High magic, low magic, it's all relative.

[Kask]

I was thinking about the seemingly eternal debate regarding hi/low magic campaigns. Playing from OD&D through 3.x (forget 4E as different game system altogether) we've seen the PC power curve steadily increased with each new rules set and "splat" book released. All that this particular trend has accomplished (better mechanics aside) was to cause a DM to have to increase adversary power also. But, did it improve fun? I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?

Just Monday a.m. thoughts.

 

[Grimstaff]

I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?

Generally when I hear "High Magic vs Low Magic" I'm thinking of the relative amount of obvious magic appearing in a campaign setting, such as the vague sorceries of Hyperborea vs. the flying ships and lightning trains of Ebberron.

+20 swords would seem to be a seperate issue, one of munchkinism/monty-haulism, and not something I believe I've seen published in an official capacity.

"Power Creep" via splats I generally view as increasing player power across the board, whether through feats, abilities, etc, not necessarily magic.

So I guess I'm not sure what you're really looking gor here, but I tend to like Low-magic campaign settings, I pretty much never allow splats due to power creep, and I never hand out munchkinized +20 swords.

 

[Crothian]

But, did it improve fun? I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?

It isn't something I do all the time, but giving low level PCs a powerful item to see what they do with it can be fascinating. I had one group refuse to use because they were scared people would learn they had something of incredible value and come steal it from them. Another time the party fought over using the item (it had charges so some of the group didn't want to waste it) and that lead to in fighting and killing of PCs. The third time I did it they were excited about what they had found and someone wrote it down on a character sheet and they forgot about it for 5 months real time.

In all instances it was a lot of fun for everyone, even the woman who's PC was killed off.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

It isn't something I do all the time, but giving low level PCs a powerful item to see what they do with it can be fascinating.

I played in a game where one player was carrying around an artifact-level sword on his back from 1st level, and never used it for fear of what it might do to him...

My personal preference is for fewer items, but with a little more power and flair than was the case in 3E.

 

[Henry]

I was thinking about the seemingly eternal debate regarding hi/low magic campaigns. Playing from OD&D through 3.x (forget 4E as different game system altogether) we've seen the PC power curve steadily increased with each new rules set and "splat" book released. All that this particular trend has accomplished (better mechanics aside) was to cause a DM to have to increase adversary power also. But, did it improve fun? I mean having a 1st level character get a +20 sword of instant monster destruction makes the game more interesting?

Just Monday a.m. thoughts.

For a limited time, it can be fun to play with, but from my perspective, long-term all it does is make the math harder to keep up with. I like seeing mages feel "magical", instead of carrying one spell like a single-use rocket grenade and then having to use darts or a crossbow all day, but having larger and larger effects just means more numbers to wade through until you finally figure out what the d20 roll meant this round.

 

[AllisterH]

Um, do I need to bust out the link that proves quite conclusively that 3e actually had LESS magic items in the hands of the players than a standard 1e/2e adventure?

 

[Kask]

Um, do I need to bust out the link that proves quite conclusively that 3e actually had LESS magic items in the hands of the players than a standard 1e/2e adventure?

Sure, I don't know how that is relevant to items received in a campaign unless a DM ran nothing but prepackaged adventures...

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Um, do I need to bust out the link that proves quite conclusively that 3e actually had LESS magic items in the hands of the players than a standard 1e/2e adventure?

Hopefully, that's not necessary. My experience is that I gave out more powerful magic in the 1E/2E days than I did in the 3E days. I gave out more bulk magic items in 3E; lots of +1 rings of protection or +1 amulets of natural armor - the Big Six that was just there to make the numbers add up rather than adding anything particularly cool to the gaming experience.

I don't personally view the low-magic/high-magic thing as an edition-specific discussion.

 

[Agamon]

Generally when I hear "High Magic vs Low Magic" I'm thinking of the relative amount of obvious magic appearing in a campaign setting, such as the vague sorceries of Hyperborea vs. the flying ships and lightning trains of Ebberron.

+20 swords would seem to be a seperate issue, one of munchkinism/monty-haulism, and not something I believe I've seen published in an official capacity.

"Power Creep" via splats I generally view as increasing player power across the board, whether through feats, abilities, etc, not necessarily magic.

So I guess I'm not sure what you're really looking gor here, but I tend to like Low-magic campaign settings, I pretty much never allow splats due to power creep, and I never hand out munchkinized +20 swords.

I was about to write this post, then I read it. I don't define the intensity of magic in a campaign by the ratio of power/cost of magic item to level of the PC carrying it. That's munchkinism, to me.

High/low magic to me is a setting attribute. I agree, though, that monty haul games, regardless of edition/game, aren't much fun (if that was indeed the gist).

 

[Doug McCrae]

The sequel always has to be bigger, better and have more explosions. If the heroes saved a city the first time out, then next time they have to save the planet. Same reason PCs go up levels instead of staying the same or declining, that wouldn't be very exciting or interesting. It's human nature.

Also it's easier to sell splats if they offer power upgrades. Simply offering more options is effectively a power upgrade too as players now have a bigger pool of classes, feats or whatever to choose from.

To some extent things reset every time a new edition comes out. Then the inevitable splats cause the inevitable power creep. That's true of all rpgs, not just D&D. Essentially Kask you're arguing for more editions of D&D to be published.