A difference between low magic and rare magic?

[aurin777]

I prefer a setting where magic is very rare. Only a few wizards spread across the continent, magic items few and far between. But the difference, I feel, is that the magic, once uncovered, is incrediably powerful. Am I drawing a wrong line here? Is this what people mean when they talk of "low magic"?
~~Brandon

 

[jester47]

I think that low magic means reduced magic power for most people, while to some others it means rare magic. But overall its what you want it to be. Cause the second you say "oh my game is low magic" the person you said that too is going to apply whatever thier definition is. Then you will have to explain your world anyway. Might as well just drop "low magic" as a descriptor and start by describing the world.

Aaron.

 

[Ottergame]

What is with this low magic world fad going on lately? I think low magic worlds are duller.

 

[Abisashi]

What is with this low magic world fad going on lately? I think low magic worlds are duller.

I don't think they are more or less exciting, just differently exciting. Its sort of like playing Day Of Defeat (or CS) vs. playing America's Army. In DOD, the excitement is because you are constantly in the action, bullets are flying, etc. In AA, there isn't nearly as much firefighting; the excitement comes a lot from the suspense, since you could die any moment, and when you do get in a firefight, you feel it more because it is a bigger change (like turning on a loud radio after being in silence.)

High magic is like DOD, low magic like AA. I like playing both, in both the D&D sense and the computer game sense. Generally, I prefer to mix it up.

And I agree that the terms are too vague. Personally, I prefer a 2-descriptor: power/rarity. Low-Medium-High/Rare-Uncommon-Common; I guess you could add "super" types at the end (Super-High/Super-Common) to get more descriptive power, as long as they aren't over used.

 

[Belegbeth]

"Low magic" is a vague term. It can mean "low frequency" magic (i.e. magic is rare) or "low power" magic -- or both.

Best to use more precise terms: e.g. "rare magic" or "weak magic".

Like you, aurin777, I like "rare magic" campaigns, though not necessarily "weak magic" ones.

Vance's Lyonesse novels and Leiber's Nehwon stories are good examples of "rare magic" settings. In those settings, most towns do *not* have resident wizards, and most people do not interact with magic in their daily lives. But the few wizards who do exist, and survive over time, are noteworthy and powerful -- though their opportunity to use this power is checked by the fear of reprisals from other wizards.

That kind of approach makes for interesting games, I think.

 

[Gothmog]

What is with this low magic world fad going on lately? I think low magic worlds are duller.

Its not just a recent thing. Look at all of the most compelling and interesting fantasy worlds created in the last 70 years- Middle Earth, Hyborea, Newhon, the Black Company series, Sanctuary- all of these are low/rare magic worlds where magic is not common, but what exists is powerful. The extremely high magic phenomena is a much more recent development. The reason people are asking about it is because the D&D core rules do a rather poor job of capturing the feel of these worlds, and people are wanting to discuss and figure out what changes should be made to reflect the feel of these worlds in their games. To me, high magic worlds are extremely dull, repetitive, and lack any sort of plausibility due to the insane amount of variety that exists there. Its the limitations, not the existence of tons of options, that really defines a world and gives it character.

And for what its worth, in my "low magic" campaign of 12 years, magic is rare, but tends to be potent.

 

[NewJeffCT]

What is with this low magic world fad going on lately? I think low magic worlds are duller.

Well, I don't think low magic is a fad. Middle Earth is considered to be low magic... wizards are rare (Gandalf, Sarumen and Radaghast the Brown are the only 3 that appear in the books, I believe) and, other than Frodo with the ring and Sting, nobody, including Aragorn, Legolas & Boromir, was really loaded down with magic items in the group when they started out. They would later get one gift each from Galadriel, but I would not consider Sam's elfin rope to be overly powerful, and Gimli got a lock of hair.

I prefer a world where wizards are rare and a bit awe-inspiring instead of having 1 per every 500 people. A cleric is somebody that performs religious ceremonies but rarely casts spells, with a true divinely inspired healer is very high up in the church hierarchy and only in the big cities or in hallowed religious sanctuaries.

 

[Keith]

I so agree with Gothmog (and NewJeff). Also, my take on the D&D rules was always that they defined a very rare set of people living in an otherwise fairly conventional faux-medieval world. The idea of worlds overrun with powerful spell casters, but which seem to remain mundane none-the-less, has always seemed completely untenable to me.

I think most people mean rare magic when they speak of low magic, or even more specifically rare magic items. I think only occasionally would they mean that they actually adjust all spells to reduce the power of D&D magic, for example.

 

[Ottergame]

I don't think they are more or less exciting, just differently exciting.

Sounds like when you are refering to someone who is disabled as being "differently abled". I think that applies quite nicely when refering to low magic worlds. Crippled.

I never have liked low magic worlds, to me its always seemed like a cheep cop-out on the part of the GM who doesn't want problems solved through magic. I like playing high fantasy games, or something that's quite different than real life. I wouldn't play in a d20 modern world, I'd go join the army. I don't really want my time spent in fantasy being very realistic.

The most realistic game world system I'd play is Shadowrun.

 

[Conaill]

I never have liked low magic worlds, to me its always seemed like a cheep cop-out on the part of the GM who doesn't want problems solved through magic.

Funny. High magic to me has always seemed like a cheep cop-out on the part of the GM who doesn't want to bother focusing on plot and interpersonal interactions. Sort of like the difference between a movie with lots of special effects but not much of a plot: might be fun for a while, but it's not the kind of movie I would want to watch week after week...

Besides, I want my magic to be, well... magical, i.e fantastic, extraordinary, amazing. Hard to do when everybody meets encounters some form of magic on a daily basis.

Personally, I would prefer rare magic, but also somewhat weaker magic. Otherwise, if only you reduce the prevalence of magic but make it available to your PCs, it actually becomes *more* powerful for them. You'd have to at least tone down the powerlevel a bit as well, otherwise the PC magic users will be unbalanced. I would also prefer to tone down the powerlevel of D&D in general, but that's a discussion for another time...