General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I was thinking about the seemingly eternal debate regarding hi/low magic campaigns. Playing from OD&D through 3.x (forget 4E as different game system altogether) we've seen the PC power curve steadily increased with each new rules set and "splat" book released. All that this particular trend has accomplished (better mechanics aside) was to cause a DM to have to increase adversary power also. But, did it improve fun? I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?
Just Monday a.m. thoughts.
__________________ Being a DM does not require that you check your brain at the door. Much to the chagrin of munchkins & powergamers.
I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?
Generally when I hear "High Magic vs Low Magic" I'm thinking of the relative amount of obvious magic appearing in a campaign setting, such as the vague sorceries of Hyperborea vs. the flying ships and lightning trains of Ebberron.
+20 swords would seem to be a seperate issue, one of munchkinism/monty-haulism, and not something I believe I've seen published in an official capacity.
"Power Creep" via splats I generally view as increasing player power across the board, whether through feats, abilities, etc, not necessarily magic.
So I guess I'm not sure what you're really looking gor here, but I tend to like Low-magic campaign settings, I pretty much never allow splats due to power creep, and I never hand out munchkinized +20 swords.
__________________ "There are few problems a well-placed fireball cannot solve. Now, tell us more about this... orphanage?" - Balfour Grimstaff
----------
But, did it improve fun? I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?
It isn't something I do all the time, but giving low level PCs a powerful item to see what they do with it can be fascinating. I had one group refuse to use because they were scared people would learn they had something of incredible value and come steal it from them. Another time the party fought over using the item (it had charges so some of the group didn't want to waste it) and that lead to in fighting and killing of PCs. The third time I did it they were excited about what they had found and someone wrote it down on a character sheet and they forgot about it for 5 months real time.
In all instances it was a lot of fun for everyone, even the woman who's PC was killed off.
It isn't something I do all the time, but giving low level PCs a powerful item to see what they do with it can be fascinating.
I played in a game where one player was carrying around an artifact-level sword on his back from 1st level, and never used it for fear of what it might do to him...
My personal preference is for fewer items, but with a little more power and flair than was the case in 3E.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
I was thinking about the seemingly eternal debate regarding hi/low magic campaigns. Playing from OD&D through 3.x (forget 4E as different game system altogether) we've seen the PC power curve steadily increased with each new rules set and "splat" book released. All that this particular trend has accomplished (better mechanics aside) was to cause a DM to have to increase adversary power also. But, did it improve fun? I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?
Just Monday a.m. thoughts.
For a limited time, it can be fun to play with, but from my perspective, long-term all it does is make the math harder to keep up with. I like seeing mages feel "magical", instead of carrying one spell like a single-use rocket grenade and then having to use darts or a crossbow all day, but having larger and larger effects just means more numbers to wade through until you finally figure out what the d20 roll meant this round.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
Um, do I need to bust out the link that proves quite conclusively that 3e actually had LESS magic items in the hands of the players than a standard 1e/2e adventure?
Um, do I need to bust out the link that proves quite conclusively that 3e actually had LESS magic items in the hands of the players than a standard 1e/2e adventure?
Sure, I don't know how that is relevant to items received in a campaign unless a DM ran nothing but prepackaged adventures...
__________________ Being a DM does not require that you check your brain at the door. Much to the chagrin of munchkins & powergamers.
Um, do I need to bust out the link that proves quite conclusively that 3e actually had LESS magic items in the hands of the players than a standard 1e/2e adventure?
Hopefully, that's not necessary. My experience is that I gave out more powerful magic in the 1E/2E days than I did in the 3E days. I gave out more bulk magic items in 3E; lots of +1 rings of protection or +1 amulets of natural armor - the Big Six that was just there to make the numbers add up rather than adding anything particularly cool to the gaming experience.
I don't personally view the low-magic/high-magic thing as an edition-specific discussion.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
Generally when I hear "High Magic vs Low Magic" I'm thinking of the relative amount of obvious magic appearing in a campaign setting, such as the vague sorceries of Hyperborea vs. the flying ships and lightning trains of Ebberron.
+20 swords would seem to be a seperate issue, one of munchkinism/monty-haulism, and not something I believe I've seen published in an official capacity.
"Power Creep" via splats I generally view as increasing player power across the board, whether through feats, abilities, etc, not necessarily magic.
So I guess I'm not sure what you're really looking gor here, but I tend to like Low-magic campaign settings, I pretty much never allow splats due to power creep, and I never hand out munchkinized +20 swords.
I was about to write this post, then I read it. I don't define the intensity of magic in a campaign by the ratio of power/cost of magic item to level of the PC carrying it. That's munchkinism, to me.
High/low magic to me is a setting attribute. I agree, though, that monty haul games, regardless of edition/game, aren't much fun (if that was indeed the gist).
The sequel always has to be bigger, better and have more explosions. If the heroes saved a city the first time out, then next time they have to save the planet. Same reason PCs go up levels instead of staying the same or declining, that wouldn't be very exciting or interesting. It's human nature.
Also it's easier to sell splats if they offer power upgrades. Simply offering more options is effectively a power upgrade too as players now have a bigger pool of classes, feats or whatever to choose from.
To some extent things reset every time a new edition comes out. Then the inevitable splats cause the inevitable power creep. That's true of all rpgs, not just D&D. Essentially Kask you're arguing for more editions of D&D to be published.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Generally when I hear "High Magic vs Low Magic" I'm thinking of the relative amount of obvious magic appearing in a campaign setting, such as the vague sorceries of Hyperborea vs. the flying ships and lightning trains of Ebberron.
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!"
One thing about 3E that's been taken even further in 4E is the extent to which higher levels effectively do mean "just more math". The differences between different levels seem rather flattened out relative to older games (especially OD&D). That comes up in qualitative elements as well, as the original "late game" of power politics (on the Prime Material Plane and beyond) has been marginalized in favor of a sort of perpetual adolescent Wanderjahr.
That comes up in qualitative elements as well, as the original "late game" of power politics (on the Prime Material Plane and beyond) has been marginalized in favor of a sort of perpetual adolescent Wanderjahr.
The aroma of perpetual adolescence hangs heavily around any edition of a game that's about pretending to be an elf.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Sure, I don't know how that is relevant to items received in a campaign unless a DM ran nothing but prepackaged adventures...
Or used the treasure tables. You know... the actual rules for the edition in question.
Just running a standard game left you dripping with +1 swords which were supposedly so rare kingdomws were fought over them yet which inexplicably couldnt be sold for anything useful.
Last edited by ehren37; 27th April 2009 at 11:54 PM..
The admonishment is VERY clear and directly addresses the point.
The section just says that DM's should be the final judge on what magic items should be in the game. I don't see anyone arguing against that. If a DM chooses to use the tables then that is still following that section.
What I find funny is that it says he should have added something before the table s to explain things better which he obviously could have done since the book wasn't done at the time he wanted to make changes. Why write about it instead of just making the changes?
6th level fighter: longsword +1, Chainmail +2, boots of levitation.
This was pretty typical for that level. Now, by following the 3.5 WBL tables, which would afford more magic?
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).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
