High magic, low magic, it's all relative.

[Kask]

Originally Posted by Crothian

There is a thread from a few years back that does this exact thing except instead of taking a single example it showcases full modules and the conclusion is clearly that magic was a bit more common in the 1e modules then it is in the 3e modules (the latest edition that was out at the time of the thread).

I just looked through about 10 modules from 1st. By level, all were lower than 3.5 WBL tables. Pretty simple.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by Kask

I just looked through about 10 modules from 1st. By level, all were lower than 3.5 WBL tables. Pretty simple.

If you want to argue with the thread, then perhaps you should do that in the thread. I wasn't the compiler of the information but it did show facts and listed the evidence. It didn't just claim to go through some unnamed modules and state an unsupported conclusion. Or if you want to start it on your own then start a new thread and show your data. Lots of people would really like to see it.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

I think you and I are on the same page, so to speak. For me, the divide between "low magic" and "high magic" is about the availability of magic in a setting versus the magnitude thereof.

Frex, I consider Arthurian Britain as depicted by Malory to be a "low magic" setting, as magic of any notable consequence appears to be known and tamed by three individuals (i.e., Merlin Ambrosious, Morgan le Fay, and Nimue) in all of known creation and magic items seem to similarly be limited to three known examples (a sword, its sheath, and a grail). And monsters of magical origin? We have a few scant mentions of dragons (mostly metaphorical) and the Questing Beast. The magnitude of the magic in Malory's version of Arthurian Britain is incredibly powerful — but it is also incredibly rare.

Conversely, I place all official D&D settings save for Dark Sun into the realm of "high magic" due to the common nature of magic. Most D&D settings are dripping with magic right out of the box. Entire economies are built around magic items, monsters of myth and legend seemingly outnumber normal animals, clergymen are assumed to channel magic from gods by default, and so on. While it's true that magic in D&D is not the epic force of destiny-shaping power that it is in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, it is far more commonplace and often unremarkable as a result of this saturation.

The idea of increasingly more powerful magic items isn't a huge issue for me in a game predicated on an adventuring economy that assumes the killing of monsters, collecting of treasures, and rising through the ranks of fame. I love "low fantasy" gaming, mind you, but I have other systems for that. For me, D&D is pretty much the anithesis of "low fantasy" and that's why I love it. I mean, 'cmon — this is the game that invented "leveling up!"

I agree and prefer low magic settings like you have outlined. The only problem with that is it removes magic from the hands of players. If magc is rare and powerful, unless you start your PCs powerful, they can't use magic. Not that that is a bad thing mind you. But it....narrows the roles the players can have. And at some point didn't Morgan have to learn a cantrip

But I agree with the overal sentiment and have played a number of games in Grim Tales where magic was a rare thing that could burn the user as easily as your foes. And they were more fun overall. But I prefer playing warriors though. I know there are people who do like to play wizards, for a variey of reasons. And to accomodate those points of view, you have to compromise a bit to be inclusive of your players so that everyone has fun.

[Jürgen Hubert]

It all depends on what kinds of stories you want to tell.

In case of Urbis, the setting is definitely "high-magic". After all, magic items are mass-produced here! But I don't think that necessarily has to cheapen magic. In this case, I see magic similar to technology in "Steampunk" settings - yes, everybody uses it, but that doesn't mean that you can't pull off something truly spectacular with it from time to time. Build continent-spanning golem-powered railroads? Sure. Rain fire upon far-away enemies from the nexus towers? No problem. Explore other planets with teleportation circles? It's the up-and-coming thing.

I think the key is to keep in mind that magic, if common, will definitely be used for more than just buffing adventurers. Done right, magic will certainly be able to remain, well, magical.

[FireLance]

As a few posters have mentioned, the basic question in the high magic/low magic debate is how common magic is. However, because magic is so broad and actually covers a multitude of concepts, there are several variables that can be tweaked, for example:

1. Types of magic. Certain types of magic may be more common than others. Consider the world of Krynn post-Cataclysm, pre-War of the Lance, for example. Clerical healing magic was rare, but wizardly arcane magic was more common. Along similar lines, consider worlds where only one type of magic exists: a world which only has divination magic would look very different from one that only has evocation magic, for example.

2. Personal magic vs. magic items. As with types of magic, personal magic may be more common than magic items, and vice-versa. For most of the history of the game, I suspect that the former was more common than the latter, since magic-using classes were in the Player's Handbook and considered to fall within the realm of player choice, while magic items were in the Dungeon Master's guide and considered the province of the DM. Nonetheless, the latter approach might make for an interesting campaign, with the PCs being essentially non-magical, but having access to magic through their equipment.

3. PCs vs. the rest of the world. The key question here is: how special are the PCs? One common trope in fantasy fiction is that the protagonists encounter spellcasters, magic items and fantastic creatures no matter how rare they are in the world. The same could happen to PCs in a campaign. Even if there is only one ring of invisibility in the world, they are the ones to find it. Even if there is only one dragon in the world, they just happen to fight it. The reverse, low-magic PCs in a high-magic world, may be harder to pull off, especially as a long-term campaign, but it is not inconceivable.

As for whether increasing the PCs' power makes for a more fun game, I'm of the view that the actual power level of the PCs doesn't matter. At least when it comes to combat, the key questions (for me) are:

1. Do I have meaningful tactical decisions to make in each round of combat?
2. Can my PC take enough punishment that one or two lucky hits by his opponents will not take him out of the fight?

I would consider any system that can answer "Yes" to both questions to be a reasonably good one.

[Baron Opal]

Originally Posted by Kask

I was thinking about the seemingly eternal debate regarding hi/low magic campaigns. Playing from OD&D through 3.x ... did it improve fun?

Yes, but not really through magic items.

There are two axes as I see it, power and commonality. Glorantha, and the RuneQuest system, are very definatly high magic. But, the magic is weak. You have to be a high priest before you get a spell that affects more than one person at a time. Every farmer, however, could have a spell that could sharpen his plow (or sword) or could kill a rat (or goblin).

As the editions progressed characters do seem to become more durable and less variable. 4th ediition doen't have any charged items. that bother me.

It's been a rough night at the hospital, I'm tired, and getting quite mellow with my relaxant of choice. (New Belgium- 2 Below) My thoughts are unfocussed. Let me say that while there is something of what you say my experiences differ.

[AllisterH]

Personally, I don't even agree with the OP that characters have become more powerful.

Compared to a 1st level fighter of the same level, a 3e OR 4e character is getting their butt kicked by the same creature.

Sure, the DAMAGE that the fighter in 3e/4e is higher, but in 1e/2e I distinctly remember my fighter soloing creatures at levels that were much lower than in 3e/4e.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I agree and prefer low magic settings like you have outlined. The only problem with that is it removes magic from the hands of players. If magc is rare and powerful, unless you start your PCs powerful, they can't use magic.

To be fair, that's only an issue in level-based systems that assume characters begin play as children or otherwise unskilled individuals by default. In systems that don't make this assumption (e.g., GURPS, Hero, Tri-Stat, etc), or systems that make the opposite assumption (e.g., Nobilis, Exalted, etc), this isn't an issue at all. As I mention, there are reasons why D&D is not my preferred system for "low magic" settings as I've defined them. This is one of those reasons.

[Galloglaich]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I agree and prefer low magic settings like you have outlined. The only problem with that is it removes magic from the hands of players. If magc is rare and powerful, unless you start your PCs powerful, they can't use magic. Not that that is a bad thing mind you. But it....narrows the roles the players can have. And at some point didn't Morgan have to learn a cantrip

But I agree with the overal sentiment and have played a number of games in Grim Tales where magic was a rare thing that could burn the user as easily as your foes. And they were more fun overall. But I prefer playing warriors though. I know there are people who do like to play wizards, for a variey of reasons. And to accomodate those points of view, you have to compromise a bit to be inclusive of your players so that everyone has fun.

Why not just give your spellcasters lots of wierd, indirect, low-power cantrips, and sprinkle a few interesting, indirect low-power "miscelaneous" magic items, like in the Dying Earth? This way they almost always have something interesting they can use in their arsenal, but requiring some thinking rather than just more blasting / shielding / healing abilities. (or carrying around one big rocket launcher at low level, as somebody put it upthread)

One of the changes between 1e to 3e (and even more in 4E) i didn't like was the homoginization of spells and items. Dropping the Wizard names off of the wierder spells, deleting quite a few of them alltogether. Concentrating more useful magic items but less interesting ones (I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive)

I use lots of cool little cantrips for my groups spellcasters and give them the ability to cast quite a few of these, so they are always active and always up to something 'magical'. But my campaign in general has a low-magic feel.

Just my $.02

G.

[Kask]

Originally Posted by FireLance

As a few posters have mentioned, the basic question in the high magic/low magic debate is how common magic is.

Really good analysis FireLance. Thanks.

[Jack7]

But, did it improve fun?

You bring up an interesting point Kask.
Should players and characters start out high, or not?

My view is, if everybody is high then nobody is, or maybe everyone is, but nobody notices, so it don't really matter. It's all too much like being the same.

If nobody is high then no one notices because everything is normal. Or at least not high enough to make much of a difference.

If, on the other hand, only a few are high then everybody else notices right up front because it is so painfully obvious.

I'm not sure if that means that everybody should be high, or not, but it seems to me that if everyone is then you're right back to where you started.

Unless it's normal for everyone to be high and I think that is unlikely or everyone would already be that way.

And they ain't, though on occasion they might think it seems like a good idea. When they see the other guy high so much of the time.

Then again if you are always starting out high I'm not sure you're gonna be fully aware of working your way up to it. And if you're too high for that kinda thing then just think about what everyone else like that must also be thinking. Or, maybe not.

I don't know.
It's an interesting debate.

Personally, I think modern gaming could use a little moderation on the high/not so high scale.
But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

I don't think women should be in combat so much either.
A lot of ideas seem like a lot of fun in theory.

But in actual practice not everyone thinks so highly of em.

I think you and I are on the same page, so to speak. For me, the divide between "low magic" and "high magic" is about the availability of magic in a setting versus the magnitude thereof.

That seems like a highly reasonable observation to me.

Less don't always mean more, though on occasion it can, and more don't always mean less of the opposite.
Anyway I guess the real question here is, either way, is it more fun, or less?
To which I say, probably.

The aroma of perpetual adolescence hangs heavily around any edition of a game that's about pretending to be an elf.

What about Dragoborn? Does that at least work ya up into your twenties?

Done right, magic will certainly be able to remain, well, magical.

Jürgen, that reminds me of an old story...


If magic predicts the weather
As any cowhand can,
Then how is magic better
Than castles made of sand?

But if magic can move mountains
Through mysteries a'deep,
It's like a bubbling fountain
Through which enigmas seep,

It's not by magic's power
That power is expressed,
It is the means and hour
When true is never-less,

Magic can be common
Or magic can be rare,
But magic that is all too tame
Is anything but fair,

For magic is as dangerous
As men need magic's might,
And what is thus estranged to us
When magic is so slight?

Give magic room to be as not
Not space to be nothing,
Or like the fabled ancient knot
T'is sliced up like a string...

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Jack7

What about Dragoborn? Does that at least work ya up into your twenties?

I don't know. I just turned 40, my current character is a Dragonborn paladin, and when I play him I really feel like I'm getting back in touch with my inner precocious 12 year old... (albeit with a dirtier mind and a broader range of references).

[frankthedm]

Originally Posted by FireLance

As a few posters have mentioned, the basic question in the high magic/low magic debate is how common magic is.

I feel a more important question is how dangerous is magic? IMHO Magic should be a dangerous force. Even masters of should view it with caution and attempts at mass production should lead to misfortune and cataclysm.

[Jack7]

I feel a more important question is how dangerous is magic?

Or, put another way - how many things that are completely mild, un-stimulating, unexciting, and innocuous, ever strikes us as truly magical?