Altalazar said:
My memory may be faulty and I certainly haven't consistently read this board on a regular basis, but I first recall discussions about high versus low magic relating to FR and to 3E in general. And the tone of those generally were very negative - attacking those who liked FR as "power gamers" and attacking it as "high magic" as if that were a swear word. (If it were, wouldn't Eric's Grandma be needing earmuffs by now?) This FR-bashing leaked over to 3E bashing as also "high magic" after it was apparently shown that FR really isn't that much more than the standard 3E level of magic.
See, I've experienced this from the other side. That is to say, a thread discussing low magic possibilities turning into a low magic bashing thread. But you need to understand my perspective. Most threads about "standard" D&D I stay out of because, most of the time, I've little to add. And if the thread's about FR (or Eberran or any other high magic setting), I'm virtually guaranteed not to make an appearance.
Now, consider what this means: I, personally, don't see the high magic bashing because I'm not reading the threads where high magic bashing is occuring. And chances are, this is the
norm for most LM/GnG style gamers: Why spend our time reading threads of no real interest when other threads can be found that discuss topics that we
are interested in discussing. But what I (we)
do see (indeed, what we experience first hand) is plenty of low magic bashing.
This is why I try to be informative in my replies (at least at first, until I feel the line's been crossed too many times or that information is being purposely ignored for the sake of continuing an arguement, instances of both can be found around pages 4-6).
So I guess I don't think it's come full circle... I think it came full circle a
long time ago (regardless of how it started) and it's just been spiraling outwards ever since.
(On a side note, I agree that FR is near-identicle to Core in regards to magic content. If anything, it
appears to have more magic because the setting is so developed that the presence of magic is more quantified than it is for Greyhawk, which is under-developed except for what the RPGA is doing with it. However, I'd posit that this quality also makes it more difficult to reduce the magic level because it's so integrated into that development, which would make it less appealing to those that would like to do so. However, one thing to consider is how the Core defines demographics, with Class/Level of NPCs set up in a ratio based on population density. By this nature, looking at a map of Oerth and a map of Toril, I see
a lot more cities in FR. With this as a consideration, demographics would suggest that the presence of magic is more noticable in FR because of it.)
No need to hurl insults (like "cheesy") at a system.
And no reason to hurl insults (like lazy, incompetant, fearful, power mad) at a preference.
And not all cheese is bad. It worked for
Mortal Combat. It just didn't work for
Street Fighter.
I would be willing to bet that a good DM could make either high or low magic fun for good players, regardless of their opinions about low or high magic.
Now, first, let me say that I agree with you.
However, this point has also come up previously in this thread alone. Several times. That is really
half the problem... Just when folks reach this conclusion, another round of insults get hurled in. However, here's the pattern: Those that threw the insults are gone, leaving you debating for the "other side" after the "other side" has become irritating. I'm man enough to admit it's not your fault, specifically. However, I think there's also a matter of weighing the battle. For example, I've seen debates similar to this where both sides were getting insultive. Being that the people I would be "siding with" (and in some instances, already had) were being rude, I opted not to get involved or to step out of it.
So, here's a proposal for Boards Ettiquette: Regardless of
your personal taste, whether you prefer low magic, high magic, min/max, in-depth RP, or what ever, if you see anyone that shares
your preference making baseless, generalized and (dare I say) prejudicial statements about another gaming preference, take the initiative to say it's wrong. That is to say that, if I see a Low Magic gamer ripping on high magic games, a post from
me as a Low Magic gamer informing the individual that what he's saying is uncool
should be more effective than a High Magic gamer telling him he's being uncool.
Of course, it's just a theory. But I also figure, at worst, those who are open minded of other styles will see the common curtesy, and eventually those that seek to purposefully cause discord (i.e., trolls) will eventually become an irrelevant side-show (such as the case of those whom have already identified themselves).
It seems this thread has been all about the "low magic versus high magic" and the grim and gritty part has been forgotten. (Perhaps a separate thread just on that would be appropriate - like how to do grim and gritty in the standard medium magic of the core rulebooks or to do it with high magic). In fact, here I go...
I think it's because defining GnG is easier than defining low magic. For instance, one can say that W&V adds GnG elements because a character can get creamed on a bad roll (much like real life) but still allows for cinematic sequances similar to Hit Points, while Ken Hood's GnG No-Hit-Points System is extensively GnG as it removes the cinematic element. This provides two "benchmarks". A lot of it also has to do with mood, flavor, theme, etc. One need only point to Beastmaster (light hearted dialogue, comic-book violence, minimum "splat" factor in sword fights) and Gladiator (vengeance as a prime motivator, imperial politics involving patricide and incest, near-death by infection, decapitation, dismemberment, enslavement, Christians sitting passively while the lions walk up and start feeding, etc.) to define the differences in clear terms that everyone can understand (even if they only represent "part" of the whole picture).
Low Magic, on the other hand, isn't so easily quantified. It can mean less magic, magic scaling caps, Spell Level maximums, or even an entirely different magic system, which may be as potent as Core magic but at a cost and with risk (ala
Sovereign Stone) or less potent (ala
Fading Suns).
As such, the debate will touch back on GnG from time to time (as it's a matter of taste and still isn't an "exact" description of the individual campaign) while Low Magic will remain a focus throughout (as the ambiguity resulting from its many variations make it a natural target for people that are accustomed to having rules and settings clearly detailed in exacting text).
