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

Gothmog · Mar 12, 2004

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 · Mar 12, 2004

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 · Mar 12, 2004

Kormydigar said:
Neither style is right or wrong. Whatever the the DM and players enjoy is right.

No.

danzig138 · Mar 12, 2004

Snoweel said:
No.

Explain?

FireLance · Mar 12, 2004

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 · Mar 12, 2004

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 · Mar 12, 2004

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 · Mar 12, 2004

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 · Mar 12, 2004

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 · Mar 12, 2004

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?