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

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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!!!!)

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

Click to expand...

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.

Kinda like a mandatory power component..?

Hmmm... I'll check that out.

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).

Click to expand...

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)?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?