D campaign is sort-of "grim & gritty high magic" - magic is occasionally altered from regular D&D, but mostly just that defensive magics are better developed relative to offensive stuff - there are lots of anti-teleport & anti-scry shields, but that's a natural response to the threat scrying & teleporting pose.  The world is quite a grim one, and not very 'balanced' - sometimes people with Wishes slaughter low-levellers, and no divine referee steps in to prevent it.  The PCs, around 12th level now, were cheering last night as they finally defeated the CR20+ BBEG who's been slaughtering PCs for the past two years of gaming!


----------



## I'm A Banana

> And it is important because there are elements of myth (and by extension, good fiction) that are diminished or destroyed as a result of high magic.




Well, first of all myth != good fiction. And good fiction != good game. 

Okay, let's see here, let's do The Odyssey, but within the confines of D&D rules....first, let's do the 'crucial elements of the story.'

#1: Odysseus is a sneaky fighter who has won a great war, and wants to get home. His defining trait is his cunning and wit.
#2: Posseidon has a vested interest in making Odysseus & crew go through a long, obnoxious route to get home.
#3: Through a series of stops on the way, Odysseus is jerked around by some gods, and gets home. Those stops are the adventures in the campaign.

Now, to D&D-ify:

1) Well, since we have (let's say) 5 players, we'll need 4 main characters. So let's say Odysseus (sneaky fighter) had three of his heroic buds along for the ride: Jozan, Kyrrwyn, Mialee, and Regdar. Yes, I know they don't sound Greek, but that's hardly a problem with the d20 levle of magic. 
2) The Trojan War just ended. In it, the Achean fleet and their heroes invaded Troy, killed their people, and took their stuff. So these guys can't be first level -- let's make 'em 15th (hey, they're heroes!), and the GP they get to spend on character wealth is a combination of the equipment they've braught with them to fight, and the stuff they've found on the battlefield. Maybe their +3 greatsword is maybe Trojan-made...Mialee raided the temple to Hecate and got a few handy spells to cast, maybe even a few 8th level ones. 
3) They want to get home, and but Troy is more than 1500 miles from Ithica (Teleport don't work, and, yes I know that isn't historically accurate, but that really doesn't matter, it doesn't destroy verisimilitude), and besides, they've got a crew of mooks (of varying levels, most below LV 12) to get home. They get out to sea, but a storm strikes and starts to blow them off course. Jozan, Great Cleric that he is, has remembered to prepare _Control Weather_ and casts it. He offers a prayer to the god of storms, Zeus, and Zeus, taking a shining to ol' Jozan, tells Posseidon to knock it off for a bit. Of course, Possiedon doesn't like it, and so, using the same tools at his disposal, he has his merfolk druids in the area run a bit of interference -- counterspells galore, and a force of druids has more ammo than a lone cleric on a ship. Victory, Possiedon! But the party gets some XP for it, and gets sent to their next location, storm and all.
4) Probably for good measure, some aquatic monster attacks, maybe specifically targeting Jozan. You don't get to test the gods and get away with it that easily! By now, the PC's are aware they're in no natural circumstances. Risk +, fear + -- they've got a god who hates 'em, and only one healer amongst them! But the god didn't just smash 'em out right....so what's next?
5) They get blown to an island where the people are all at rest and at ease, lethargic and eatin' lotus. No one has ever left here before (dun dun duuuuun!), but the PC's, and a handful of crew members, manage to be some of the lucky ones -- because of their massive skill vs. the DC 25 potion, and the handful of higher-level shipmates/natural 20 saves. Epic adventure+! They've done something Unique in the World! They probably fight off drug-crazed cultists and their Mind Flayer leader, who is providing the drugs. Maybe they even liberate a few there, while they're chillin'. Adventure 1.
6) They want to get home, so they use a bit of divination.They can't scry on their homes (any king worth his salt isn't going to allow some perv with a crystal ball access to MeTV), but that's why they've stationed mooks outside, so they can see what's up. According to the Mooks, it is all good. A bit of _find the path_ gets the quickest route home, and they go for it...
7) Possiedon blows them away as above, and sends another monster down their throats.....mooks are dying in droves because they keep attracting big sea creatures. Sacrifice, Bad Consequences +++! The PC's probably realize a God can't be faught, and decide that further "just trying to get home" is pointless....they decide to ride it out, and do what they can to help the wounded. For good measure, Jozan does one of those oh-so-destrutive divinations to find out "should I continue to try and get directly home?" magic-8-ball-god says "Outlook not so good." Crap.
8) Maybe they land at a few more islands, some with dungeons, some with natural disasters, most just with big monsters they can put an end to in stylish fashion to save the city. But they're still so far from home.....and what's worse is that now Mialee's divinations on the Mook are coming up negative....the mook has died, and they can't see into thier house anymore. Magic 8-ball deity says "Try Again Later." (Zeus doesn't want to irk Possiedon anymore, and agrees that the mortals need to learn their lesson). Mystery, Suspense ++! They'd teleport/island-hop, but they've still got their own lower-level goons to transport home, and Mialee's not interested at all in fetch-teleporting, since the most reliable description of the neighboring island she can get is from the old codger of the island who says something like "stupid neighboring island with it's evil barbaric ways!" Stupid insular city states and strange, strange locales not interacting!
9) AAAAH! CYCLOPS! Since the sea monsters destroyed some of the ships, and _create food and water_ won't fill the stomachs of these couple of hundred people with Jozan alone, or the other few mooks who can cast it (there were about three clerics per ship, but after attrition, they're down to about three clerics. Period.), they need to raid the island for some chow. Slow Depletion of Resources ++! BUT, of course there is a monster guarding even this treasure, and being a banished half-deity (paragon), taking him on single-handedly ain't really an option. BUT, Odysseus rolls a good Knowledge (children of the Gods) check, and determines that this guy digs the alcohol. Getting a CR 20+ creature drunk is no mean feat, but it helps that Odysseus's Charisma is flabbergasting (and people call it a dump stat!). Clever Odysseus weasels the half-deity out of his sheep, gouges out his eyes, and runs away, taunting the entire time. Of course, even blinded, the creature put up a fight, and not everyone got out alive (poor Regdar ran distraction). God thing Jozan can resurrect! (we're giving our cleric a work out here!)
10) AAAH! WITCH! _Baleful Polymorph_ has transformed them into sides of bacon, which, while delicious, are hardly fit to bring back. Odysseus comes to the fore again, his clever character and his obscene ranks in Diplomacy (combined with Charisma boosting items and diplomatic gear yoinked from Paris's vanity stash back in Troy). At least *someone* didn't treat it as a dump stat! Regdar gets eaten, and Jozan can't bring him back from that...(Loss+++!). Regdar's player whips up a new guy, a member of the crew who has proved himself time and time again, and who is being swiftly promoted in the ranks. And maybe when they get back to town, Jozan can use his pull to get him braught back to life....but maybe they'll be irked at him for pissing off Possiedon, too (danger+!)
11) AAAAH! HARPIES! Since Odysseus & co. still want to hear the harpy song, they put silence over the ship, except for the mast, where they strap themselves (humor, heroism ++!)
12) AAAH! WHIRLPOOLS! Scylla and Charybdis, easily Terrasque-level challenges, make short work of the rest of the crew & boats, and heavily damage the PC party. If only they would've made that DC 35 Profession (sailor) check! But even Odysseus couldn't save our land-locked PC's from their doom this time....the mooks..........are dead (Loss+++++!)
13) Home? The PC's make it to a friendly island, and tell their story (Perform checks all around....Odysseus, you saved them again! You even got them to send back tribute!). Then they're sent on their way...and a rumor (Krwyn's Gather Info check) says that maybe they can scry on Odysseus's kid....
14) Mialee gives it a whirl, but she's not very familiar with him....it takes a few tries, but fortunately, Possiedon isn't throwing any advanced Dragon Turtles their way, and she eventually does it.....and the kid is living in a swineherd's place....WTFBBQ? (Mystery+! Suspense+!)
15) They get home, and talk with Telemachus, find out the mooks are doing some damage in the home...a shame the PC's were only about level 10 when they left, just beginning to get their home and hideaway.....but if they just charge in, Od's wife is in danger of being massacred...even if they aren't....so, sneaky it is! And fortunately, Athena's Gifts (powerful magic items of disguise, also treasure for getting to LV 17) help them do it! Though the other three can ape their way through being old and poor wihtout jingling their magic too much, the world's only Charisma-Monkey wins yet again, with his magnificent Bluffs, Disguises, and Diplomacies....even against the Head Suitor, who is an of-CR challenge (one of zeus's bastards, after all...). In the aftermath of his drawing his Composite Longbow +2 that he got back in the day, but didn't bring to war for fear that the Trojan Monks would sunder it (and besides, he could probably find a better one in Paris's hoarde, or be given one by Agamemnon, that ol' codger...)....even though Mialee could mend it after that, it's magic wouldn't be restored, and it'd still have that little scratch that is quite unbefitting an heirloom. 

There ya go, a classic tale of myth, adventure, and loss, in no way ruined by magic. Admittedly, it was a bit rail-roady (some DM's would've let them get home quick, and done Possiedon's punishment perhaps in the form of an earthquake-style campaign where they were forced to move the city itself, rather than the warriors from Troy), but I was following a rather strict campaign outline, and, admittedly, railroading was kind of the point (you can't fight the DM any more than you can fight the gods!).

The magic gives it a certain feel, it does NOT ruin the drama, especially when you don't assume the PC's are the only ones with it (verisilitude again)


----------



## I'm A Banana

> He-Man and She-Ra. Or how about Hercules: The Legendary Journies? Oh, and you can't forget Xena: The Warrior Princess.
> 
> No, wait, I got it! Dragonball Z!!!




You say those like they're bad things....Thousands of people watched/watch those kind of shows and love them.

Also, to respond to the snarky, we ARE all playing a glorified game of make-believe here....playing a Dragonball Z RPG is in no way 'less of an artistic and emotional experience' than playing, I dunno, HARNWorld. They're different. No one is superior to the other; just more applicable to different tastes.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL

Wow, I've read this thread. There's a lot to be said for having too much time on your hands 

As far as I can tell:

Hong hit it on the head earlier. Grim n Gritty & Low Magic mean wildly different things to different people. These terms are as loose as Powergamer, Munchkin or High Magic.

A 'bad' GM and/or 'bad' players can ruin any type of game with any rules setup you care to mention!


And a question what I thinked of:

If someone wants to run a game that is very different from 'core' DnD then why not find and buy a system closer to what they want to run? Would strike me as much easier than trying to houserule a game? 

If I wanted to live in a bungalow, I would buy a bungalow. I wouldn't buy a block of flats and demolish everything above the ground floor...


----------



## Piratecat

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> If someone wants to run a game that is very different from 'core' DnD then why not find and buy a system closer to what they want to run? Would strike me as much easier than trying to houserule a game?
> 
> If I wanted to live in a bungalow, I would buy a bungalow. I wouldn't buy a block of flats and demolish everything above the ground floor...




The problem is, though, 95 out of 100 tenants only know how to live in a flat, so you have to advertise your new bungalow as a demolished block of flats in order to attract them.

I'm not sure the analogy is holding up, but you probably see what I mean.


----------



## Afrodyte

Piratecat said:
			
		

> The problem is, though, 95 out of 100 tenants only know how to live in a flat, so you have to advertise your new bungalow as a demolished block of flats in order to attract them.
> 
> I'm not sure the analogy is holding up, but you probably see what I mean.




I get you, Piratecat.

Then again, you could say that [snip tasteless original comment].


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL

I think I can?  I quite understand that the good old fashioned block of flats has tradition, familiarity and fond memories for a lot of people. 

Still, I think its a shame! 

There's so many good systems out there that are very different from the 'block of flats'. It makes sense to me to dust them off if you want something different. To sum it up my view:

1)Rules mechanics can make a game feel and play very differently.

2)Professional/published game designers tend to make better rules than I do. If not better mechanically then at least the presentation is prettier! 

3)I'm way too scatty and disorganised to keep track of many complicated houserules! At least to do that and run a game properly. Without going slightly mad.

For example, I wanted to play a game in a sinister near future with evil (grim n gritty!) corporations, fantasy races, magic, guns, cybernetics and fairly lethal combat mechanics. 

We could have 'houseruled' core DnD with technology, lethality and how magic interacts with this near future world.... but we're far too lazy - instead we dusted off Shadowrun and played it! All together a much simpler bungalow.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> #2: Posseidon has a vested interest in making Odysseus & crew go through a long, obnoxious route to get home.



Your mythology's a tad off...  It was Posseidon's intention that Odysseus _never_ get home by sea.  Naturally, thinking that the world is all about him, Odysseus doesn't tell his men and sets sail, figuring he's too high a level for something like a piddly trip through the Mediteranean Sea to be overly difficult.

Naturally, he was proven wrong.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You say those like they're bad things....Thousands of people watched/watch those kind of shows and love them.



Actually, I _have_ given the whole Eternia-thing a few considerations as a game world.  Granted, it wouldn't be as cheesy as He-Man/She-Ra, but I do see potential in a similar setting.

As for Dragonball Z, assuming that the RPG focused on Training as much as the series does, than I'm all for it.  Otherwise it would easier to make an array of mass-destruction Arcane spells class abilities for Epic Monks.

At any rate, you're right about it being a matter of taste (of course, that means I was right earlier about it being a matter of taste, which also makes the hundreds of folks before me right about it being a matter of taste, which means that this conversation is only in continuation because of the pin heads that accuse _all_ low magic GMs of being incompetant, railroading, power-mad GMs, thus proving that they're pin heads and everone else was right).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, first of all myth != good fiction. And good fiction != good game.
> 
> Okay, let's see here, let's do The Odyssey, but within the confines of D&D rules....first, let's do the 'crucial elements of the story.'
> 
> #1: Odysseus is a sneaky fighter who has won a great war, and wants to get home. His defining trait is his cunning and wit.
> #2: Posseidon has a vested interest in making Odysseus & crew go through a long, obnoxious route to get home.
> #3: Through a series of stops on the way, Odysseus is jerked around by some gods, and gets home. Those stops are the adventures in the campaign.




Now, be careful. It almost sounds like the DM is ready to change the rules of magic to railroad his players because he doesn't like it when they use magic to come up with creative solutions.



> 1) Well, since we have (let's say) 5 players, we'll need 4 main characters. So let's say Odysseus (sneaky fighter) had three of his heroic buds along for the ride: Jozan, Kyrrwyn, Mialee, and Regdar. Yes, I know they don't sound Greek, but that's hardly a problem with the d20 levle of magic.
> 2) The Trojan War just ended. In it, the Achean fleet and their heroes invaded Troy, killed their people, and took their stuff. So these guys can't be first level -- let's make 'em 15th (hey, they're heroes!), and the GP they get to spend on character wealth is a combination of the equipment they've braught with them to fight, and the stuff they've found on the battlefield.




Why stop at 15th? You running a low magic game or something? Why aren't they 20th level? Are you afraid that 20th level heroes are capable of things that 15th level heroes are not?



> 3) They want to get home, and but Troy is more than 1500 miles from Ithica




Since when is distance a factor with teleport? What? They changed the spell in 3.5? _Now why do you suppose they felt they had to go and do something like that?_

Besides, it's not as if they couldn't just plane shift away and back. That'll get you back within range of where you need to be.

Crew, cargo, and all the beer they could want go into their portable hole. Mialee says, "Hold your breath for just 6 seconds, boys!" and bam! They're home.

If they don't have a portable hole, Mialee makes one. Or two. Only a damned fool of a wizard doesn't have Craft Wondrous Items.

Barring that, they send their crew off to enjoy a short vacation in paradise and cut off their ears, taking the ears home with them. On arriving home-- whether by teleport or wind walk, who cares?-- they cast true ressurrection on their crew members. Every crew member who prefers the real world to the afterlife comes back. (Hades starts to object, but realizes that the spell doesn't work that way and he doesn't get a say anymore.)

Perhaps they'd rather cast Gate. They're buddied up with Zeus (good buddy to have) so they open a Gate to Mt. Olympus, party with the nymphs for a while, then Gate home. 

Can't cast Gate? Buy a couple of scrolls. Or summon something that can cast it for you.

Ooh! How about Teleportation Circle? That's a great way to move an army and its ill-gotten loot.

[snip]

They pretty much never see the rest of that adventure.

Wulf


----------



## Piratecat

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> In your last big "plot," after all, there was no divination, no teleportation/etherealness/astral, and to some degree even ressurrection was affected.




No on the latter; resurrection was unaffected. While the other temporary changes were much more for mood (trying to enhance the feeling of claustrophobia and isolation) than for tactics or plot channeling, I certainly see your point. I'll be curious whether future adventures which work fine but don't cripple abilities change your opinion slightly on this aspect. We'll have to see.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Piratecat said:
			
		

> No on the latter; resurrection was unaffected. While the other temporary changes were much more for mood (trying to enhance the feeling of claustrophobia and isolation) than for tactics or plot channeling, I certainly see your point. I'll be curious whether future adventures which work fine but don't cripple abilities change your opinion slightly on this aspect. We'll have to see.




Well, again, I haven't said that high magic isn't fun, nor that it can't be challenging, just that it doesn't do a very good job of modelling the kinds of challenges which typically face the heroes of myth.

There are different challenges, and there are different solutions. It's different, and inasmuch as one _wants_ an experience that is _not_ different from classic myth and fiction, that can be a problem.

That's all I'm sayin'. I think that's all anybody who's on the GnG side of this argument is saying.

Wulf


----------



## WizarDru

The further the discussion goes, the more I see hong's point.

Even without magic items, in a totally non-magic setting, D&D won't create the 'grim-and-gritty' setting that I think some folks envision for it. A 20th level fighter or barbarian is still a thing of terror, magic weapons or no.

A human fighter has something on the odds of 13 feats, four attacks at the maximum BAB for PCs in the game, one excellent save (and in a low magic world, the most important of the three) and the ability to use virtually any weapon or armor he can lay his hands upon (though it may bost him a feat to do so). A rogue is equally puissant in such sitautions. An appropriately tricked out archer can drop whole armies, if he has the breathing room. 

Does that accurately reflect fiction or myth? I'm not sure that it does.  I'm not saying there's a problem with either approach, but it seems to me that a lm/gng game would need to do far more than just remove magic from the equation. The very nature of the game would preclude it.

Myths and stories don't need to concern themselves with the trifles of what makes a good game, which like the 'what makes a good book doesn't necesarrily make a good movie' argument may be beyond the scope of this discussion, I think. The point merely is that Beowulf had only a couple of monsters in his world to battle, not dozens of thriving monster ecologies existing parallel to each other. 

I both agree and disagree with some of the things Wulf has said, for example. Having run "Lich Queen's Beloved", where the PCs go to the Astral and take the smack to the Lich Queen of the Githyanki herself, I can say that Wulf is right in that the PCs dropped 250 Githyanki warriors in a matter of rounds. Taking out the whole invasion force, if it bunched up for those area damage spells, wouldn't have been hard. They didn't after that encounter, of course, but the point still stands.

However, I've also got a shadowdancer who rolled an 86 on a skill check, and an elven archer who can routinely his the mid-50s on her spot checks. The wizard isn't the one deactivating that Sphere of Annihilation trap. Could he? He could have almost certainly done so, if he could have discovered it. But seeing as he lacked the skill to detect the trap, it would have been lethal to him. Which is why they sent the rogue on ahead to find and deal with the problem. The wizard _can_ trump many abilities, if he's prepared for the situations...but the wizard and the other players often don't get to choose their own battlefields, or the time of the battle. I routinely hear "what do you mean, we're out of teleports?" or "I didn't prepare that today. I can do it tomorrow..." just as often at 23rd level as we did at 3rd. In all three of the last three sessions, in fact.

And there are plenty of things that even 23rd level characters can't do in 6 spells. Convince a rogue group of Celestials to change their minds about leaving the host and becoming guardians of the Prime, for example, or forcing a deity to involve himself directly in a inter-planar war, for another.

Ultimately, I see both styles as having appeal. Sometimes I want to be in Lankhmar, other times I want to be in Dragaera. Both are fun.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's all I'm sayin'. I think that's all anybody who's on the GnG side of this argument is saying.



Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## tauton_ikhnos

For me, low magic == some combination of following factors:

- rare magic
- lack of strategic magic, possibly tactical magic
- magic which has high cost (such as 1 CON per spell level)
- magic which is culture/society restricted (cast Invis, go to Jail)

From story perspective, successful game stories are about either _challenge_ or _relationships_. Magic (high, low, or other) only affects _challenge_.

It affects other things as well, but they are not story. At most they are "feel", "mood", "genre". Star Trek was Old West stories in space - only difference from story perspective was what challenges they faced.

I prefer high magic. I like the feel, mood, genre. And I am good at challenges at that level. But that's all it is.

To use Odysseus & Poseidon example:

_Fundamental relationships_ are Poseidon & Odysseus, Odysseus & His Men, Odysseus & Strange/Dangerous Places. The _challenges_ are what Poseidon puts in way of Odysseus.

In a low magic game, that is distance and man-eating islands.

In a high magic game, that is interplanar journey on River Styx, with Odysseus divinely cursed with dimensional anchor... sure, he could send men home, but can't get there himself.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Even without magic items, in a totally non-magic setting, D&D won't create the 'grim-and-gritty' setting that I think some folks envision for it. A 20th level fighter or barbarian is still a thing of terror, magic weapons or no.




I don't think anyone has suggested that the only change necessary for a low-magic, grim and gritty setting is the removal of magic-using classes and magic items.



> Does that accurately reflect fiction or myth?




Well, yes, it accurately reflects a great many myths.

There's nothing wrong with Samson slaying whole armies armed with nothing but a jawbone and his mullet, but at the end of the day he has to walk home, he has to eat, he has to sleep, and he's mortal-- he retains certain essential qualities of humanity with which we can identify, and the world in which he lives has a verisimilitude more analogous to the realities of our own world than the Forgotten Realms.

Superhuman characters abound in mythology, but they still have a resonance (not to get to Jungian here) that you just don't get from high magic D&D.

Again, whether or not that is a good thing is a matter of taste. If you are lucky enough to have a DM like K.M. or Piratecat, you can still be entertained and challenged by high magic D&D.

Wulf


----------



## francisca

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with Samson slaying whole armies armed with nothing but a jawbone and his mullet,




Bwah-haha-ha!

You get the award for mental image of the day!


----------



## WizarDru

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Superhuman characters abound in mythology, but they still have a resonance (not to get to Jungian here) that you just don't get from high magic D&D.



Can't really argue with that, as I agree, for the most part.  And, as you say, sometimes it's just about killing the bad guys and taking their stuff.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Now, be careful. It almost sounds like the DM is ready to change the rules of magic to railroad his players because he doesn't like it when they use magic to come up with creative solutions.




It does? Naaah, just that the DM is ready to be a rat bastard to actually get his plot done. You want the myth, I give you the Odyssey, By the Rules. 



> Why stop at 15th? You running a low magic game or something? Why aren't they 20th level? Are you afraid that 20th level heroes are capable of things that 15th level heroes are not?




Well, assuming that we're only using the core books and not going for the ELH for anything other than the occasional monster (but we could probably avoid it for that too), I tend to like to give my players opportunity to gain a few levels while adventuring. By the time these blokes make it back to Ithica, they've gone up a level or two. Otherwise, if we 'cap out' at 20th so we're only using the core, they don't have anywhere to go, and may as well retire right there on the battlefield, because a character who can't advance at all isn't any fun.

It's simply a matter of giving them room for XP. Your accusation is reaching at straws.



> Besides, it's not as if they couldn't just plane shift away and back. That'll get you back within range of where you need to be.




Dude, PLANE SHIFT?! The spell is wildly inaccurate as a 'teleport substitute,' and there's no garuntee that in the bit of time you're on the planes you won't be harassed by some might outsider. In addition, it doesn't get the ship-mooks home. They try to plane shift to Olympus, then back to Ithica, they could wind up just as bad as when they started (or worse, because Posseidon could throw one of his best allies at them while they were on Olympus rather than attacking them through the sea). They have no idea where they'll end up when they shift back, they could manifest on some wacky foriegn land or such, and a portable hole doesn't contain enough air(one creature for ten minutes divided by thousands of creatures.....the math don't seem to favor that, even for 6 seconds).

So plane shift does not work. Even on the odd chance they decided to do exactly as you posit, and the DM overlooked the 'breathable air inside a portable hole' thing, they risk a TPK at TWO points in the quest, when they are in Olympus, and when they land again (Perhaps directly in the ocean, where some sea creature can swallow them up without so much as a ceremony)....so I just took it for granted that were such a thing proposed, Jozan or Mialee would've succeeded on their Intelligence check to Detect A Stupid Plan, and Regdar would've been beaten for trying to think.



> If they don't have a portable hole, Mialee makes one. Or two. Only a damned fool of a wizard doesn't have Craft Wondrous Items.




Well, there's a few reasons she wouldn't or can't.

#1) they don't really have the time. They just sacked Troy, and the retainers are going to be back, and Mialee, being one of the heros, is really needed at the front lines and not locked away in a ship for months/weeks
#2) She *just* got 15th level....she can't craft anything until she's gotten slightly more XP, because she can't drop a level by spending it. 
#3) Her character is playing a bit of a selfish wench, so of course she *wouldn't!* (why d'ya think Jozan had to cast all the spells before?) Aaaand Character Developing Plot +++!



> Barring that, they send their crew off to enjoy a short vacation in paradise and cut off their ears, taking the ears home with them. On arriving home-- whether by teleport or wind walk, who cares?-- they cast true ressurrection on their crew members. Every crew member who prefers the real world to the afterlife comes back. (Hades starts to object, but realizes that the spell doesn't work that way and he doesn't get a say anymore.)




So now not only are you suffocating the crew in a hole, you're killing them....what kind of mook would agree to this?! It's disrespectful and decietful, and all too wicked.....NONE of the gods would be happy with it (though if we're using Deities and Demigods maybe Hades would be), and you'd get more than a storm coming down on their heads. On top of it being Evil to kill people for expedience (they still suffer the trauma of having been killed, after all). And even if they *did* try it, it would cost at the very minimum, 28,825 gold PER DEATH. At a bunch of thousand shipmen, this destroys the loot from Troy and more....what's the point in going to the Trojans and taking their stuff if you're just going to spend it on your mooks? In addition, these are HEROES! To kill staunch allies is reprehensible to them. Even if they were a party of complete evil bastards (not bloody likely, given most DM's and players, but still possible), who somehow managed to make it to troy, the other 15th+ level characters there wouldn't allow it. To kill the mooks, they'd have to fight a war against Heracles, Agamemnon, and all the other survivors, and their mooks, too. And they can *still* be killed at two points (plane shift), or blown off course (normally). And yeah, pissing of Hades is the least of their worries in that case (Zeus doesn't want to here Jozan's prayers anymore, at least, stripping him of all class abilities....and probably of the pull in the church needed to get these mooks resed for at price/cheap).

So no, Resurrection-transportation doesn't work, for moral quandries and logistical ones.



> Perhaps they'd rather cast Gate. They're buddied up with Zeus (good buddy to have) so they open a Gate to Mt. Olympus, party with the nymphs for a while, then Gate home.
> 
> Can't cast Gate? Buy a couple of scrolls. Or summon something that can cast it for you.
> 
> Ooh! How about Teleportation Circle? That's a great way to move an army and its ill-gotten loot.




Gate: Possiedon (who has control in Olympus nearing Zeus's) puts the kibash on it, since opening a gate into a deity's realm can be forbidden by the deity there. Even if not, the spell is slightly more reliable than Plane Shift, but Possiedon can still axe them in Olympus, and then they'd be bringing trouble home with them (what do they fear more, killing the mooks on the ship with Pos's wrath, or killing their friends and family with it...).  They still have the problem with transporting the whole army (the gate doesn't stay open forever). And, again the Int check to Detect A Stupid Plan succeeds, Regdar is beaten with sausages,a nd the peasants rejoice. This is assuming they are either higher level, or have ready access to the higher level, and want to spend the significant bling to get it done, which is no small feat in and of itself, though you seem to write it off as a given.

Teleportation Circle: It's a 5-ft radius, not a large enough area to get a ship by any means. And Greater Teleport has many of the same problems as Regular Teleport (no distance limit, but then there are problems transporting the entire army, and the bringing of the trouble of the gods home with them).

Any other ideas you want me to defeat, or will you rest with that and accept the fact that high-level, high-magic adventures can have all the elements of a classic mythical story? Heck, on the odd chance they do manage to circumvent the rules (not bloody likely), it just means that the planned adventure happens *after* their homes, friends, and children get destroyed by the earthquake Possiedon brings onto Ithica, and it happens with the entire population of the island instead of a portion of the troops from Troy, if you want to be a little less rail-roading (still preserving the same essential elements of plot, but certainly not being slavishly faithful to the myth anymore).

In Other News: I'm not sure it takes a potentially great DM to do this (though I'm flattered you think me in the realms of P-Kitty!). It just takes someone who's reading along, who knows the capabilities of the players, and who makes sure they know that no matter how powerful they are, there is *always* something more powerful out there, that can as handily whoop their butts as they can whoop the butts of goblins. To do this without railroading at all, it also takes a DM who is comfortable with allowing the players to script some of the plot, since they will be doing it, quite often. Which is why the inaccurate claim levied at some lm/gng DM's is that it means you're a control freak -- because your characters can't shape the quest as much as you can. In the higher-level games I've been a part of, I've never worried about railroading them to the adventure, I've worried about having the adventure follow them. No matter what Odysseus and his crew do, they're going to go on a long journey and meet strange people. If I have to make the traumatic event something a bit more personal than a storm at sea, I'm more than willing to do it, and if I have to adopt the map so that the lotus eaters are land-locked instead of an island, I'm willing to do it. Admittedly, not all DM's are -- they like to be able to almost 100% control the story. Which is fine, but is a different flavor from that of D&D....IMHO, it's less like playing a game, and more like writing a story, which is not something I'm interested in using D&D for at all, since I can get paid for writing a story without using my friends as the main characters.


----------



## kamosa

*Odyssey*

Sounds like that Odyssey campaign was a complete dud.  Just proves a point about low magic.  I mean the DM started out with a whole ship load of players.  Then focused on just one character.  By the end of the campaign there was no one left but Odysius.   I think the players voted with their feet.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

kamosa said:
			
		

> Sounds like that Odyssey campaign was a complete dud. Just proves a point about low magic. I mean the DM started out with a whole ship load of players. Then focused on just one character. By the end of the campaign there was no one left but Odysius. I think the players voted with their feet.



Solo game.  PC has Leadership.  Followers and Cohort died.


----------



## kamosa

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Solo game.  PC has Leadership.  Followers and Cohort died.



 And I was hoping I was on your ignore list.  Oh well.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

kamosa said:
			
		

> And I was hoping I was on your ignore list. Oh well.



Yeah, you were...  It's my soft heart.  Some folks got a half-dozen chances before becoming a permanent addition through their own efforts.  I'm sure if you try _really really really _hard, you might make it, too.


----------



## Piratecat

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, again, I haven't said that high magic isn't fun, nor that it can't be challenging, just that it doesn't do a very good job of modelling the kinds of challenges which typically face the heroes of myth.




Very clear, very eloquent. Nice summary.


----------



## Dragonblade

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, again, I haven't said that high magic isn't fun, nor that it can't be challenging, just that it doesn't do a very good job of modelling the kinds of challenges which typically face the heroes of myth.




I agree with this completely. The thing is people want high level D&D to be mythic. High level D&D is not mythic. Its superheroic. As in X-men.

Its a subtle distinction but a fine one. Once I recognized this, everything about high level gaming, especially all the stuff you don't see in fantasy literature, made much more sense to me. For example, PCs teleporting everywhere. Wizards with the power to shape reality, or warriors that are nigh invincible on the battlefield (at least against low-level foes).

However, when high level D&D is used in a world that tries to be mythic, it doesn't feel right, like the Midnight setting. And when its used in a world where it does fit, like the Realms, its unmythicness (is that a word?) is emphasized even more and turns off those who want it to be mythic.


----------



## ManicFuel

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> I think I can?  I quite understand that the good old fashioned block of flats has tradition, familiarity and fond memories for a lot of people.
> 
> Still, I think its a shame!
> 
> There's so many good systems out there that are very different from the 'block of flats'. It makes sense to me to dust them off if you want something different.




This is all pretty valid, and in fact I came back to D&D after some years of GURPS, HERO, and some others. GURPS does a good job of respresenting low magic and grim and gritty. The two things that brought me back were the feel, flavor and history of D&D (with more sensible mechanics this time), and the fact that it is easier to find players and DMs for D&D.



> 1)Rules mechanics can make a game feel and play very differently.



Quite right! My point exactly, about 50 pages up...




> 2)Professional/published game designers tend to make better rules than I do. If not better mechanically then at least the presentation is prettier!



Couldn't agree more. If only I could get a pro to fix and publish my house rules, then I'd be going to bat for the joys of the core rules. On the other hand, all RPGs are just house rules from someone better at making them and getting them published than I am. So official rules are just those rules accidentally found most fun by those who are best qualified to get them published. By that logic, my rules aren't automatically worse than something published, just my ability to cause them to be printed.




> 3)I'm way too scatty and disorganised to keep track of many complicated houserules! At least to do that and run a game properly. Without going slightly mad.



It can get this way, to be sure, but this is purely subjective from DM to DM. We all have to draw the line between "fixing" a system we like and jumping to another system (which usually also has to be "fixed"), and weigh how much effort it's really worth. Oh, and how much effort it is for the _players_.


----------



## Felon

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I agree with this completely. The thing is people want high level D&D to be mythic. High level D&D is not mythic. Its superheroic. As in X-men.




It's beyond superheroic. Superheroes (and villains) do have a nasty habit of coming back from the dead, but the X-Men don't go into fight after fight knowing that 10 minutes and a bag of diamonds is all that it takes to defy death.


----------



## Dragonblade

Felon said:
			
		

> It's beyond superheroic. Superheroes (and villains) do have a nasty habit of coming back from the dead, but the X-Men don't go into fight after fight knowing that 10 minutes and a bag of diamonds is all that it takes to defy death.




Sure they don't expect to be resurrected. But when was the last time an X-man or one of their foes actually stayed dead?


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I agree with this completely. The thing is people want high level D&D to be mythic. High level D&D is not mythic. Its superheroic. As in X-men.



But this arguement, once again, rolls around to yet another misconception that low magic vs high magic debates keep turning back to: is it proper to compare a d20 fantasy game (home brew or professionally published) to D&D itself?

Every time someone says, "D&D is supposed to be [high magic/super heroics/any other description]", I can't help but wonder, "so friggin' what?" If anything, the _mistake_ of viewing every fantasy-genre RPG by how it relates to D&D does little more than present a rather poor basis of measurement and comparison; It's using _one_ example of how d20 can be set up and balanced to judge the worth of any other manner of set up and balance (and is, in fact, something I warned against when 3E was first released and everyone jumped on the balance wagon).

I mean, my game is dark and grim; insanity is common; ignorance and superstition are common; etc. Why not, instead of comparing it to D&D, compare it instead to Call of Cthulu d20? Now, here's yet _another_ example of d20 set up and balance, and using it as a basis, my game is super-duper uber powered. Or we can compare it to Midnight. Similar dark mood, similar evil-has-the-upperhand themes at work. Yet, compared to that settig, my world isn't that grim; the good guys _do_ have a shred of hope for victory and entire continents remain under the banner of Good.

_D&D *is* just another d20 game_, regardless of the fact that WotC holds most of the marketing cards; it would be a shame to see the _possibilities_ the engine offers limited by the expectations of D&D rather than moving beyond it in _every_ direction to include different facets of the genre instead of excluding them.

But every time someone chimes in with, "But D&D is supposed to be...", they are doing just that: limiting the possibilities due to a false assumption that d20 Fantasy _must_ equal D&D when such isn't the case at all.


----------



## WizarDru

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I agree with this completely. The thing is people want high level D&D to be mythic. High level D&D is not mythic. Its superheroic. As in X-men.



I think it would be more appropriate to say, "SOME people want high level D&D to be mythic."  I know plenty of people who want to just lay down the smack, and that doesn't change from 1st level to 20th level, and it's as true now as it was in 1980, when I first started playing regularly.

Personally, I think the 'mythic feel' is more goverened by the DM than anything else.  If I occasionally have a negative reaction to people describing high-level play, it's that they seem to ignore a lot of factors when determining its value.  The idea that being brought back from the dead is painless and simple, when it rarely proves to be quite that way.  Either you're loosing a level or a sizable amount of gold in the form of gems.  Even a 20th level character balks at throwing 25,000 gp away, unless the DM is giving them away for free or ignoring the spell restrictions.

It also should be pointed out that there is a difference between making a 20th level character and leveling someone up, over time, to 20th level and beyond.  Sub-optimal choices get made on the way, if you work your way up to it.  Feats, skills and spells are chosen that are useful at one point, but become less useful later.  Treasure gets spent or used that might have been used differently, had the player known what was to come.  Many such balancing factors are sometimes ignored when examining high-level play, which can certainly throw off the impression of the game at that level.

I readily agree that high-level D&D lacks many of the elements of fiction and myth...the problem being that fiction and myth make for poor games, especially since most myth and fiction have the luxury of focusing on a viewpoint character, inequal representation of characters and total control over the plot.  The various and sundry creators of the Arthurian mythos didn't have to face problems concerning Lancelot being a better swordsman than Kay, or the fact that Lancelot enjoyed a completely different style of play than Percival, or that Galahad would be killed when the Breuse sans Pite got two criticals in one round and Galahad failed his massive damage save.  Does that mean the story is bad, or the game is faulty?  Of course not, but it does highlight that they are different creatures, with different goals.  The issue, of course, is that most gng proponents would like to emulate that feel much more closely than D&D does, at its default setting. 

High-level D&D doesn't emulate that feel well, but that doesn't mean that said play doesn't feel mythic.  I think my players would argue that they found that battle against a swarm of miniature gulthias horrors fun, but they were much more involved in the argument with the renegade members of a celestial host that occured just afterwards, or the negotiation with the demon princess or the encounter with the three deities avatars.  Almost none of which required rolls, and with which spells had little or no part.

The nice thing about 3e D&D is that, since it's so consistent from a rules perspective, creating alternate rules variants to address these issues is much easier to accomplish.  

At least, it would be if Wulf would get Grim Tales to the printer, already. 
_*(Either that, or change those banner ads, dadgummit!)*_


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It does? Naaah, just that the DM is ready to be a rat bastard to actually get his plot done. You want the myth, I give you the Odyssey, By the Rules.




No, you are breaking the rules.

As I said before, DM Fiat is not a satisfactory solution to high magic gaming. Trumping the players' ingenuity with "higher magic" is the same thing as taking that magic away.



> Dude, PLANE SHIFT?! The spell is wildly inaccurate as a 'teleport substitute,'




I'm beginning to suspect that your high magic game works because either you don't know the rules, or your players don't know them well enough to exploit them, or both.

Plane shift is wildly inaccurate, yes. But it is never more than 500 miles off target-- well within range of teleport. You plane shift out, you plane shift back, you teleport home. Piece of cake for a high level, high magic game.



> and there's no garuntee that in the bit of time you're on the planes you won't be harassed by some might outsider.




So you threaten clever PCs with random attacks. Never mind that the outer planes are near infinite and the odds of running into something at random are slim, nor that the PCs can plane shift to a friendly plane, or a friendly demi-plane of their own creation.



> and a portable hole doesn't contain enough air(one creature for ten minutes divided by thousands of creatures.....the math don't seem to favor that, even for 6 seconds).




[sigh] They HOLD THEIR BREATH. It doesn't matter how much air the hole holds. I think that veterans of the Trojan war can manage to hold their breath for 6 seconds or so.



> So plane shift does not work. Even on the odd chance they decided to do exactly as you posit, and the DM overlooked the 'breathable air inside a portable hole' thing, they risk a TPK at TWO points in the quest, when they are in Olympus, and when they land again (Perhaps directly in the ocean, where some sea creature can swallow them up without so much as a ceremony)....




Plane shift works fine. You just don't WANT it to work. You don't want it to work so badly that you concoct ridiculous threats (such as a sea creature just happening to be in the right place at the right time, within one round's movement and attack, to swallow the party before they teleport home.



> Well, there's a few reasons she wouldn't or can't.




She should have done this ages ago. But ok, we'll let it go. We have more DM fiat to get to!



> So now not only are you suffocating the crew in a hole, you're killing them....what kind of mook would agree to this?! It's disrespectful and decietful, and all too wicked.....




Why is it wicked or traumatic? Off they go to Mt. Olympus. They've earned some shore leave, I would think. And they get a true ressurrection to come back safe and whole and none the worse for wear. That's how the spell works-- unless you want to arbitrarily stomp on this tactic, too.



> So no, Resurrection-transportation doesn't work, for moral quandries and logistical ones.




Works just fine according to the rules. But again, you don't want it to work, and what the DM says, goes. 



> Gate: Possiedon (who has control in Olympus nearing Zeus's) puts the kibash on it, since opening a gate into a deity's realm can be forbidden by the deity there.




Ok, so Zeus, who's on the PCs side, allows Poseidon to take dominion long enough to put the kibosh on Gate. Well, ok, that doesn't seem arbitrary at all, but we'll throw you another one.



> Teleportation Circle: It's a 5-ft radius, not a large enough area to get a ship by any means. And Greater Teleport has many of the same problems as Regular Teleport (no distance limit, but then there are problems transporting the entire army, and the bringing of the trouble of the gods home with them).




Feel like doing a little math? The teleport circle is live for 170 minutes, minimum. How many greek veterans can Odysseus hustle across a path in the nearly 3 hours the circle is live? A human hustle is 90 feet of movement every 6 seconds, which means every 6 seconds you can move 18 men, running single file, across the teleportation circle. That's over 30,000 men, give or take.



> Any other ideas you want me to defeat, or will you rest with that and accept the fact that high-level, high-magic adventures can have all the elements of a classic mythical story?




I suggested that high level games are not mythic because of the existence of teleport and ressurrection, among others, and you proceed to show me how you go about nerfing the use of those spells in order to prove a point.

Unfortunately, you proved MY point.

If you want to impress me, show me how a high magic game can work WITHOUT arbitrarily curbing the abilities of the PCs. You were all over the abilities of the players like a cheap suit.

Taking away their abilities only proves the low magic argument.



> In Other News: I'm not sure it takes a potentially great DM to do this (though I'm flattered you think me in the realms of P-Kitty!). It just takes someone who's reading along, who knows the capabilities of the players, and who makes sure they know that no matter how powerful they are, there is *always* something more powerful out there,




So you need to know how plane shift works, for starters, and how long a human can hold his breath, and you need to be able to do math, and when all else fails, you need to be able to threaten, cajole, or browbeat the players into forgoing the use of their most potent abilities. 

I guess that sums it up.

Wulf


----------



## Remathilis

I think another problem with the low/high magic debate is that people think that D&D = Fantasy Game Simulator. Its not. Its no easier to use D&D to create the Oddessy than it is to play Star Trek with the Star Wars d20 book.  
Grim Tales seems to be what I was looking for when I said a generic toolkit. Heck, Unearthed Arcana was a step in the right direction for LM/G&G. Oddly, Wizards seems to be heading in the opposite direction on magic than (at least) Enworld seems to be, with Eberron's extremely high magitech. However, it also seems better laid out than Realms for explaining this, so we'll see if high magic and pulp can co-exist peacefully.

Which leads me to a question mostly hinted at, but never answered: The next supposed edition of D&D will come out in anywhere from 5-10 years. When it does, should it go to a lower magic more realistic style of game, or the more computer/anime/high magic style game some people envision it to be.

In other words, should 4th edition be more or less magical/grim and gritty?


----------



## WizarDru

Remathilis said:
			
		

> In other words, should 4th edition be more or less magical/grim and gritty?



IMHO?  Neither.  It should be even more modular and faciliatate customization easier, to allow individual games to customize closer to whatever flavor that group enjoys, with recommendations for how to make it happen.  I expect that some of Unearthed Arcana's material will make into the core as sidebar material, for example.


----------



## tauton_ikhnos

And... the Journey of Odysseus, writ large, 20th level.

*Basic Plot:*
Poseidon is angry. He curses Odysseus. Odysseus does not have the ability to fight off curse, so he goes long way around.

That is the ORIGINAL plot, mind you. The GM nerfed Odysseus' mighty sailing skills, right there in text. So I'm going to nerf one thing, just like Homer did: his _ability to travel quickly and efficiently back home_.

D&D: Dimensional Anchor. On Odysseus. There's the start of your mythic tale.

Is there a nerf? Yes. _Just like there was in the mythic text._ I can see Odysseus' player whining already: "But I put 23 ranks in Navigation, skill focus, ocean born feat, and I've got a WIS 23... plus that astrolabe +2... what do you MEAN I can't find the way home, much less aim the ship at it? I've got a freaking +36 check!"

*The Journey*
Odysseus travels the ocean, blown from port to port, encountering strange and terrifying things.

D&D: Interplanar river. Odysseus sails down it, fiercely seeking for the proper natural gates (which will ignore Dim Anchor) to take him home. In the meantime, he goes from plane to plane, encountering strange and terrifying things.

*The Challenges & The Methods:*
Odysseus uses cleverness, some few magic items, and the sacrifice of his many men, to defeat strange and terrifying things. His skills also come into play, particularly his seamanship.

D&D: Same thing, run by competent GM, but with more magic items than the above, and clever use of spells. This is GAMIST aspect - there are challenges that are challenging, and clever players to defeat them. Since Odysseus is dim-anchored, seamanship will be particularly important in this story arc, and even though the player may curse the necessity in character, he will probably find it cool that he gets to show off.

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Good work, Wulf...



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> In other words, should 4th edition be more or less magical/grim and gritty?





			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> IMHO? Neither. It should be even more modular and faciliatate customization easier, to allow individual games to customize closer to whatever flavor that group enjoys, with recommendations for how to make it happen.



Now that would be a dream come true.


----------



## ManicFuel

WizarDru said:
			
		

> IMHO?  Neither.  It should be even more modular and faciliatate customization easier, to allow individual games to customize closer to whatever flavor that group enjoys, with recommendations for how to make it happen.  I expect that some of Unearthed Arcana's material will make into the core as sidebar material, for example.




Ditto


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Have all of the Odyssey fans seen module M1, "Into the Maelstrom"?  I have it up in my attic.
It's the Odyssey rendered for Master-level D&D (levels 26-36 IIRC).  They did use various "Immortals interfere with your magic" ploys to nerf Create Food & Water and some other spells.  But it looked cool.

One of the bits I remember is that there was a monster variant in the Companion set called "gargantuan."  A gargantuan troll had 2x the height, 8x the weight and hit dice, 4x the damage and regeneration.  Or something like that.  Anyway, to replicate the island of the giants, they used gargantuan cloud giants.  In the Expert set, your basic cloud giant did 6d6 points of damage per hit.  These did 24d6.  Ouch.  And the maximum HP a 36th-level fighter could have was 153. 
Sorry.  Not meaning to ramble.  Just reminiscing about the good old days of the black books and Weapon Mastery and tridents impaling one's foe...


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Wow... The first Template has just been identified.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Y'know, since tauton did a better job than I did (  ), I'm starting to think that for a 'mythic feel' nerfing and railroading are par for the course....I can't think of any significant literature or myth with the same amount of random chance, luck, and ingenuity possessed by one party of PC's. You put four players playing halflings in the position of Frodo & Co., with the same magic, same limits, same design, you don't get "Lord of the Rings" out the other end, you get people griping about uber-NPC's, and railroading ("I give the ring to Merry." "NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE PURE ENOUGH!" "I don't care, this isn't fun anymore." "ARGGH, MY CONTINUITY!!!!!").

But then, being able to mimic plots I'm not sure is ever anyone's goal with D&D.....it seems that people want to more 'capture the feel' than 'capture the plot.' And in that respect, I don't think high-level D&D is any worse at it than anything else....you can get a mythic feel in high-level D&D.....but perhaps what constitutes a "mythic feel" should be defined first?

You know, Wulf, you're right, I was railroading and using a certain amount of DM fiat to get them to go on my little quest (I could point out some specific problems in your counter, but meh, my argument has changed. )....but then again, so did Homer....so did I really fail in mimicing the 'mythic feel'? Because from what I can tell, DM Fiat, railroading, uber-NPC's, etc. are a big portion of feeling like a myth. Odysseus can't use his sailing skills to get home fast because the Gods/DM says so. Achilles got hit in the heel because the Gods/DM says so. Hercales can succumb to the poison because the Gods/DM set the DC at an impossible DC, ditto with Gandalf not being able to use the Ring. It seems that the basic answer is that no, I can't precisely mimic the Oddyssey without restorting to the same measures that Homer did, just like I can't mimic Lord of the Rings without resorting to the same measures Tolkien did. Because what works in those books to get the heroes to do their quests would annoy the hell out of a human being who wants to do the same. If Odysseus wanted to planeshift-teleport home the most basic answer is that the gods would screw him over, because that's what happens in classical greek myth -- your most powerful weapons are useless in the face of Gods/DM Fiat.

That said, I can still do an arduous journey at 15th level. Check out the "How-To" thread, for that, but the gist of it is that the PC's find out that since there are Suitors in their homeland, and they outnumber the PC's, simply materializing at home will have their loved ones killed by the suitors, who aren't about to let the hero come back and claim what they already have dibs on. The Suitors, of course, aren't entirely slackers themselves, and though the family could be raised again (maybe....since they're NPC's, the DM can decide that they *like* hanging out in Paradise...), the simple disregard for their untimely deaths would probably be enough to put every Good-aligned church on the island out of wanting to do it (and the evil-aligned churches would probably be more trouble than they're worth). Thus, the best approach is to try and sneak in....underneath the enemy's constant survielance of the homeland. A disguise is pretty iffy, since the enemies also have access to powerful magic to dispel such a thing (true seeing and the like). Each PC has a connection outside their house (their own personal Telemachus) that a secluded nation has hidden away, with a powerful artefact of disguise and obscurement. The adventure then is going from place to place to follow threads of this hidden nation, to find the people who can help them sneak in, so that they can ensure the safety of their family and friends before routing the wicked. This isn't DM fiat, this is simply tactics...soon after the PC's were preoccupied, the suitors moved in to lay claims to the land, and they have the threat and ability to kill the PC's family, whom they might not get back (and definately wouldn't get back easily) if they took the most expedient means. This is the goal of the bad guys, since they want to keep what they got, and it's a bit shaky right now (there's a brat running around, and the wife still hasn't married any of them), so they're worried about each other, and about other powerful forces, and the PC's (Divination says they're still alive!, but the family of the PC's of course doesn't get this news...unless by secret means....). The PC's then have to find a way in that doesn't immediately alert anyone to the trouble, or else their family dies (and there's never a garuntee that an NPC will come back, or like them very much when they do). The steps can be the steps above.

Suffice it to say for now that no one can mimic literature or myth at any level with D&D because it requires such obnoxious DM turns as to render it not entertaining for the majority of those playing. But that doesn't mean that the challenges and problems presented in myth and literature cannot still exist in high-level D&D. There's a thread right now that's concentrating on that very thing.


----------



## Desdichado

I'm not entirely sure that a "mythic" feel is really appropriate for low magic, grim and gritty.  Maybe the former, but not the latter.  Something like the Game of Thrones or the Black Company is hardly mythic, and that's what I think of when I think of grim and gritty.

And that's why I like it, too.  I'm not really aiming for mythic, I'm aiming more for a more verissimilitudinous (if that's even a word) game than standard D&D.  I'm looking for _Call of Cthulhu_ in a fantasy setting with characters that are more pulp and swashbuckling in nature; a Robert E. Howard kinda feel, I guess.  I don't see how that's mythic, but I see how low magic, and at least an element of grim and gritty (relative to D&D) is essential to that feel.

I think maybe the other issue is one of degree.  In actuality, I'm not claiming that I like D&D to be more low magic or grim and gritty, because I don't consider my game to truly be D&D anymore.  There's a big difference between low magic and grim and gritty that is defined as "some villages actually don't have 'Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe' and high-level clerics to do healing/restoration/resurrection" and "I've completely changed the classes and magic system to the point that my game isn't recognizably D&D, but is some other d20 game."


----------



## tauton_ikhnos

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Y'know, since tauton did a better job than I did (  ),




 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm starting to think that for a 'mythic feel' nerfing and railroading are par for the course....I can't think of any significant literature or myth with the same amount of random chance, luck, and ingenuity possessed by one party of PC's. You put four players playing halflings in the position of Frodo & Co., with the same magic, same limits, same design, you don't get "Lord of the Rings" out the other end, you get people griping about uber-NPC's, and railroading ("I give the ring to Merry." "NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE PURE ENOUGH!" "I don't care, this isn't fun anymore." "ARGGH, MY CONTINUITY!!!!!").




Lord of the Rings, problem is that invisibility is not attractive enough to players. In book, ring _itself_ held sway over minds; hard to hold sway over players' minds . Suggest making ring provide _spellfire_ feat for free plus some spell level charges per day, and redefine spellfire as _brilliant energy_ (per the weapon enhancement), watch players murder each other over it .

Brilliant energy, of course, no effect on undead and ringwraiths 

Why destroy it? Because if Sauron gets it (and he has army of undead coming for players to ensure he does), he can decimate landscape with it.

Next point for Lord of the Rings: arduous journey will not be the same, but it will _still_ be arduous journey. Point is to make it tough, force sacrifices, to get where they are going. In some places, maybe REQUIRE the PC abilities to advance - instead of nerfing teleport, make it so that teleporting is the only way to survive, by staying a few steps ahead of the trace teleporting ring wraiths who are pursuing you, but only have a few teleports per day.

Could be done. Will add this to mythic high magic thread .


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure that a "mythic" feel is really appropriate for low magic, grim and gritty. Maybe the former, but not the latter. Something like the Game of Thrones or the Black Company is hardly mythic, and that's what I think of when I think of grim and gritty.



See if you can find a copy of _Excalibur_ at you local video store.  There's a whole new level of grit there, hard-core in some spots (particularly during the quest for the Grail).  The opening and ending battles are particularly grim.

We also find that Merlin did indeed have a worthy nemesis in Morgana, although Morgana wasn't necessarily more powerful then him; rather she had guile, deception, and sexuality to bolster her use (and aquisition) of magic.



> And that's why I like it, too. I'm not really aiming for mythic, I'm aiming more for a more verissimilitudinous (if that's even a word) game than standard D&D. I'm looking for _Call of Cthulhu_ in a fantasy setting with characters that are more pulp and swashbuckling in nature; a Robert E. Howard kinda feel, I guess. I don't see how that's mythic, but I see how low magic, and at least an element of grim and gritty (relative to D&D) is essential to that feel.



Yep.



> I think maybe the other issue is one of degree. In actuality, I'm not claiming that I like D&D to be more low magic or grim and gritty, because I don't consider my game to truly be D&D anymore. There's a big difference between low magic and grim and gritty that is defined as "some villages actually don't have 'Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe' and high-level clerics to do healing/restoration/resurrection" and "I've completely changed the classes and magic system to the point that my game isn't recognizably D&D, but is some other d20 game."



That's the spirit, ol' boy.


----------



## Desdichado

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> See if you can find a copy of _Excalibur_ at you local video store.  There's a whole new level of grit there, hard-core in some spots (particularly during the quest for the Grail).  The opening and ending battles are particularly grim.



I'll one-up you, actually, look for the Warlord Trilogy by Bernard Cornwell (_Winter King, Enemy of God_ and _Excalibur_) for a grim and gritty take on King Arthur that makes _Excalibur_ look downright hoaky in comparison.  But I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "mythic" feel; if anything, I think that's even more poorly defined than grim and gritty is.  _Excalibur_ and the Warlord Trilogy are arguably not very mythic; in fact, the Warlord Trilogy specifically attempts to reduce the Arthur legend to a believeable, "historical" fiction account.  And _Excalibur_ certainly doesn't feel much like _Le Mort d'Arthur_, so if one is mythic is the other not?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Not to curtail this discussion, but early on I made a distinction between tales of myth and fiction; out of pure laziness I stopped citing both.

But while I think that all myths make good fiction, not all fiction is necessarily "mythic."

And, of course, I still maintain that high-level D&D is not well-suited to replicating those certain key elements of good fiction. In my mind it really boils down to "conflict," in the generic and literary sense, and the many ways in which magic eases conflict.

There have been some good suggestions on "that other thread" that go a ways towards maintaining conflict and tension in other ways.

Wulf


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'll one-up you, actually, look for the Warlord Trilogy by Bernard Cornwell (_Winter King, Enemy of God_ and _Excalibur_) for a grim and gritty take on King Arthur that makes _Excalibur_ look downright hoaky in comparison.



Noted (and thanks!).  At any rate, I do see how _Excalibur_ can be viewed as hoaky; While the movie has a lot of great actors in it (including Patrick Stewart!), the over-abundance of Shakespearian acting does keep it on the "loved but not often watched" shelf.



> But I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "mythic" feel; if anything, I think that's even more poorly defined than grim and gritty is. _Excalibur_ and the Warlord Trilogy are arguably not very mythic; in fact, the Warlord Trilogy specifically attempts to reduce the Arthur legend to a believeable, "historical" fiction account. And _Excalibur_ certainly doesn't feel much like _Le Mort d'Arthur_, so if one is mythic is the other not?



Generally, the myth of Arthur and the Round Table has a tendancy of being viewed differently (anyone see the trailer for the supposedly "true" Arthur, imaginatively called _Arthur_?) by different people.  I would indeed regard both as mythical, although _Le Mort d'Arthur_ is arguably closer to the myth as it was during the time of its writing, with publication and other (modern) media since that time taking the legend in directions that it likely wouldn't have gone without such.

To a degree, that also relates to the lm vs hm aspect of these discussions: It's a question of how far from the origins of fantasy does the individual want to go.  High Magic repels the people it repels because it is _too_ far from the "source", to the point of not resembling it at all aside from weapons and armor, where as other material, or the same material "reigned in" to less common levels, brings the atmosphere of the game more in-line with its origins.

We can pretty much agree that, as a tale, _Le Mort d'Arthur_ is as close to "source" as one can get to the legend of Arthur, while _Excalibur_ returns to its source yet has its own spin on several story elements (and compare those elements to their portrayal in _Mists of Avalon_ for a completely different take).  And, given the political and religious climate of the (European) Dark Ages, each of these is a "believable myth" (Merlin's statement in _Excalibur_ that "the one God has come to replace the many" even explains why magic is no longer seen in our world today, by which the powers of Merlin and Morgana don't detract from the tale but reinforce it).  By comparison, Disney's _The Sword and the Stone_ only has a fleeting simularity to that same source, yet is itself the same tale.

And let's not even bring up _First Knight_.:\


----------



## WizarDru

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> We can pretty much agree that, as a tale, _Le Mort d'Arthur_ is as close to "source" as one can get to the legend of Arthur...



Well, it's as close as you're going to get for a modern expectation of the Arthurian Myths.  One has to remember that there were lots of them, written or invented over a long period of time, and Le Morte d'Arthur is just one collection, albeit the first definitive written version that we accept today as the standard.  One merely needs to ask "Who was Merlin?" to see how radically diverse the stories and myths were, although I think we can agree that 'Morte" is the most common baseline to work from.

GURPS King Arthur is a great book for this sort of thing.


----------



## Belegbeth

*G&G, LM DnD with UA*

Many people have claimed that the DnD rules are intrinsically incompatible with "grim and gritty" and/or "low magic" games.

Although I think that a lot can be done to promote a low magic and/or a grim and gritty feel based on how the DM manages her campaign, the new *Unearthed Arcana* book of variant rules appears to provide a few "crunchy" tools for playing such a campaign.

Introduce:

(1.)  The Vitality and Wound Points system.  (Adds some grimness to combat.)
(2.)  Use spell points, but with the "vitalizing" variant.  (Causes fatigue when casters use up half of their spell points; exhaustion when they use up two quarters of their spell points).
(3.)  Treat some/most high level (7+) spells as incantations.
(4.)  Use the generic classes (though you should probably give Experts a d8 HD and 8 skill points per level, to make them comparable to the other classes).  The Spellcaster, though she gains access to both divine and arcane spells, does not know nearly as many spells as most standard DnD spellcasters (I think she gets the sorcerer's "spells known" progression).

These variants -- all now part of the new and improved tasty WotC "DnD menu" -- can produce a relatively low magic, grim and gritty game!

Thoughts?  Comments?


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Well, mine just came today, and while there's a few things not to my taste, there are a few things I'd definitely would like to incorporate into my game.

Environment Variant Races (to fine tune races I already have as well as develop races I "know" are there but never wrote up)
Variant Scout and Thug (Side Note: Expert variant looks very much like my own version)
Variant Paladins (although as Prestige Classes)
Bard as a Prestige Class (something I'd been considering, now made easy for me)
Backgrounds (under consideration, will likely do something modeled in a similar fashion but more setting-specific)
Action Points (although giving less, just to "try them out")
Contacts (for fleshing out background; contacts are actually a common occurance in our game already, but this UA system is good for characters starting above 1st Level to determine past associates)
Reputation
Taint
Stuff I already use/have done include:

W&V (or essentially my own take, which I originally built from SW combined with various bits from message board discussions)
Spell Points with a Fatigue-like system is something I already have, converted from _Spells & Magic_.
Paladin as a Prestige Class (Barbarians and Monks, too)
Defense Bonus and DR for Armor (although Defense is scaled higher, combined with a defense roll, with your Defense roll effected by the Armor, thus providing a Defense mechanic that scales with the Attack mechanic)
Facing (based on MEG's Fighter's Corner)
Themed Summoning (albeit through a different method)
Legendary Weapons (from their initial release in _Swords of Our Fathers_)
Sanity (although becoming more familiar with these rules, combined with some commentary regarding them in the Sanity thread, I'm looking at the possibility of merging the system I use with the UA version; still not sure, yet, and will likely throw that one past the group for their opinion.)
Not sure if I'll actually use them, but I am looking over the Incantations and these do seem nice. Not entirely sure if I want to use them, as I already applied True Ritual rules to spells our group wanted to trim-down and I feel the two would occupy the same "niche" of spellcasting methodologies. I can see them having been a great addition if such wasn't the case already.


----------



## malladin

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> To me
> "Low magic" usually means "I hate handing out magical items, so I removed them, inadvertantly making anyone who plays a wizard or cleric significantly more powerful than the rest of the party, but that's ok, because I cover it by saying that wizards and clerics are uncommon. Even though there's one of each in every party."



Actually, I think that if you have a look at our DarkLore game you will see that, if anything, the reverse is true.  Yes, there is an emphasis on rarity of items and spells, but spellcasters are limited to 5th or 4th level spells whilst there is a system that allows characters to gain powerful items just by developing levels (The point of this is to emphasise that the items are rare and a significant part of the character, whilst not detracting from the enjoyment of having a FB Sword, Bow or whatever.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> "Grim and gritty" usually means "I love save vs death mechanics and I hate hitpoints. I've further devalued the fighters of the party by removing any staying power they have."



Largely a fair point. I do love 'save vs death' mechanics.  However, the fact that this system destroys the fighter's stickability is something that we have taken great care to consider.  Firstly, though, I need to say that we have completely removed the basic classes and replaced them with six more generic , readily multiclassable, basic classes, therefore allowing us to completely rework any balance issues appropriately.  I think this is actually a valid point you make here, and only by replacing the classes can we produce a system that is balanced.

I also think that this highlights another  aspect of 'Grim & Gritty'.  I think that versatile characters is an important part of toning down the setting.  In writing DarkLore I have tried to develop a 'fantasy novel' feel, taken from the types of fantasy novels I like, such as Tolkien, KJ Parker and Robin Hobb.  The characters in these stories are usually difficult to define as any one class and have a lot of different abilities and complex character histories.  With the versatile classes we've done for DarkLore and the free multiclassing I think we've highlighted this.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences.



Well, this is now where you start to get a bit silly.  I can understand that you don't like grim & gritty and previously had some reasonable arguments for why taking this apporach may unbalance the game.  Hopefully I have provided the counter argument to say that by putting the extra work you can get around these problems.  However to dismiss the concept in this manner is bigotted.

To say that DarkLore is ill thoughtout is so badly wrong it makes me laugh.  DarkLore is the culmination of probably about 60 years of roleplaying experience (4 people have been signifcantly involved with developing the setting ideas).  There's hundreds of pages of notes on history and the different nations, cosmology, secret societies, politics and the like.  Not only that, but it's been built by History, Paeleontology and Ecconomics graduates so has been developed with an eye to tying the world together in an ways that shows how the societies have developed and interacted with each other.

Anyway, what's wrong with thinking about my own DMing preferences?  I'm the one that puts the time into planning the adventures and making sure it all runs smoothly.  I think the whole game is a synergenic experience for all.  If the GM has a system they enjoy playing with the players will respons favourably whereas if the players are put off by the system

Ben, Malladin's Gate


----------



## Bendris Noulg

malladin said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that if you have a look at our DarkLore game you will see that, if anything, the reverse is true. Yes, there is an emphasis on rarity of items and spells, but spellcasters are limited to 5th or 4th level spells whilst there is a system that allows characters to gain powerful items just by developing levels (The point of this is to emphasise that the items are rare and a significant part of the character, whilst not detracting from the enjoyment of having a FB Sword, Bow or whatever.



Indeed, it's often the nature of most LM games to bestow the players with "upper level" items at "mid levels" (6-12) rather than a constant upgrading of items from minor to major. It's even occured where artifacts/epic items have landed in the hands of a low level character (although not being able to draw upon the "full might" of the item, or the item being most useful only in certain situations, are features often applied to provide balance).



> Largely a fair point. I do love 'save vs death' mechanics. However, the fact that this system destroys the fighter's stickability is something that we have taken great care to consider.



My solution in that regard was to alter the way Wounds are determined, being handled as (_Constitution x Size multiple) + BAB_. This has worked wonders to prevent melee types from being nerfed.



> I also think that this highlights another aspect of 'Grim & Gritty'. I think that versatile characters is an important part of toning down the setting. In writing DarkLore I have tried to develop a 'fantasy novel' feel, taken from the types of fantasy novels I like, such as Tolkien, KJ Parker and Robin Hobb. The characters in these stories are usually difficult to define as any one class and have a lot of different abilities and complex character histories. With the versatile classes we've done for DarkLore and the free multiclassing I think we've highlighted this.



Yep.

Question: By "free multiclassing", due you mean to indicate that there is no Exp penalty for "uneven" multiclassing? Reason I ask is that Favored Classes are, to a degree, a part of Racial balace, and while I dumped the penalty, I retained Favored Classes by applying a "reward" system for taking levels in the Class (that being the semi-popular +1 Skill Point per Class Level variant that you might have seen pop up on the boards from time to time).



> Well, this is now where you start to get a bit silly. I can understand that you don't like grim & gritty and previously had some reasonable arguments for why taking this apporach may unbalance the game. Hopefully I have provided the counter argument to say that by putting the extra work you can get around these problems. However to dismiss the concept in this manner is bigotted.



Welcome to the club.:\ 



> To say that DarkLore is ill thoughtout is so badly wrong it makes me laugh. DarkLore is the culmination of probably about 60 years of roleplaying experience (4 people have been signifcantly involved with developing the setting ideas). There's hundreds of pages of notes on history and the different nations, cosmology, secret societies, politics and the like. Not only that, but it's been built by History, Paeleontology and Ecconomics graduates so has been developed with an eye to tying the world together in an ways that shows how the societies have developed and interacted with each other.



How much of it's on the web? Sounds like a good read.



> Anyway, what's wrong with thinking about my own DMing preferences? I'm the one that puts the time into planning the adventures and making sure it all runs smoothly. I think the whole game is a synergenic experience for all. If the GM has a system they enjoy playing with the players will respons favourably whereas if the players are put off by the system



I've had good experiences in this regard; Indeed, my players were put off by 3E and insisted that I wouldn't be able to preserve the feel and flavor of our campaign if we converted. After explaining the d20 engine and how it works, and that seperating the operating mechanic from the conditions and expectations of D&D itself was possible, they got really excited. And while a bit _has_ changed from the 2E campaign regarding mechanics and meta-game set ups (and after 3 years is _still_ being thought out and improved on through continued game play), flavor and fairness have definately been retained, much to the delight of my group.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> My solution in that regard was to alter the way Wounds are determined, being handled as (_Constitution x Size multiple) + BAB_. This has worked wonders to prevent melee types from being nerfed.




Grim Tales sets the Massive Damage Threshold at CON + armor + natural armor. In effect, an attack must pierce both the armor and the CON to force a Massive Damage save.

I find that in gritty games overall, damage dealing capacity is also reduced. Giving a dragon a MAS of CON x Size effectively means the MAS will never be used.

On the other hand, since natural armor scales up with size anyway, I found it works pretty good to increase MAS without necessarily putting it out of reach entirely.

Although Grim Tales is low magic, it remains high adventure/action, so dropping a dragon with a shot to the heart should remain a (albeit distant) possibility.

I also made a last-minute incorporation of the Armor Damage Conversion rules from Unearthed Arcana, though those are optional. As noted in UA, that particular rule doesn't change the duration of combat, it merely means that most combats will end with unconscious characters, rather than dead ones. (Which, in itself, has its own grim implications.)


Wulf


----------



## Bendris Noulg

What's the target date on that, anyways?  The more you post, the more I'm itching to get it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> What's the target date on that, anyways?  The more you post, the more I'm itching to get it.




Perfectionism yields delays, as always, but it's finally going to print this weekend.

Any plans to review it?


Wulf


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Well, I don't actually do reviews, but if you know my postings at all, then you know that if I like it, I'll plug it (and if I use it, it gets a banner on my site ).


----------



## malladin

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> My solution in that regard was to alter the way Wounds are determined, being handled as (_Constitution x Size multiple) + BAB_. This has worked wonders to prevent melee types from being nerfed.



That's an interesting idea.  Our philosophy with DarkLore was a fantasy-ised D20 Modern, so we simply adapted the D20M massive damage mechanic, but borrowed Mutants and Mastermind's critical hit system to end up with something which copes with reducing a character's abiluity as they take critical hits (one of the best things about the storyteller system style health levels) whilst retaining the need for them to keep an eye on those nasty little nicks that can add up to them blacking out (which storyteller health levels does not account very well for.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Question: By "free multiclassing", due you mean to indicate that there is no Exp penalty for "uneven" multiclassing? Reason I ask is that Favored Classes are, to a degree, a part of Racial balace, and while I dumped the penalty, I retained Favored Classes by applying a "reward" system for taking levels in the Class (that being the semi-popular +1 Skill Point per Class Level variant that you might have seen pop up on the boards from time to time).



We got around that by completely rejigging the race system.  Now all races can freely multiclass and get a bonus feat, but only humans get a free choice on these feats.  This means that most other races are a little more powerful, as they tend to be in the literature, particularly Tolkein.  So we came up with a new mechanic for letting people play more powerful races which doesn't involve messing around with ECLs.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> How much of it's on the web? Sounds like a good read.



As a PDF product its all 'on the web', but unfortunately not all for free. we have a preview available from this link: 
http://www.malladinsgate.com/downloads/previews/DarkLorePreview.zip
This has the basic classes, prior to a slight reshuffle following 3.5 release.  The product is self is only $5 and can be downloaded from RPGNow (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2146&).  Plus all our takings go to ENWorld's continued upkeep.

Cheerio,

Ben


----------



## Bendris Noulg

malladin said:
			
		

> As a PDF product its all 'on the web', but unfortunately not all for free. we have a preview available from this link:
> http://www.malladinsgate.com/downloads/previews/DarkLorePreview.zip
> This has the basic classes, prior to a slight reshuffle following 3.5 release. The product is self is only $5 and can be downloaded from RPGNow (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2146&).



Kewl...



> Plus all our takings go to ENWorld's continued upkeep.



Hmmm...  That is interesting.  How's that work exactly?


----------



## takyris

Great thread.  *GREAT* thread.

Not much to add -- I've done D&D and d20 Modern recently.  d20 Modern ended up being lmgng, since the characters were ordinary folks investigating an island with Odd Occurrences.  After the TPK (ah, Takyris the new d20M GM, with his less than stellar grasp of the mechanics and consequences thereof), we played other stuff for awhile.

I recently asked my players what they wanted to do for the next game.  A low-magic historical-setting game was on the list.  I said I'd be using d20 Modern classes and rules, with skills and some class abilities altered to keep things balanced (ie, making an Alchemist to replace the Techie AdC).  My players, as a group, said, "Nah, not interested.  If we're playing in a fantasy game, we want to be able to blow stuff up."

Case closed. The DM's job is to give the players the kind of game they want.

Personally, I can enjoy either.  I enjoyed Pirates of the Carribean, which was low-magic -- no spellcasters, one magical effect -- and I enjoy watching Justice League -- all kinds of people with amazingly powerful powers.  i can get a sense of character from both.  Both held vast amounts of enjoyment for me.  For me, the key is to know which one I want to play, and which one I want to DM, and which one my players want me to DM.

Depending on the exact definition of gng, however, I'm not sure I'm as interested.  Was PotC grim & gritty?  Nobody took on a full regiment of soldiers -- when the heroes did, they got captured.  On the other hand, nobody lost an eye or suffered internal bleeding or anything like that.  It is, as people better than I have noted, a spectrum.  At various levels of grittyness, you get, for one melee attack of a mid-level character by another mid-level character:

Grittiness level:

Low: You slash at him, and he flies backward and crushes a brick wall from the sheer force of your power.  Then he gets up, sneers, and says, "It'll take more than that to take down Ol' Gruff!"

Medium: You slash at him, and he parries but seems a little slower to react now -- maybe you nicked him?

High: You slash at him, and he takes a slash across his hip as he tries to parry.  He's bleeding freely, and he's going to be slowed down if he tries to move very quickly.

Uber: You slash at him, and you hit.  Hold on, I'm going to make his Pain Threshold check, his Shock check, his Fear check, his Arterial check, his Bone Chip check, his Tendon check, and his Musculature check.  I'll wait on Disease and Rust Poisoning until after the combat.

Frankly, I like swashbuckling in my fantasy.  Swashbucklers don't take on entire regiments -- or, if they do, it's because they're leaping across tables and slashing the ropes holding candelabras and such.  It's not because they're cutting a swath through the entirety of the town guard.  That said, swashbucklers also don't die from a single hit unless they're fighting someone MUCH more powerful than they are.

Ergo, that's what I tend to play.  d20 Modern lets me get most of that, and D&D lets me get the rest.  And M&M lets me shoot laser beams.  Come on.  Laser beams.  Don't tell me you never wanted to shoot laser beams...


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Yeah, I think your "levels" of GnG are fairly accurate. I'm also thinking that most people that want GnG in their games are likely aiming at Medium to High.

Unfortunatly, what most people fear (and thus what they rant against with "wide brush stroke" statements about GnG in general) is Uber.

(Personally, I'm a tad above High, but still not as deep as you've described Uber.)


----------



## takyris

Whew.  I'm glad my Uber check was over the top.  I never got through a solid game of Phoenix Command, or whatever it was, so I never figured out exactly how many rolls were in there.

I think that if I wanna play superheroes, I go for Low, and if I want to play fantasy, I'm either at Medium or High.  d20M plays like medium, but can play like high with a few alterations to the system*.  D&D usually plays like Medium, but can play like Low if the DM messes around with the flavor text.

*: Mainly, making long-term consequences for injuries and having people take penalties if they get hit for Massive Damage.  The former can often be roleplayed or rolled for when somebody gets nearly killed, while the latter can work as simply as "Every time you get hit for enough lethal damage to force a Massive Damage save, regardless of the result, you are at a -2 penalty until all damage caused by that attack is healed.  When you drop to three-quarters, one-half, and one-quarter of your hit points, you take a cumulative -2 penalty.  These penalties apply to attacks, saves, skill checks, ability checks, and pretty much any roll of the d20."


----------



## rounser

A recap?

1) Presenting challenges commensurate with PC level = Good.
2) Nerfing PC abilities to present viable challenges = Bad.

Therefore, I think we're back to The Hong Principle, whereby if you're nerfing PC abilities to present a particular type of challenge, the challenge is too low level for them.  I bet it's hard writing plots to challenge Superman too...

On the other hand, a good deal of the last 12 pages is dedicated to proving that the scope of the stories you can run at high level is too small, and therefore campaigns that patch this apparent problem with the game are legit.  And a handful of spells have been identified as being perhaps more trouble than they're worth in terms of the way they can potentially shutdown stories.  But removing them is still considered somewhat bad, especially from the perspective of players - refer to (2).

Hmmm...


----------



## malladin

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Malladin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus all our takings go to ENWorld's continued upkeep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... That is interesting. How's that work exactly?
Click to expand...


I get an itemised sales report and all the money that I take for DarkLore I save in my bank account. Every so often I send Morrus a cheque in the post (which reminds me, I need to send one now).

Cheerio,

Ben


----------



## malladin

rounser said:
			
		

> A recap?
> 
> 1) Presenting challenges commensurate with PC level = Good.
> 2) Nerfing PC abilities to present viable challenges = Bad.



How about this recap:

1.  Some GMs like their games to capture the feel and mood of the fantasy novels that inspire them to roleplay
2.  Some players don't like having their characters pegged back a bit in order to achieve this.

Ben

PS Not trying to be obnoctious, more presenting an alternative that is equally valid (which is to say both are only partly true  )


----------



## WizarDru

rounser said:
			
		

> On the other hand, a good deal of the last 12 pages is dedicated to proving that the scope of the stories you can run at high level is too small, and therefore campaigns that patch this apparent problem with the game are legit.



I was with you up until this point.  

If you were to say that the last 12 pages have been dedicated to discussing how high-level D&D becomes a significantly different game from low-level D&D, and that different people enjoy the aspects of one over the other.  

When writing stories for Superman, you have a problem in that Superman started as moderately powerful, and then got more powerful over time, not unlike a PC.  Eventually, he became so powerful that the only significant challenges that could be thrown at him were ludicrous or uninteresting.  At that point, you have two choices, retool or restart.  DC 'started a new campaign', so to speak, and rebooted Superman to match his late 1930s/early 1940s version.  That lasted for several years, with him gaining more power each year, until we're where we are today.  

Currently, DC is in the retool mode, which is like high-level D&D: changing the challenges so that they're not strictly combat-oriented.  Dealing with problems that pure physical force alone cannot solve, relational difficulties, political dilemmas and so forth.  The whole "President Lex" concept was a direct extension of that, and something of a retooling of the "Untouchable and powerful businessman" of the mid-80s reboot.  Sure, Superman could kill Lex with a wave of his hand (or, as in the animated Justice League, with a blast of his eyes)...but it's not that simple.  

Some folks don't enjoy that style of play.  That hardly equates to a limited scope.  Still others can enjoy multiple play styles, and recognize the inherent strengths and weaknesses in each one.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Actually, I must agree with this...


			
				rounser said:
			
		

> 1) Presenting challenges commensurate with PC level = Good.
> 2) Nerfing PC abilities to present viable challenges = Bad.



The funny part is, LM/GnG games more often than not _lower_ the power level associated to PC Level, and thus seek to present challenges commensurate with PC level on its new scale.  On the other hand, reading the "how to" thread, I see post after post of arbitrary decisions resulting in "nerfs" in order to make high magic games work.

So, yes, I agree that rounser is correct in the first part of his statement; far more correct than he likely realised.


----------



## Orius

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Indeed, it's often the nature of most LM games to bestow the players with "upper level" items at "mid levels" (6-12) rather than a constant upgrading of items from minor to major.




I'd say that's really more a of a classic D&D thing, hearkening back to the days when groups would usually advance to "name level" and start over againwith a new group of PCs.


----------



## Orius

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think your "levels" of GnG are fairly accurate. I'm also thinking that most people that want GnG in their games are likely aiming at Medium to High.
> 
> Unfortunatly, what most people fear (and thus what they rant against with "wide brush stroke" statements about GnG in general) is Uber.




Well, for me the biggest problem with Uber is the insane number of dice rolls and detail, not necessarily flavor.   That's way too much to keep track of in combat, and it would horribly bog the game.  Yes, I know it was an exaggeration, but for me, I'd rather describe damage by comparing how much damage is done vs. number of hp the target has.  If the damage is a small percentage of hps, then it's a scratch, a glancing blow, or a flesh wound.  Medium percentage would be a more seerious, yet not-life threatening wound, and so on.  A crit that knocks the target down to -10 hp would be a decapitation, a heart-piercing thrust or so on.  This is just another thing a DM learns how to do with experience, IMO.


----------



## rounser

> I was with you up until this point.
> 
> If you were to say that the last 12 pages have been dedicated to discussing how high-level D&D becomes a significantly different game from low-level D&D, and that different people enjoy the aspects of one over the other.



Eh, I think you're pussyfooting around the issue there.  The drive of Wulf's argument was that you can't run as many kinds of stories at high level because PC abilities will defuse the plot, and he has a point there.  Some others were saying that nerfing of some player abilities at high level to enable a wider range of stories is not a good solution for that problem, and they have a point too.

Mix in player memories of low magic being associated with control freak DMs wielding bad house rules, and our resident DMs running low magic games who claim they don't deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the deadbeats, and you get enough fuel for a thread this long.


----------



## Brilbadr

I think the answer here is simple. You present your players with a book with the rules in before they agree to play and say "hey guys, what do you think of these rules-you'll notice that spellcasters are both weaker and more feared" (or whatever take on magic you want) If they say - nah, then fair enough. I think where people get upset is where the goal posts move, or where they didn't know where they were in the first place.

I know the book has spelling mistakes but..
Get Conan d20!
It will change your perspective on "low magic" 
You can have mystery and spell casters. You just need to avoid having "Tim the Enchanter" remember him, out of Holy Grail. That is a 3.5 warwizard (minitures handbook). How mysterious? About as mystical as a flamethrower and a howitzer

I'll say it again. Read/Beg/Borrow Conan. Stop arguing. Go and get it now.  
Actualy the barbarian class (the first in the book) is way over the top from my perspective and we actualy play with the standard 3.5 barbarian, but hey I think they wanted a Conan in every party. And the money rules are a bit "we are drunken barbarian idiots" oriented but hey, you take what you need. And you all need the magic system. Well most of you.
Go an get it.


----------



## I'm A Banana

The only place I got upset is in the claim that normal magic limits story creativity, which is why I posted the how-to thread, which contains more than just nerfs and ways around the abilities for those who care to read it.

It has, I hope, shown that you can be just as creative and engaging in high power as in low power...it's just a matter of scale. On one end, the DM can reliably control and manipulate events to their desire because minor changes are significant (a +1 means something, it can be 'powerful'). At the other end, DM's need more major changes, and need to prepare for PC's 'outsmarting' them and taking their own route to the goals (a +1 is nothing, a +10 might be 'powerful').

Low magic/grim-n-gritty is first an issue of flavor, and second, and more subtly, an issue of DM control over the events in the game. Not all DMs enjoy rolling with the punches at high levels, not all can plan or free-form to that level, not all are happy with letting the players effectively 'cut out the middleman.' Not all players enjoy setting the stage to that degree, or feeling that powerful while still undertaking the quest.

Both are valid, and neither limits the creativity of a good DM in any way. You can have an arduous journey just as well in high-level normal D&D as you can in low-magic D&D, just as simply -- the high-level normal D&D arduous journey will have particular elements that not all DMs or players are comfortable with (such as requiring that each step on the journey be significant), however, just as the low-magic/gng D&D arduous journey will have particular elements that not all players or DM's are comfortable with (such as the risk to life and limb posed by nameless NPC brigands against the *heroes*). High magic games work just fine, and are capable of the same things as low magic, just with a different flavor, and it only ruffles my feathers when people claim they don't....

....and I will admit that Hong has a point....


----------



## WizarDru

rounser said:
			
		

> Eh, I think you're pussyfooting around the issue there. The drive of Wulf's argument was that you can't run as many kinds of stories at high level because PC abilities will defuse the plot, and he has a point there. Some others were saying that nerfing of some player abilities at high level to enable a wider range of stories is not a good solution for that problem, and they have a point too.



Neither of which was the sole focus of the thread, as you were representing it.

Either way, this is the crux of what I'm not agreeing with...you say "less" and I say "different".  Can you do a mystery at high level?  Yes, but it will not be of the 'four people in a room, the door was locked, whodunnit?' variety.  There are new and different kinds of stories that can only be done at high level to take the place of low-level adventures.  There are not fewer types of stories, but if you only want to tell certain types of stories, then you *will* have a problem, becuase high level magic *will* sufficiently defuse those stories.

As PC has said, instead of nerfing character abilities, you require them.  I certainly don't advocate removing players hard-won abilities, and I agree that developing solutions that deny them those powers to make the game work is a poor solution.  That's not the same thing as saying that high-level games are less varied than low-level games.  And many games will work at any level, such as the politics that occured in my game last night, which would have worked at 3rd level as well as 23rd level....but not the specific elements, such as the requirement that the PCs teleport to four different locations that are all over the world, for example, or the interaction with their ancient gold dragon mentor and the repelling of an invasion and the discussion of constructing a new mage's guild in the aftermath of the near-apocalypse.  It's all relative.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> High magic games work just fine, and are capable of the same things as low magic, just with a different flavor, and it only ruffles my feathers when people claim they don't....




They work just fine and are capable of the same things as low magic, _except_ of course, for capturing the flavor found in the bulk of myth and fiction.

"Just with a different flavor" isn't something you can just wave off, it's the heart of the matter, or so I perceived this discussion.


Wulf


----------



## d4

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> "Just with a different flavor" isn't something you can just wave off, it's the heart of the matter, or so I perceived this discussion.



some people like original recipe, other people go for extra crispy. it's all a matter of taste.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

d4 said:
			
		

> some people like original recipe, other people go for extra crispy. it's all a matter of taste.



True, and agreed upon several times already in this thread.  To carry your analogy to the current point of discussion, however, it would be akin to saying that you can get original using the extra crispy recipe by virtue of saying that it's still chicken (which won't get you anywhere except my grandma complaining about crispy pieces getting caught in her partials).


----------



## Dark Jezter

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> They work just fine and are capable of the same things as low magic, _except_ of course, for capturing the flavor found in the bulk of myth and fiction.
> 
> "Just with a different flavor" isn't something you can just wave off, it's the heart of the matter, or so I perceived this discussion.
> 
> 
> Wulf



 Folklore and mythology are also commonly filled with incestuous themes, but you don't see people scrambling to import those in their D&D campaigns. 

At least, not in any campaign I've played in.


----------



## Altalazar

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Folklore and mythology are also commonly filled with incestuous themes, but you don't see people scrambling to import those in their D&D campaigns.
> 
> At least, not in any campaign I've played in.




That is a very good point.  I think perhaps that is part of the problem here - the great stories of myth often have a specific lesson to import - they are very specifically crafted to do so - and actual games where you have four or more players each doing their own thing just do not lend themselves to the kind of control necessary to craft a story of mythic proportions.  Not unless the DM railroads could such a result be guaranteed.  Which ties in again to the common complaint by those who dislike magic - that they have their options "limited" in making a plot - which to me sounds like frustration with attempts to railroad that get derailed by player's abilities.  

If your plot requires players be absolutely unable to do something or require them to be absolutely unable to figure out something until times designated by the DM, it starts to smell and sound like railroading to me.  

Now, this is separate from "grim and gritty," just to be clear.

Also, myths and legends often included larger than life characters - the stuff of epic level characters.  Paul Bunyon, for instance.  

I think if one is creative, one can craft just as fine a plot, magic or not.  If there is an engaging story with interesting NPCs a night of fun can be had regardless of what level spells are tossed around.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> They work just fine and are capable of the same things as low magic, except of course, for capturing the flavor found in the bulk of myth and fiction.




Well, assuming that "the bulk of myth and fiction" has a consistent flavor (it doesn't), I thought I had shown that the plot points in these stories can still exist in high-level D&D, they'll just have different trappings. A mystery is still a mystery, wether it's four people in a room and one dies, or it's a grand interplanar conspiracy involving the deities that may threaten entire worlds. Some people more like the former, some people more like the latter, and they BOTH capture the flavor of a mystery. And arduous journey is still and arduous journey, wether it's a road full of brigands on the way to market, or an river through the heavens collecting the parts of a shattered deity. An assassinated noble is still an assassinated noble wether he died from a knife in the back and complications during surgery or by a Sphere of Annihiliation. They have different flavor, but the same basic points of plot and conflict. You can choose from either -- you are not 'forced' to play Low-Magic D&D at high levels just to replicate certain points of conflict between the PC's and their enemies.



> "Just with a different flavor" isn't something you can just wave off, it's the heart of the matter, or so I perceived this discussion.




But what I'm saying is that they're both capable of the same basic structure of conflict and resolution. It's okay to differ on the enjoyment of the ways in which the means and ends are accomplished....it's okay to like nickel-and-diming food and hp more than nickel-and-diming third-level spells. The point is, they're both nickel-and-diming, and they create the same conflicts, the same emotions, low magic or high magic. Neither is 'better at nickel-and-diming' than the other, it just takes a different form in each, ones uniquely suited to the flavor that the DMs wish to capture.

To take the chicken analogy further, Original Recepie isn't any better at satisfying hunger than Extra Tasty Crispy....they do the same things in the end. Some would rather eat one, and some the other, but it's not like Extra Tasty Crispy has some key ingredient of hunger-absolving that Original Recepie doesn't. It just tastes different. It has different ingredients. It's not like Original Recepie can't sate your hunger, it's just that you'd prefer to have Extra Tasty Crispy, and I've never said that's wrong.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Altalazar said:
			
		

> Which ties in again to the common complaint by those who dislike magic - that they have their options "limited" in making a plot - which to me sounds like frustration with attempts to railroad that get derailed by player's abilities.



Well, we've got yet another insinuation that low magic equates to bad GMing, but I'll ignore that little gem of bigotry and address the relevant issue...

In my experience as a player, I've seen high magic used by GMs to railroad and screw PCs so often that I started GMing to provide my friends with a game that didn't include _any_ of that nonsense, which inevitably led me down the road to low magic, and, I must say, I'm still a gamer because of it.

None of my players feel that their choices are limited or that they are railroaded in any regard.  Indeed, what they see is options within a viable campaign world that they prefer over the other games available to them (most of which are "core" games).  Sure, they aren't the _same_ options as one would have in a high magic game, but options are there and choices are theirs to make.

Anyone that's experienced the opposite didn't experience a low magic game, they experienced a bad GM, and bad GMs are not unique to any form or flavor of magic.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Altalazar said:
			
		

> If your plot requires players be absolutely unable to do something or require them to be absolutely unable to figure out something until times designated by the DM, it starts to smell and sound like railroading to me.



It also sounds like most of the adventures I've seen WotC produce.

But seriously, consider just about every movie, novel, comic book, and other adventure-based tale written.  Almost every one of them involve twists, turns, unexpected facts, and other items that change the direction of the story.  D&D is the only facet of the fantasy genre I know of where people _expect_ to be able to jump through to the end and eliminate the big baddy, and where the right question (_commune_) removes any sense of ambiguity from the tale in regards to morals, ethics, and best course of action.  Sure, these can be "trumped", either through more magic or simple GM's fiat (the "How To" thread has several shining examples of just that), but that just turns back to the one-up-manship problem that high magic eventually escalates to.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Folklore and mythology are also commonly filled with incestuous themes, but you don't see people scrambling to import those in their D&D campaigns.



Well, there is a certain father/daughter thing going on in _Vile Darkness_.  My own setting features a noble family with a 15 year old daughter that has, ehr, gained "control" over the _entire_ family (_Erotic Fantasy_, _Vile Darkness_, and _Fading Suns'_ Psionics make an interesting combination).


----------



## I'm A Banana

> But seriously, consider just about every movie, novel, comic book, and other adventure-based tale written. Almost every one of them involve twists, turns, unexpected facts, and other items that change the direction of the story. D&D is the only facet of the fantasy genre I know of where people expect to be able to jump through to the end and eliminate the big baddy,




That is because D&D is a game, an interactive exercise in imagination, while movies, novels, comic-books, and other adventure-based written tales are passive enjoyment of art. 

D&D was never meant to be a point-A to point-B plot progression (except maybe in the dungeons)...and that's why it's 'different.' Because it's not a story, it's not a movie, it's not a comic book, it's not a written tale that someone is supposed to read. It's a game. And games involve random chance, the threat of winning or loosing, and require the players to think like their characters. Writing any of those things, as someone who has done that, and gotten paid, in a non-D&D sense, does not involve any amount of interaction. You write, they read. That's why D&D is a game, and not an excersie in collaborative fiction. Movies, myths, comic-books, novels, and other adventure tales are passive. D&D is not.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> D&D was never meant to be a point-A to point-B plot progression (except maybe in the dungeons)...and that's why it's 'different.' Because it's not a story, it's not a movie, it's not a comic book, it's not a written tale that someone is supposed to read. It's a game. And games involve random chance, the threat of winning or loosing, and require the players to think like their characters. Writing any of those things, as someone who has done that, and gotten paid, in a non-D&D sense, does not involve any amount of interaction. You write, they read. That's why D&D is a game, and not an excersie in collaborative fiction. Movies, myths, comic-books, novels, and other adventure tales are passive. D&D is not.



Which would be why I play d20 Fantasy games and not D&D...  D&D is too limited in scope.

See, the _only_ difference between an RPG and a written tale is in the main characters.  In a written tale, the author has complete authoritative control over _everything_.  In an RPG, the GM has complete authoritative control over everything _except the main characters_.  Yes, this makes the creative process of the tale _different_ than a one-author novel, but that doesn't make it any less a tale.  Just look at the Story Hours; these are game sessions transcribed into written form after play has occured, being examples of exactly what I'm talking about here, and many of them have exactly the same kind of features I've indicated and that you are calling irrelevant to game play.

Really, the only difference I see between high and low is how the ends are achieved.  In a low magic game, it's through the rarity, unavailability, and unsurity of magic.  In a high magic game, it's through trumps, one-up-manship, and fiat.  I mean, as a player, I'd rather work harder to gain something _later_ that will almost always function, than to have something practically given to me early that can be trumped over half the time in an escalating arms race with the GM.  As a GM, I'd rather reduce character power over-all in order to focus on story, plot, and setting, rather than being forced by high magic rules to _waste_ my time calculating which trumps have to be put in place to keep the PCs powers in check for a given adventure or scenario, allowing my players to focus on role-play and adventure goals instead of trying to one-up me.


----------



## WizarDru

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Yes, this makes the creative process of the tale _different_ than a one-author novel, but that doesn't make it any less a tale. Just look at the Story Hours; these are game sessions transcribed into written form after play has occured, being examples of exactly what I'm talking about here, and many of them have exactly the same kind of features I've indicated and that you are calling irrelevant to game play.



So you're using the Story Hours to defend the idea of D&D needing to emulate myth?  Reading things like Wulf's, Destan's, Piratecat's or my story hour should make it abundantly clear that those story hours DO NOT make good stories in the traditional sense, per se.  Note how Destan's and Wulf's story hour ends, or the sometimes extremely transparent outside metagame elements in my or Piratecat's story hour.  In a traditional story or myth, such elements as "character X got lost in a time flux accident and no one bats an eye about their friend of the last decade disappearing" or "character Y drops out and we get no closure about their personal story arc" just wouldn't fly, whereas they are accepted within the Story Hour format.  The same way that an unchronicled character, such as Stone Bear, Agar, Shorty or Bolo can show up and become an instant main character with little or no introduction in the greater story, and becomes virtually instantly accepted in the fold with no real character development.

Further, based on what I've seen PC, Destan and Sepulchrave comment on in their respective threads and from personal experience with my own hour, I know that what you're reading is the EDITED version of events.  You get the S. Morgenstern "Good Parts" version, ala the Princess Bride.  That isn't to say that the story hours aren't based on excellent games...just that the excellent writers involved in some of these story hours are as much a part of their success as the actual game they chronicle.  

Now, as to your feelings about the differences in high and low magic, I'll just agree to disagree.   I find my players tire of repetition, and that your experiences and theirs differs, sometimes a little, sometimes a great deal.


----------



## Altalazar

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Well, we've got yet another insinuation that low magic equates to bad GMing, but I'll ignore that little gem of bigotry and address the relevant issue...
> 
> In my experience as a player, I've seen high magic used by GMs to railroad and screw PCs so often that I started GMing to provide my friends with a game that didn't include _any_ of that nonsense, which inevitably led me down the road to low magic, and, I must say, I'm still a gamer because of it.
> 
> None of my players feel that their choices are limited or that they are railroaded in any regard.  Indeed, what they see is options within a viable campaign world that they prefer over the other games available to them (most of which are "core" games).  Sure, they aren't the _same_ options as one would have in a high magic game, but options are there and choices are theirs to make.
> 
> Anyone that's experienced the opposite didn't experience a low magic game, they experienced a bad GM, and bad GMs are not unique to any form or flavor of magic.




I was specifically referring to the complaints made by SOME (not all) who run low magic due to a desire not to have their plots "foiled" by player powers.  I meant no bigotry.  In fact, one could even argue that railroading, when done right, can lead to a good campaign, but I digress.

It is simply a basic truth that the less power the PCs have, the easier it is to limit their choices as a DM when setting up a campaign.  DMs, as absolute powers within their worlds, can railroad the PCs equally well with high or low magic - that is actually completely irrelevant.  A world with NO magic could have a DM still just arbitrarily have an army of 1000 warriors surround and capture the PCs and there isn't much they can do about it.  So the notion that high magic == more DM railroading is a non-sequitor.


----------



## Altalazar

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> It also sounds like most of the adventures I've seen WotC produce.
> 
> But seriously, consider just about every movie, novel, comic book, and other adventure-based tale written.  Almost every one of them involve twists, turns, unexpected facts, and other items that change the direction of the story.  D&D is the only facet of the fantasy genre I know of where people _expect_ to be able to jump through to the end and eliminate the big baddy, and where the right question (_commune_) removes any sense of ambiguity from the tale in regards to morals, ethics, and best course of action.  Sure, these can be "trumped", either through more magic or simple GM's fiat (the "How To" thread has several shining examples of just that), but that just turns back to the one-up-manship problem that high magic eventually escalates to.




I thought WotC didn't make modules...   

And there is nothing preventing twists and turns within a plot - but in gaming, one should always be prepared to accept that sometimes the players will anticipate the unlikliest of twists, and other times they will completely miss the most obvious twist of all.  Now, it may be that much of D&D is stuck in the rut of formulaic adventures with a BBEG encounter at the end, but that is really a separate issue from high or low magic.


----------



## Altalazar

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Which would be why I play d20 Fantasy games and not D&D...  D&D is too limited in scope.
> 
> See, the _only_ difference between an RPG and a written tale is in the main characters.  In a written tale, the author has complete authoritative control over _everything_.  In an RPG, the GM has complete authoritative control over everything _except the main characters_.  Yes, this makes the creative process of the tale _different_ than a one-author novel, but that doesn't make it any less a tale.  Just look at the Story Hours; these are game sessions transcribed into written form after play has occured, being examples of exactly what I'm talking about here, and many of them have exactly the same kind of features I've indicated and that you are calling irrelevant to game play.
> 
> Really, the only difference I see between high and low is how the ends are achieved.  In a low magic game, it's through the rarity, unavailability, and unsurity of magic.  In a high magic game, it's through trumps, one-up-manship, and fiat.  I mean, as a player, I'd rather work harder to gain something _later_ that will almost always function, than to have something practically given to me early that can be trumped over half the time in an escalating arms race with the GM.  As a GM, I'd rather reduce character power over-all in order to focus on story, plot, and setting, rather than being forced by high magic rules to _waste_ my time calculating which trumps have to be put in place to keep the PCs powers in check for a given adventure or scenario, allowing my players to focus on role-play and adventure goals instead of trying to one-up me.





I think you have a somewhat limited view of just what high magic is and can be.  You also seem to have very specific ideas about what gaming means overall (from the comments on gaming analogized as writing a story).  Which is fine, but it seems to be limiting this discussion, as I don't quite think we're effectively communicating with each other.  As I think someone else has said, D&D is not storymaking - it is really as open ended as real life, in many ways.  The "Stars" of the game are the players and they are utterly free of any DM control.  So where the "story" goes is really ultimately outside of DM control as well.  There is nothing stopping the whole group from just abandoning the DM's plot completely and starting one of their own, if they are so inclined.  And as for what high magic means, it is not just some sort of escalating arms race.  I've played high level adventures where there was a lot of magic available where there really wasn't terribly much actual magical activity going on.  A few spells here and there, but mostly your typical NPC interactions and exploration and dealing with problems.  

My guess is that you've had some bad experiences with some poorly run games that happened to be high magic and that is coloring your perceptions of it.  If I could, I'd love to run a "high" (really medium magic - standard core D&D) magic game that you could play in just to give you the chance to experience a fresh perspective on the matter.  Heck, I'd love to play in general right now.  (No time of late).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Altalazar said:
			
		

> It is simply a basic truth that the less power the PCs have, the easier it is to limit their choices as a DM when setting up a campaign.




Easier, yes, but there are fewer limitations in actual practice. In a low-magic game, while your imagination is certainly constrained by the campaign "reality," you are far less likely to come up with an idea that has been specifically trumped by the DM. (Far less likely to hear, "That doesn't work..." or "You can't do that..." or "For some reason, magic is different here...")

The amount of front-end work required of the DM to curb, curtail, limit, head-off, and otherwise railroad the PCs is far more often a feature of a high-magic game than a low-magic game.

The examples of "high magic play" put forward in this thread and the other are stark proof of that.


Wulf


----------



## Altalazar

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Easier, yes, but there are fewer limitations in actual practice. In a low-magic game, while your imagination is certainly constrained by the campaign "reality," you are far less likely to come up with an idea that has been specifically trumped by the DM. (Far less likely to hear, "That doesn't work..." or "You can't do that..." or "For some reason, magic is different here...")
> 
> The amount of front-end work required of the DM to curb, curtail, limit, head-off, and otherwise railroad the PCs is far more often a feature of a high-magic game than a low-magic game.
> 
> The examples of "high magic play" put forward in this thread and the other are stark proof of that.
> 
> 
> Wulf




I've never had to deal with that in running or playing high magic, with the odd exception of anti-magic zones, which can be interesting in their own right.  Spells just work, and the DM takes into account that they are there and what happens, appropriately, when they are used.  

Why does the DM need to curb ANYTHING upfront in such a manner?  The only reason I can think of is perhaps an attempt to play a higher level game as if it were still a low-level game by negating all of the higher level magic.  But then, if you do that, might as well just start over at first level.  

You can't design an adventure around a wilderness trek when you know your party can just teleport to their destination.  If the DM just says "teleport seems to fail" then that is just playing a low level adventure with high level characters.  It is like playing a Star Trek role playing game as cadets at Starfleet academy - up through them making Captain and commanding ships and fleets, and then complaining that your "hapless cadet" type adventures require too much "nerfing" of abilities - like saying the Captain's fleets are all powerless, the crews abandoned them, and they are all now back together like the academy, with no ships, no crews, nothing that their ranks and experience had given them - and saying that shows that games with the "higher level" ships Captains don't work because they require too much railroading to force them back into playing like they were all hapless cadets again.


----------



## malladin

What eventually became DarkLore started out as a standard, high magic, D&D game.  When we developed the new dark magic feel rules that we put into DarkLore I had the players change their charactrers to the new system.  I think the resounding opinion was that DarkLore had *less* constraints on their creativity than a standard D&D character.  With free multiclassing, pick-your-own class freatures and the chance to purchase tailored magic items that grow with the character proved a winner.  Even Matt, and he's a real power gamer!


Cheerio,

Ben


----------



## Bendris Noulg

WizarDru said:
			
		

> So you're using the Story Hours to defend the idea of D&D needing to emulate myth?



First, I don't think D&D _needs_ to emulate myth, only that it should allow it as a viable option (that it doesn't is testiment to it's shortcomings as a system).  What I am saying is that many of the story hours contain the plot twists, surprise discoveries, and time-based events that Altazaar indicates _are not_ part of a D&D game.



> Now, as to your feelings about the differences in high and low magic, I'll just agree to disagree. I find my players tire of repetition, and that your experiences and theirs differs, sometimes a little, sometimes a great deal.



I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I certainly don't have any intention of making folks that don't like Low Magic to "convert" or anything of that nature.  What I _would_ like to see is less occurances of know-nothings shooting off vague insults by virtue of refering to Low Magic as the result of laziness, railroading, and poor GMing.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I thought WotC didn't make modules...



Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Speaker in Dreams, Sunless Citadel, and a few other titles I don't remember.  Modules may not be part of their business model now, but given how awful some of the modules they made were, that's probably a good thing.


----------



## Altalazar

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Speaker in Dreams, Sunless Citadel, and a few other titles I don't remember.  Modules may not be part of their business model now, but given how awful some of the modules they made were, that's probably a good thing.




Sunless Citadel and Speaker In Dreams - I liked both of those.  I also liked the Return module.  In fact, I must say, I generally liked all of them.  Which ones do you think were "awful" and why do you think so?


----------



## WizarDru

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I certainly don't have any intention of making folks that don't like Low Magic to "convert" or anything of that nature. What I _would_ like to see is less occurances of know-nothings shooting off vague insults by virtue of refering to Low Magic as the result of laziness, railroading, and poor GMing.



And just to make sure we're clear on the fact, I never said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it.  I LIKE low magic *and* high magic.  They are equally different and enjoyable for different reasons, the same way that I can enjoy Ronin, Commando and the Pirates of the Carribean.

*D&D* requires a good DM, regardless of what the house-rules or campaign-specific style happens to be.  There's only one wrong way to play D&D...and that's when people don't have fun.  Anything else is irrelevant.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Altalazar said:
			
		

> DMs, as absolute powers within their worlds, can railroad the PCs equally well with high or low magic - that is actually completely irrelevant.



No, it's _not_ irrelevant.  When it's insinuated that Low Magic = Railroading GM, the implication is that railroading is mostly a Low Magic thing and that Low Magic is used _primarily_ to railroad.  Therefore, that the GM actually has more tools to railroad PCs in a high magic world and a low magic world is not irrelevant.  And, again, if the players feel their options have been limited by a lack of magic, rather than seeing different options that are viable because of it, it's a limitation of the players.

Now, as for the GM "arbitrarily" making a decision, well, I don't see a lacking of that in High Magic games (a few of the posts in the "How To" thread make extensive use of it, in fact).

And who's to say that PCs in a low magic game can't get away from a 1000-man army?  I mean, if you adhere to the false belief that low magic = low level, than yeah, a 1000 man army is a bit skewed (and if a means of escape isn't provided by the GM within the scenario design, it's poor design).  But a party of 15th level PCs, even in a low magic world, should have little trouble with a 1000 man army (and if one of the PCs is a spellcaster, that 1000 man army might end up retreating before actual melee combat begins just from a simple illusion that makes the army think that it's about to get smacked down).

But this again relates to preconceptions about low magic; Folks have their idea of what low magic is and given this prejudicial view more weight than the actual in-game experiences of other gamers posting in this thread.  You are more comfortable with your misconception than you are with the truth of the matter being posted by others, and you'd rather spread your limited views as facts to others that don't know for themselves (possibly preventing them from discovering that you are wrong).

Where I come from, that's called bigotry.


----------



## WizarDru

Altalazar said:
			
		

> Sunless Citadel and Speaker In Dreams - I liked both of those. I also liked the Return module. In fact, I must say, I generally liked all of them. Which ones do you think were "awful" and why do you think so?



Actually, several modules have been announced for Eberron, so WotC is still in the module business...but only to support a larger goal.

As for Bad modules...I'd say The Standing Stone and Bastion of Broken Souls were the worst and most egregious examples of poor module design (particluary in regards to this thread, where they highlight the 'cheat the players to enforce the plot' that we've been arguing about).  Deep Horizon and Lord of the Iron Fortress weren't bad, but not particularly good, either.  

Return is an excellent module, for the first half of the book.  Then it just becomes a slog.  If the latter half was a good as Hommlett and the Moathouse and the first parts of the mines, it would be a great module.  But at some point, it just becomes a Bataan death march.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I think you have a somewhat limited view of just what high magic is and can be. You also seem to have very specific ideas about what gaming means overall (from the comments on gaming analogized as writing a story).



Actually, my "limited view" is fairly much in-line with the DMG's description of what a DM is and does.



> Which is fine, but it seems to be limiting this discussion, as I don't quite think we're effectively communicating with each other.



With all due respect, seeing something "different" from you isn't limiting the discussion (unless, of course, you believe that conceding to your point is the only means of making "progress" within the discussion).



> As I think someone else has said, D&D is not storymaking - it is really as open ended as real life, in many ways. The "Stars" of the game are the players and they are utterly free of any DM control. So where the "story" goes is really ultimately outside of DM control as well. There is nothing stopping the whole group from just abandoning the DM's plot completely and starting one of their own, if they are so inclined.



See, we do agree...  Mostly.  I don't believe the story is outside of the GM's control, only the course of action chosen by the PCs, as it's the GM that determines how the world/environment around the PCs react to the PC's actions and how the world "advances" over the course of time.



> And as for what high magic means, it is not just some sort of escalating arms race. I've played high level adventures where there was a lot of magic available where there really wasn't terribly much actual magical activity going on. A few spells here and there, but mostly your typical NPC interactions and exploration and dealing with problems.



See, not everything can be painted with broad strokes from the same brush.  You might consider learning from your own exceptions that other exceptions are possible (even if you don't care for those exception personally).



> My guess is that you've had some bad experiences with some poorly run games that happened to be high magic and that is coloring your perceptions of it.



Check it out, dude...  This thread basically started as a "why like low magic or GnG" discussion.  However, it quickly turned from explaining why we like it to defending our preferences for it.

I personally don't care what other people do in their games.  And you don't see me jumping into threads about high magic games spewing a bunch of ignorance and arrogant opinions.  However, as you'll see in this thread and many others on the same topic, there's no shortage of folks jumping in to attack others for their preferences in taste and style (hence the repeated and increasing boring drivel about laziness, railroading, and overall poor GMing skills).

Fact is, it has nothing to do with bad experiences with High Magic; When I took the helm as a GM, I started with the magic level as presented in the books and various modules.  But with each incarnation of the rules, and especially so with 3E, I've noted that the game has grown increasingly cheesy.  There was a time when I could pick up a D&D book, read it, and be inspired to do something with the material on hand.  Now, I've got little compulsion to purchase too many products all around (especially WotC products) because of the cheese factor (and there are some publishers I've written off completely because of it).



> If I could, I'd love to run a "high" (really medium magic - standard core D&D) magic game that you could play in just to give you the chance to experience a fresh perspective on the matter. Heck, I'd love to play in general right now. (No time of late).



See, I don't see 3E as "medium" magic, in that the only incarnations of higher magic I can find are the 3E settings that add more magic in (FRCS and now Eberron, which is just more cheese from the looks of it).

As is, though, I'm in the same mind set: If I could get half the people that have presumptions about low magic to get to my table, and to do so with an open mind, I'm sure I'd change a lot of opinions too.  Unfortunately, this medium (message board with world-wide access) means that we all really have two choices: believe what someone else is saying about their personal experience even if it doesn't fit our conforting preconceptions, or cling to those preconceptions and ignore the experiences of others.

It's not rocket science to determine which of the two leads to more productive discussions.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

WizarDru said:
			
		

> And just to make sure we're clear on the fact, I never said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it. I LIKE low magic *and* high magic. They are equally different and enjoyable for different reasons, the same way that I can enjoy Ronin, Commando and the Pirates of the Carribean.
> 
> *D&D* requires a good DM, regardless of what the house-rules or campaign-specific style happens to be. There's only one wrong way to play D&D...and that's when people don't have fun. Anything else is irrelevant.



Agreed!

As for the "never said that", you are right.  But that's also half the problem with these sorts of threads.  Allow me to clarify: Some posters come in, tossing out presumptions about poor GMing involving laziness, railroading, and other negative connotations (sp?).  Eventually, these individuals make the discussion heated.  It then makes it difficult for those like me (the targets of the attitude) to discuss the matter with those that don't have an attitude but have a similar stance to those that did.

It's also frustrating when it appears that the accusations (laziness, railroading) have tapered off but then return.  It kinda generates that feeling of, "My gawds, we gotta deal with _this_ again?  I thought we cleared this crap up 5 pages ago..."

Know what I mean?


----------



## Bendris Noulg

WizarDru said:
			
		

> As for Bad modules...I'd say The Standing Stone and Bastion of Broken Souls were the worst and most egregious examples of poor module design (particluary in regards to this thread, where they highlight the 'cheat the players to enforce the plot' that we've been arguing about). Deep Horizon and Lord of the Iron Fortress weren't bad, but not particularly good, either.
> 
> Return is an excellent module, for the first half of the book. Then it just becomes a slog. If the latter half was a good as Hommlett and the Moathouse and the first parts of the mines, it would be a great module. But at some point, it just becomes a Bataan death march.



My views of the modules is a _little_ different from WizarDru's here, but he sums it up well enough that I don't think I need to expand on it.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Easier, yes, but there are fewer limitations in actual practice. In a low-magic game, while your imagination is certainly constrained by the campaign "reality," you are far less likely to come up with an idea that has been specifically trumped by the DM. (Far less likely to hear, "That doesn't work..." or "You can't do that..." or "For some reason, magic is different here...")
> 
> The amount of front-end work required of the DM to curb, curtail, limit, head-off, and otherwise railroad the PCs is far more often a feature of a high-magic game than a low-magic game.
> 
> The examples of "high magic play" put forward in this thread and the other are stark proof of that.



Hammer, meet nail...  Nail, meet hammer.

Nicely said.


----------



## Altalazar

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Actually, my "limited view" is fairly much in-line with the DMG's description of what a DM is and does.
> 
> With all due respect, seeing something "different" from you isn't limiting the discussion (unless, of course, you believe that conceding to your point is the only means of making "progress" within the discussion).
> 
> See, we do agree...  Mostly.  I don't believe the story is outside of the GM's control, only the course of action chosen by the PCs, as it's the GM that determines how the world/environment around the PCs react to the PC's actions and how the world "advances" over the course of time.
> 
> See, not everything can be painted with broad strokes from the same brush.  You might consider learning from your own exceptions that other exceptions are possible (even if you don't care for those exception personally).
> 
> Check it out, dude...  This thread basically started as a "why like low magic or GnG" discussion.  However, it quickly turned from explaining why we like it to defending our preferences for it.
> 
> I personally don't care what other people do in their games.  And you don't see me jumping into threads about high magic games spewing a bunch of ignorance and arrogant opinions.  However, as you'll see in this thread and many others on the same topic, there's no shortage of folks jumping in to attack others for their preferences in taste and style (hence the repeated and increasing boring drivel about laziness, railroading, and overall poor GMing skills).
> 
> Fact is, it has nothing to do with bad experiences with High Magic; When I took the helm as a GM, I started with the magic level as presented in the books and various modules.  But with each incarnation of the rules, and especially so with 3E, I've noted that the game has grown increasingly cheesy.  There was a time when I could pick up a D&D book, read it, and be inspired to do something with the material on hand.  Now, I've got little compulsion to purchase too many products all around (especially WotC products) because of the cheese factor (and there are some publishers I've written off completely because of it).
> 
> See, I don't see 3E as "medium" magic, in that the only incarnations of higher magic I can find are the 3E settings that add more magic in (FRCS and now Eberron, which is just more cheese from the looks of it).
> 
> As is, though, I'm in the same mind set: If I could get half the people that have presumptions about low magic to get to my table, and to do so with an open mind, I'm sure I'd change a lot of opinions too.  Unfortunately, this medium (message board with world-wide access) means that we all really have two choices: believe what someone else is saying about their personal experience even if it doesn't fit our conforting preconceptions, or cling to those preconceptions and ignore the experiences of others.
> 
> It's not rocket science to determine which of the two leads to more productive discussions.





As I said before, I think there is a lack of total communication here.  I NEVER said low magic wasn't fun - I have, in fact, said that I enjoy BOTH low magic AND high magic.  Most of what I have been saying is in defense of high magic - and instead you've seen my defense of high magic somehow as an attack on low magic and perhaps on you personally.  That is not the case at all.  I was merely attempting to indicate why I thought high magic was just as fun and is just as viable as low magic and you instead see that as an attack on low magic - that sounds like a lack of effective communication to me.  

I can play either high or low magic.  I don't see any inherent problems with using either.  I am open to both.  I get the sense that you really are only open to one - which is fine, but it seems incongruous for you to protest, as if others do not have an open mind about low magic, when you are basically yourself closed to the idea of playing high magic games.  

I think both can be fun.  I think there is no reason both can't work.  There is certainly no need to "nerf" (the imaginary "required" "magic arms race") just to play high magic - not unless your version of high magic is just to play low magic dependant plots and then try to make them work in a high magic world.


----------



## Altalazar

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Hammer, meet nail...  Nail, meet hammer.
> 
> Nicely said.




See post above about Starfleet academy...  I think something has been missed here.  Watch out for your poor thumb when that hammer comes down...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I seem to recall Heart of Nightfang Spire had its moments of railroading, too.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Alright, I'll go over it...



			
				Altalazar said:
			
		

> I've never had to deal with that in running or playing high magic, with the odd exception of anti-magic zones, which can be interesting in their own right. Spells just work, and the DM takes into account that they are there and what happens, appropriately, when they are used.
> 
> Why does the DM need to curb ANYTHING upfront in such a manner? The only reason I can think of is perhaps an attempt to play a higher level game as if it were still a low-level game by negating all of the higher level magic. But then, if you do that, might as well just start over at first level.
> 
> You can't design an adventure around a wilderness trek when you know your party can just teleport to their destination. If the DM just says "teleport seems to fail" then that is just playing a low level adventure with high level characters. It is like playing a Star Trek role playing game as cadets at Starfleet academy - up through them making Captain and commanding ships and fleets, and then complaining that your "hapless cadet" type adventures require too much "nerfing" of abilities - like saying the Captain's fleets are all powerless, the crews abandoned them, and they are all now back together like the academy, with no ships, no crews, nothing that their ranks and experience had given them - and saying that shows that games with the "higher level" ships Captains don't work because they require too much railroading to force them back into playing like they were all hapless cadets again.



I believe Star Trek II (ship wounded and outgunned) is an example of what you're talking about here. The main systems and armaments of the Enterprise are out of commision.

However, Kirk didn't whine like a space cadet rookie because he lost most of his techno goodies. Rather, he chose another course of action: Head for the nebula and the Reliant will be just as nerfed as the Enterprise. "Suace for the goose," as Spock put it.

And then there is Star Trek III, with the Enterprise running on automated systems on the bridge to permit 5 people to fly it on their own, and then the Klingon ship disabling those system. Did Kirk whine like a space cadet then? No, he chose another course of action: Lure the Klingon crew onto the Enterprise, beam down to Gensesis, blow up the Enterprise, and face the Klingon Captain in good ol' fashioned hand-to-hand.

(Edit: Okay, yes, he whined like a cadet when he learned his son was dead, but that _should_ be understandable and goes beyond the context of discussion.)

Oh, and then there's Star Trek IV, with the crew trapped in 20th Century Earth (where they can't openly use their technology and have trouble understanding the concept of money).

Of course, there's Star Trek VI, with the Captain and Bones imprisoned on a Klingon Mining Camp without any technology at their disposal to permit them easy escape solutions. And later, the Enterprise and Excelsior facing off the superior Klingon ship (superior by way of being able to fire while cloaked).

Or perhaps Star Trek VII, where the two captains, with no weapons, must face the evil doctor on the planet's surface to prevent the planet from being destroyed by a cloaked, force-field protected weapon of mass destruction. Or the Klingon vs Enterprise battle in the same movie, where the Klingons gain the shield modulation frequency of the Enterprise shields and are able to penetrate them.

Mayhap Star Trek VIII is a better example, with Picard trapped with a civilian from Earth's past within a section of the Enterprise that had been assimilated by the Borg, with barely the right weapons for the task and no means of calling for back up.

Or let's try Star Trek X, with Diana fearing the telepathic power of the BBEG's mentor and seemingly powerless to defend against it, finding a way to turn that power back at him, thus allowing her and Worf to target an otherwise undetectable ship that had the Enterprise out gunned and out maneuvered.

But none of this outclasses Star Trek I, where a few Ranks in Knowledge: History of Space Travel was far more useful to resolving the V'ger incident than any of the "new and improved" Enterprise technology.

Sorry to say, but nerfing abilities and fiat seems par for "high level" Star Trek adventures as well, with determining a means of defeating the foe without techno goodies fully available being a _very_ common theme.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I think both can be fun. I think there is no reason both can't work. There is certainly no need to "nerf" (the imaginary "required" "magic arms race") just to play high magic - not unless your version of high magic is just to play low magic dependant plots and then try to make them work in a high magic world.



Note the following quotes:



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> As for Bad modules...I'd say The Standing Stone and Bastion of Broken Souls were the worst and most egregious examples of poor module design (particluary in regards to this thread, where they highlight the 'cheat the players to enforce the plot' that we've been arguing about). Deep Horizon and Lord of the Iron Fortress weren't bad, but not particularly good, either.
> 
> Return is an excellent module, for the first half of the book. Then it just becomes a slog. If the latter half was a good as Hommlett and the Moathouse and the first parts of the mines, it would be a great module. But at some point, it just becomes a Bataan death march.





			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I seem to recall Heart of Nightfang Spire had its moments of railroading, too.



If the high magic games of individual groups are lacking these elements, than good for them.  Obviously, they are better at adventure design than WotC is.  However, how high magic is perceived isn't going to be based on the individual groups that play high magic, but rather will be based on the image presented by the same folks that set the "standard", being WotC themselves.  And, obviously, their examples of high magic play at upper levels includes _a lot_ of fiat and one-up-manship, as well as a dash of railroading.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> When I took the helm as a GM, I started with the magic level as presented in the books and various modules. But with each incarnation of the rules, and especially so with 3E, I've noted that the game has grown increasingly cheesy.




...And you see that as 3e's problem, and not yours? If a game, 1e, 2e, 3e, GURPS, MERP, OD&D, Star Wars, whatever, is "cheesey," it's not the ruleset, it's the game, it's the campaign, it's that particular adventure. I'm not saying your a bad DM or anything, I mean, we've all run adventures that were cheesey, sub-par, and, in my cases, a few dozen times that were absolutely horrid and downright insulting. But it's not the fault of 3e that I ran those adventures, it's my own....it's not the fault of Low Magic that some GMs who choose it are railroad-happy drama queens, it's not the fault of High Magic that some GM's who choose it are simplistic nerf-herders who just want to beat the players. You can't assume that just because your games were cheesey, the game itself is.

It's okay if you don't like normal magic D&D, and prefer low magic. But don't assume just because your games with 3e were 'increasingly cheesey,' that it means that 3e itself is cheesey. Your basing your entire opinion on a type of gaming purely on your own experiences, which may have not been typical.

Where I come from, we call that an invalid generalization. 

....which indicates that your opinion that "high-level D&D is grossly limited in the conflicts that can arise by the magic the players possess" could maybe *not* be typical of high-level play in general? That maybe just because WotC put out crappy adventures doesn't mean that it's what most higher-level games are like? That perhaps you need to re-think that particular criticism of high magic games?



> Sorry to say, but nerfing abilities and fiat seems par for "high level" Star Trek adventures as well, with determining a means of defeating the foe without techno goodies fully available being a very common theme.




So, what, are you saying that to mimic myth and literature and other adventure stories that arbirtrary nerfing is desirable? Or that these movies would make bad games because of their railroading tendencies?


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...And you see that as 3e's problem, and not yours? If a game, 1e, 2e, 3e, GURPS, MERP, OD&D, Star Wars, whatever, is "cheesey," it's not the ruleset, it's the game, it's the campaign, it's that particular adventure.



Quite the opposite...  Picture this if you will: I'm in my local gaming store and I pick up a book.  I open it up, look at a page, and say, "cheesey".  I flip the page, "cheesey", flip again.  "Cheese," flip, "cheese", flip, "cheese", flip...

And this is the Player's Handbook.



> I'm not saying your a bad DM or anything, I mean, we've all run adventures that were cheesey, sub-par, and, in my cases, a few dozen times that were absolutely horrid and downright insulting. But it's not the fault of 3e that I ran those adventures, it's my own....it's not the fault of Low Magic that some GMs who choose it are railroad-happy drama queens, it's not the fault of High Magic that some GM's who choose it are simplistic nerf-herders who just want to beat the players. You can't assume that just because your games were cheesey, the game itself is.



I'm not assuming.  I'm assessing the flavor of the default setting (and the rules that support it) based on their presentation within the rule books.



> It's okay if you don't like normal magic D&D, and prefer low magic. But don't assume just because your games with 3e were 'increasingly cheesey,' that it means that 3e itself is cheesey. Your basing your entire opinion on a type of gaming purely on your own experiences, which may have not been typical.



Boy, are you wrong.

Tell you what...  Go back to page 1 of this thread and start reading from the beginning.  Note how many derogatory statements are made about low magic games before the people that play low magic start "firing back".  The reason being that most low magic gamers have no inherent desire to rip on high magic games; We'd rather talk about what we _like_ about low magic rather than what we _don't like_ about high magic.  Yet, after X pages of defending our personal tastes, it's eventually going to turn towards what we don't like about high magic since stating what we do like about low magic doesn't seem to satisfy the "other side" of the debate.

Interestingly, rather than solving the problem, this seems to only add more logs to the fire.

In short, forget everything that's been said in this thread about what people don't like about high magic, leaving only the reasons given for liking low magic.  If these reasons aren't enough, than why not just state that you think we're wrong and that neither diplomacy nor anecdotes are going to sway your opinion (which would be far more effective than spending X number of pages telling folks they're tastes are wrong or misguided).

I don't like high magic because it just comes across as cheesy.  Too much magic.  Too much superheroics.  Character design focused on creating characters that don't interest me in regards to playing as or GMing for.  A CR system that labels characters I would like to play as "sub par" or "ineffectual" when such things are actually a product of the individual group and not the generic rules.



> Where I come from, we call that an invalid generalization.



Again, re-read this thread from the beginning.  It's full of them, and mostly about low magic.



> ....which indicates that your opinion that "high-level D&D is grossly limited in the conflicts that can arise by the magic the players possess" could maybe *not* be typical of high-level play in general? That maybe just because WotC put out crappy adventures doesn't mean that it's what most higher-level games are like? That perhaps you need to re-think that particular criticism of high magic games?



I don't need to "re-think" my criticisms; I fully stand by them.  However, I'm not prone to post my criticisms until I feel that my tastes and prefereces have been attacked repeatedly and blatently long enough.

As for the modules, no, I don't think WotC's adventures are bad examples.  After all, if all these discussions assume that the D&D rules are the "standard" by which comparisons of gaming environments are made, than why wouldn't their D&D adventures be considered the "standard" by which comparisons of plots and adventures are made as well?  WotC is either the shiznit or they aren't.



> So, what, are you saying that to mimic myth and literature and other adventure stories that arbirtrary nerfing is desirable? Or that these movies would make bad games because of their railroading tendencies?



I'm saying that one man's nerf is another man's challenge.  At the very least, nerfs and fiat are common in literature, they are common in movies, they are common in the adventures WotC has produced, and they even have a fairly high-average frequency in the "How To" thread you started.

In short, if you want the curteousy of being viewed as an exception to the stereotype, or even to have that stereotype-image removed from the community completely, than perhaps you should also consider a bit of fair play regarding those stereotypes you like to apply on others yourself.

Open-mindedness and acceptance are two-way streets, last time I checked.


----------



## WizarDru

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I seem to recall Heart of Nightfang Spire had its moments of railroading, too.



You know, we played that one almost all the way through (and let's not have that discussion), and it should be a mark of how dissatisfied it eventually left me that I forgot about it, here. And yes, it's almost a poster child for it's railroading. I could go on for some time about my dissatisfaction about the module....oh wait, I ALREADY did. 

EDIT: fixed link


----------



## rounser

> The reason being that most low magic gamers have no inherent desire to rip on high magic games; We'd rather talk about what we like about low magic rather than what we don't like about high magic.



There are years of, for example, FR threads with evidence to the contrary...and when the backlash finally does come, you're claiming victim status?    Part of the discussion in this thread is how many low magic enthusiasts have a tendency toward being snobby and arrogant about how their game is bettah than high magic, and how much it sucks (especially if a target like FR presents itself).


> I don't like high magic because it just comes across as cheesy. Too much magic. Too much superheroics. Character design focused on creating characters that don't interest me in regards to playing as or GMing for.



You even proved yourself wrong in the same post.  That's gotta be a record.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

rounser said:
			
		

> There are years of, for example, FR threads with evidence to the contrary...and when the backlash finally does come, you're claiming victim status?



I wouldn't consider this the same thing, though.  For instance, one of the key points of attraction for FR when it was released is that magic wasn't all that common but _every_ adventure provided some new piece of magic for the PCs to "re-discover".  As the game progressed from 1E to 2E and now to 3E, this issue of "re-discovery" changed to "common as Floridian misquitos".

Now, am I complaining about this?  No.  FR's not a world I've particularly cared for.  However, I can see people that came to FR for its earlier offerings being in conflict with those that came to FR for its later offerings, as the two versions are entirely different in both flavor and style.

(And, honestly, if I was "forced" to run an FR campaign, I'd be more apt to convert the low-magic 1E grey box set to d20 than I would be to blow the dust off of the 3E hardcover and play it as a 3E game.)



> Part of the discussion in this thread is how many low magic enthusiasts have a tendency toward being snobby and arrogant about how their game is bettah than high magic, and how much it sucks (especially if a target like FR presents itself).



I don't deny such individuals exist.  However, as I pointed out, this thread seems to have a few snobby and arrogant individuals preaching for the "other camp", as it were.  Did you see them, or would you like me to dig up the quotes?



> You even proved yourself wrong in the same post. That's gotta be a record.



How so?  I've presented my opinions and tastes (High Magic comes across as cheesy and I prefer Low Magic).  Am I saying "High Magic Sucks"?  Am I saying "High Magic Players want High Magic because they are complete morons that can't play without it"?  Am I saying "Only an incompetant GM doesn't have the balls to break away from the default conditions"?

No, I'm not saying any of that.

However, when I say "I like Low Magic", the above comments seem to be what a lot of people _wish_ I was saying so that they could have something to complain about.  And, obviously, some of them reply as if I had.


----------



## I'm A Banana

You not liking high magic != high magic sucks.

I've never said people shouldn't like low magic. I've said people who do like low magic shouldn't claim that their games are superior to high magic games...I feel the same way in the other direction (that high magic isn't any holistically "better" than low magic). 

So this:


> I don't like high magic because it just comes across as cheesy. Too much magic. Too much superheroics. Character design focused on creating characters that don't interest me in regards to playing as or GMing for. A CR system that labels characters I would like to play as "sub par" or "ineffectual" when such things are actually a product of the individual group and not the generic rules.




Is one great reason for prefering low magic. You don't like characters with a lot of power. "Cheesy" is a bit on the insulting side, but whatever. You don't like to play games in which there is a lot of magic and superheroics. That's fine. I'm not here to make you.

However, this:


> (I would posit...)That without depending on magic as a crutch and cure all, characters will be tougher, smarter, faster, and more heroic because genetic evolution dictates that it must be so.




And this:


> (magic as pervasive as D&D can be compared to...) He-Man and She-Ra. Or how about Hercules: The Legendary Journies? Oh, and you can't forget Xena: The Warrior Princess.
> 
> No, wait, I got it! Dragonball Z!!!




And not from you, but agreed upon:


> I haven't said that high magic isn't fun, nor that it can't be challenging, just that it doesn't do a very good job of modelling the kinds of challenges which typically face the heroes of myth.
> 
> There are different challenges, and there are different solutions. It's different, and inasmuch as one wants an experience that is not different from classic myth and fiction, that can be a problem.




And this:


> On the other hand, reading the "how to" thread, I see post after post of arbitrary decisions resulting in "nerfs" in order to make high magic games work.




And this:


> D&D is the only facet of the fantasy genre I know of where people expect to be able to jump through to the end and eliminate the big baddy, and where the right question (commune) removes any sense of ambiguity from the tale in regards to morals, ethics, and best course of action. Sure, these can be "trumped", either through more magic or simple GM's fiat (the "How To" thread has several shining examples of just that), but that just turns back to the one-up-manship problem that high magic eventually escalates to.




And this:


> Really, the only difference I see between high and low is how the ends are achieved. In a low magic game, it's through the rarity, unavailability, and unsurity of magic. In a high magic game, it's through trumps, one-up-manship, and fiat.




....are more than a little "grrrrr, high magic is teh s uck!" Especially at the end there, suggesting that what the DMG defines as "bad structure" is *required* to play in a high-level, normal-magic-level game. Though to be honest, Wulf is much more into the hat on normal D&D magic, aparently. 

That's all I'm really protesting against. The idea that normal levels of magic and high levels have to result in a somehow sub-par game. If you'd prefer not to do it, fine, but don't go claiming that it has to be bad just because you'd prefer to do something else. Then you're as bad as those mooks claiming that lm/gng is awful because of power-mad railroad-happy DM's.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You not liking high magic != high magic sucks.



Which is why I never said it.  Nice of you to notice.



> I've never said people shouldn't like low magic. I've said people who do like low magic shouldn't claim that their games are superior to high magic games...I feel the same way in the other direction (that high magic isn't any holistically "better" than low magic).



And, again, read the first page of this thread.  Go ahead, just the first page.  You will notice that there isn't anyone saying that High Magic games suck or that Low Magic games are better.  You will also notice that there are several replies stating the Low Magic GMs are incompitant, fearful, and power mad.

You can avoid this _fact_ all you want, but the truth is right there for anyone to see.



> So this:
> 
> [Bendris Quote]
> 
> Is one great reason for prefering low magic. You don't like characters with a lot of power. "Cheesy" is a bit on the insulting side, but whatever. You don't like to play games in which there is a lot of magic and superheroics. That's fine. I'm not here to make you.



Negative.  The characters in my game are quite powerful.

Allow me to clarify...

At 1st Level, Aedon PCs are likely a tad less powered on the combat side than "standard" D&D PCs but a little more pumped on Skills.

At 5th Level, Aedon PCs are definately a bit less powered on the combat/magic side than "standard" PCs, but their Feats and Skills are easily on par, if not superior.

At 10th Level, Aedon PCs are still lagging in magic, but their combat prowess has likely caught up to "standard" PCs.

At 15th Level, Aedon PCs are only a smidge behind "standard" PCs in regards to magic.

At 20th Level, I'll put an Aedon PC against a "standard" PC and likely whip the snot out of him in both personal and magical power.

So, you see, you seem to have made an assumption about me not liking "powerful characters".  And I assure you, it's not the only incorrect assumption you and others have made in this thread, and thus why you continuously fail to gain any ground in this debate: You've allowed your narrow view of low magic games to form the basis of statements that simply aren't true.



> However, this:
> 
> ...
> 
> And this:
> 
> And not from you, but agreed upon:
> 
> And this:
> 
> And this:
> 
> And this:



Yawn...

Okay, I compared D&D (which I think is cheesy) to a number of cheesy shows that feature high magic and illogical continuity.  Big friggin' deal.  Are any of those quotes comparible to...

_*Post #4:* Simply put - if someone uses either of these phrases to describe their campaign, it means that they didn't really think about the campaign world beyond their own personal DMing preferences._

_*Post #6:* If someone's primary description of their campaign includes only the phrases "grim and gritty" and/or "low magic", then you're in trouble._

_*Post #11:* In my experience "grim and gritty" and "low magic" has equaled poor DM. It means DM's that feel magic missle is over powering, but a fighter with a sword that critical threats on 16 or greater and does 4D6 plus strength, 3 times per round is perfectly balanced. It means the DM is getting ready to keep the best spells out of the game. It means the Mage might was well not even attempt to take item creation feats. 

It means that anything that is more creative then "I swing my sword" will be crushed by an egotistical GM, that would rather have a boring lame game then see his/her story ruined by altering the adventure even a little bit. 

It means fear of what the players could do, and fear that their perfect little game would be ruined if the players had any power._

_*Post #15:* "Low magic" usually means that the DM hates powerful spells that can be used to divine the villain's intentions or bring dead characters back to life, and also hates powerful magic items. So they make magic items almost nonexistant and severely nerf spellcasters (but usually don't reduce the difficulty of encounters to compensate for this reduced-power party)._

These are all from the first page of the thread.  If at a later time, some of us "low magic folks" got a little gruff, can you really blame us?  How many insults and insinuations of poor gaming technique do we really have to put up with?

Indeed, even if the thread remained civil through out its entirety, how many times are we expected to answer the same stupid questions?



> ....are more than a little "grrrrr, high magic is teh s uck!" Especially at the end there, suggesting that what the DMG defines as "bad structure" is *required* to play in a high-level, normal-magic-level game. Though to be honest, Wulf is much more into the hat on normal D&D magic, aparently.



And, again, I point to the material produced by WotC that sets that standard.  If you can do better than their own designers, might I suggest you get into publishing?



> That's all I'm really protesting against. The idea that normal levels of magic and high levels have to result in a somehow sub-par game. If you'd prefer not to do it, fine, but don't go claiming that it has to be bad just because you'd prefer to do something else. Then you're as bad as those mooks claiming that lm/gng is awful because of power-mad railroad-happy DM's.



If the idea of the game is to have fun, and I don't have fun in high magic games, then it is indeed sub-par.  If you don't feel my reasons for liking low magic or not liking high magic are good enough reasons, than I suggest growing a thicker skin.  You're undies are way too bunched up for an issue of personal taste.


----------



## Altalazar

My memory may be faulty and I certainly haven't consistently read this board on a regular basis, but I first recall discussions about high versus low magic relating to FR and to 3E in general.  And the tone of those generally were very negative - attacking those who liked FR as "power gamers" and attacking it as "high magic" as if that were a swear word.  (If it were, wouldn't Eric's Grandma be needing earmuffs by now?)  This FR-bashing leaked over to 3E bashing as also "high magic" after it was apparently shown that FR really isn't that much more than the standard 3E level of magic.  

Now there seems to be somewhat of a backlash against this initial "high" (and really medium) magic bashing (with an apparent implied notion that those who do "low" magic are better gamers) and so low magic gets bashed.  

And now we come full circle.

C'mon.  Obviously, there are VERY good gamers out there who play both low and high magic.  There is nothing inherently wrong with either, there is nothing inherently good with either - the only thing that can be said for certain is that high magic has more magic than low magic.  Everything else is just personal opinion and value judgments.  

No need to hurl insults (like "cheesy") at a system.  

I would be willing to bet that a good DM could make either high or low magic fun for good players, regardless of their opinions about low or high magic.  

It seems this thread has been all about the "low magic versus high magic" and the grim and gritty part has been forgotten.  (Perhaps a separate thread just on that would be appropriate - like how to do grim and gritty in the standard medium magic of the core rulebooks or to do it with high magic).  In fact, here I go...


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Altalazar said:
			
		

> My memory may be faulty and I certainly haven't consistently read this board on a regular basis, but I first recall discussions about high versus low magic relating to FR and to 3E in general. And the tone of those generally were very negative - attacking those who liked FR as "power gamers" and attacking it as "high magic" as if that were a swear word. (If it were, wouldn't Eric's Grandma be needing earmuffs by now?) This FR-bashing leaked over to 3E bashing as also "high magic" after it was apparently shown that FR really isn't that much more than the standard 3E level of magic.



See, I've experienced this from the other side.  That is to say, a thread discussing low magic possibilities turning into a low magic bashing thread.  But you need to understand my perspective.  Most threads about "standard" D&D I stay out of because, most of the time, I've little to add.  And if the thread's about FR (or Eberran or any other high magic setting), I'm virtually guaranteed not to make an appearance.

Now, consider what this means: I, personally, don't see the high magic bashing because I'm not reading the threads where high magic bashing is occuring.  And chances are, this is the _norm_ for most LM/GnG style gamers: Why spend our time reading threads of no real interest when other threads can be found that discuss topics that we _are_ interested in discussing.  But what I (we) _do_ see (indeed, what we experience first hand) is plenty of low magic bashing.

This is why I try to be informative in my replies (at least at first, until I feel the line's been crossed too many times or that information is being purposely ignored for the sake of continuing an arguement, instances of both can be found around pages 4-6).

So I guess I don't think it's come full circle...  I think it came full circle a _long_ time ago (regardless of how it started) and it's just been spiraling outwards ever since.

(On a side note, I agree that FR is near-identicle to Core in regards to magic content.  If anything, it _appears_ to have more magic because the setting is so developed that the presence of magic is more quantified than it is for Greyhawk, which is under-developed except for what the RPGA is doing with it.  However, I'd posit that this quality also makes it more difficult to reduce the magic level because it's so integrated into that development, which would make it less appealing to those that would like to do so.  However, one thing to consider is how the Core defines demographics, with Class/Level of NPCs set up in a ratio based on population density.  By this nature, looking at a map of Oerth and a map of Toril, I see _a lot_ more cities in FR.  With this as a consideration, demographics would suggest that the presence of magic is more noticable in FR because of it.)



> No need to hurl insults (like "cheesy") at a system.



And no reason to hurl insults (like lazy, incompetant, fearful, power mad) at a preference.

And not all cheese is bad.  It worked for _Mortal Combat_.  It just didn't work for _Street Fighter_.



> I would be willing to bet that a good DM could make either high or low magic fun for good players, regardless of their opinions about low or high magic.



Now, first, let me say that I agree with you.

However, this point has also come up previously in this thread alone.  Several times.  That is really _half_ the problem...  Just when folks reach this conclusion, another round of insults get hurled in.  However, here's the pattern: Those that threw the insults are gone, leaving you debating for the "other side" after the "other side" has become irritating.  I'm man enough to admit it's not your fault, specifically.  However, I think there's also a matter of weighing the battle.  For example, I've seen debates similar to this where both sides were getting insultive.  Being that the people I would be "siding with" (and in some instances, already had) were being rude, I opted not to get involved or to step out of it.

So, here's a proposal for Boards Ettiquette: Regardless of _your_ personal taste, whether you prefer low magic, high magic, min/max, in-depth RP, or what ever, if you see anyone that shares _your_ preference making baseless, generalized and (dare I say) prejudicial statements about another gaming preference, take the initiative to say it's wrong.  That is to say that, if I see a Low Magic gamer ripping on high magic games, a post from _me_ as a Low Magic gamer informing the individual that what he's saying is uncool _should_ be more effective than a High Magic gamer telling him he's being uncool.

Of course, it's just a theory.  But I also figure, at worst, those who are open minded of other styles will see the common curtesy, and eventually those that seek to purposefully cause discord (i.e., trolls) will eventually become an irrelevant side-show (such as the case of those whom have already identified themselves).



> It seems this thread has been all about the "low magic versus high magic" and the grim and gritty part has been forgotten. (Perhaps a separate thread just on that would be appropriate - like how to do grim and gritty in the standard medium magic of the core rulebooks or to do it with high magic). In fact, here I go...



I think it's because defining GnG is easier than defining low magic.  For instance, one can say that W&V adds GnG elements because a character can get creamed on a bad roll (much like real life) but still allows for cinematic sequances similar to Hit Points, while Ken Hood's GnG No-Hit-Points System is extensively GnG as it removes the cinematic element.  This provides two "benchmarks".  A lot of it also has to do with mood, flavor, theme, etc.  One need only point to Beastmaster (light hearted dialogue, comic-book violence, minimum "splat" factor in sword fights) and Gladiator (vengeance as a prime motivator, imperial politics involving patricide and incest, near-death by infection, decapitation, dismemberment, enslavement, Christians sitting passively while the lions walk up and start feeding, etc.) to define the differences in clear terms that everyone can understand (even if they only represent "part" of the whole picture).

Low Magic, on the other hand, isn't so easily quantified.  It can mean less magic, magic scaling caps, Spell Level maximums, or even an entirely different magic system, which may be as potent as Core magic but at a cost and with risk (ala _Sovereign Stone_) or less potent (ala _Fading Suns_).

As such, the debate will touch back on GnG from time to time (as it's a matter of taste and still isn't an "exact" description of the individual campaign) while Low Magic will remain a focus throughout (as the ambiguity resulting from its many variations make it a natural target for people that are accustomed to having rules and settings clearly detailed in exacting text).


----------



## Altalazar

As someone who has played in both high, low, (and mostly medium core) magic, I pay attention to threads on all of them.  I have had fun with all of them.  Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I've managed to have a good time basically with every gaming group I've ever been in.  

What you suggest is an interesting idea - having each side "police its own" so to speak, but then that still leaves me out because I really have no preference for low or high magic.  I play core magic simply because that is the default, that is what the game is balanced for, and I haven't felt ambitious enough to change it.  (Plus, my world was built with that as a basis originally, and I rather like my world so want to keep using it).  

But if someone else is running a game, I really don't care that much.  I just find out what the world is like, then come up with a character & personality (the most fun part) and then try and make stats for it that make it work.

In terms of these discussions, I try to keep it civil.  It does irk me when I see an undercurrent of insult or put-down about someone due to the system they use - I hope I haven't done any of that myself.  I try to distill out of it all what the real issues are - which are sometimes unstated and can get lost in the noise (especially when the insinuations of inferiority/superiority fly).  

High and low both have strengths and weaknesses, but then that doesn't make one better than the other.  In low, it is easier to control the plot on one level, because the player power level is very limited in ways it probably wouldn't be in high magic.  In high magic one could be tempted to nerf everything because it is much easier to control the plot if you go back to low (because of all the variables and options created by magical power) - but that ultimately really isn't necessary.  And one needs to realize that even in low, if players are clever or don't take a route the DM has anticipated, you can have just as much DM-fiat and trumping to stop that route as you can with an unanticipated high-level spell in high magic.  

So in the end, it is a matter of taste.  You are not wrong for wanting only to have vanilla ice cream and disdaining chocolate.  Others are not wrong for only wanting chocolate ice cream and not liking vanilla.  And I like both chocolate and vanilla, and throw in some whipped cream and bananas too.

One certainly couldn't argue that vanilla was a "better" flavor than chocolate.  Or that people who like vanilla only are stupid.  Or that whipped cream is better than cool whip.  Now i'm hungry.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

Me, too.


----------



## Altalazar

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Me, too.




Ok, then!  We are in agreement!  Let's go get some ice cream.  
[and now I am reminded for some reason of a pseudo-flashback South Park episode]


----------



## I'm A Banana

> If at a later time, some of us "low magic folks" got a little gruff, can you really blame us? How many insults and insinuations of poor gaming technique do we really have to put up with?




Insulting someone else's gaming style is pretty dumb no matter who's doing it, no matter who started it, no matter who did it first. I'd attack the dudes who were harping on lm/gng just the same, if it wasn't already being handled. 

You seem to be aware of the point I was trying to make though, so cool. ICE CREAM TIME!


----------

