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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Bendris Noulg said:

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

Click to expand...

Right-o Ben.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.