Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[Raven Crowking]

Big Dummy, I beleive there is a place within the RPG market for a low magic setting - indeed I am certain there are more than a few publishing them. Personally, I know of Castles and Crusades, which I beielve is more rules -and- magic lite (rules for sure, magic not so sure), Black Company (from what I've heard), that Grim and Gritty one, and Iron Heroes (and Raven Crowkings excellent PHB, which he mailed me and I've subsequently fallen in love with ).

And yet never sent me comments on!

Seriously, though, N, you're still on-queue for a copy of the final version.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The answer is 'Ain't gonna happen' and 'Already been done'.

'Ain't gonna happen' - WotC will almost certainly not produce such a setting - splitting the market was a big chunk of what killed TSR off. Nor do I think that there is enough interest in a low magic setting to be financially appealing to WotC - A large company spends a ridiculous amount of money just being a large company - the overhead is staggering, so the profits have to be larger as well. (This is also the case with charities, which I am more familiar with, as a result the amount of each contribution to a large charity that actually goes to the folks at the far end is very, very small.)

'Already been done' - Plenty of smaller companies - from Fantasy Flight to Troll Lord to Green Ronin have low magic D20 settings, and frankly, I am more apt to buy third party before WotC products - I am not the market that WotC is looking for.

The Auld Grump

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, and the myth of player entitlement has been debunked as well. Ask RC how many people think that players should be able to demand from their DM's.

Tons, just not as badly as I originally feared.

The vast majority of EnWorlders is willing to agree that the DM should be allowed to curb outrageous demands from players. That doesn't change the demand curve as much if those demands are in the basic ruleset.

In other words, if you say "No warforged ninja in a primitive setting" most will be willing to say you have that right. If you say "No warforged ninja" the numbers go down. If you say "No elves" the numbers go down even further. If you say "Elves in this setting vary from their counterparts because of X" the numbers are much, much lower.

There are still lots of threads where players complain unfairly about their DMs, but (as with those who say a low-magic D&D must not be done) I agree with Hussar that you seem to get the same vocal minority again...and again...and again.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then, enlighten me. How would you base estimates of Magic saturation in 1e? I would think that OFFICIAL TSR modules would be a far better estimate than Joe's homebrew. Note, that these modules were set forward as standards of play. They were tournament adventures and certainly saw far more play in far more groups than anyone's home rules. By any objective standard I would say that modules are likely the only way to estimate magic saturation.

This misses the point.

Lots of people played in low magic worlds in 1st Ed and 2nd Ed, and nobody blinked. Playing in a low magic world was considered to be easily done, and was considered to be supported by the rules.

In 3.X, lots of people play in low magic worlds. However, playing in a low magic world is no longer considered to be easily done, and is no longer considered to be supported by the rules. You say "low magic" and people blink, big time.

Yet, as you say, (and I agree) the edge of a dime balance (used as an excuse for why low-magic games won't work in 3.E) is a myth. So, why has this myth become so prevalent? Why is there such a fear of low magic gaming among a certain sector of the rpg gamer base? Why so many knee-jerk "If you don't like high-magic, don't play D&D" type responses?

Something has definitely shifted here. I'm just not sure that I can pin down exactly what.

RC

 

[Hemlock Stones]

Boy! What a rhubarb we've got going! Heck, my cat looked over my shoulder, read a few posts, and promptly spat out a hairball!

D&D 3.5 is about the wonders that magic giveth to the players and their imaginations. The power to shape worlds and make the magnificent happen. A low magic setting forces your conventional D&D player to yearn for what? D&D 3.5 is all about having ridiculous amounts of power. It means that much more paperwork and studying to properly accomidate and track what your powers are and what they can and can't do.

Is it that we want a low-magic setting to augment the offerings of 3.5 D&D? Many alternatives exist such as D20 Modern and Grim Tales. Or does low-magic really mean simplicity and a less complex means of doing the wonderous and magnificent?

The most obvious way to make things work better is to provide flexibility. The gaming environs have the "settings". The player character classes need to be diverse, interesting and reasonable. Story arcs and plots are the genius of the DM. Make it easier for the DM to do that without having to peruse a multitude of books to arbitrate rules and their interpretation. If you think about it, one of the best means of profit for any gaming company is books that augment what wonders the characters can do. Of course this is what stymies the DM, unbalances the characters, and has your game turned around into everybody trying to best each other at the expense of pleasure and enjoyment.

The "setting" and its wonder content in order to be flexible means that some sort of balance exists with the classes and racial augmentations. Drow ranger/wizard/healers tend to be way too over the top when it comes to being a reasonable playable character. Why not have a gaming system that balances the wondrous and magnificent over all of the classes equally? With that in place, the DM could adequately control just how potent the world he creates in really is.

One of the things for magic items in a world of limited wonder is that they should start out mundane. As the player grows in their ability to do wonders, the item also enhances on a balanced pace. Perhaps all of those lovable monsters we love to slay need that same sort of means of growth. Take the first level orc that eats his vitamins, says his prayers and becomes what at tenth level? Same thing, dead and writhing after three rounds of combat. The disparity is unfortunate. A low magic setting isn't the answer, a flexible approach to magic and how the DM integrates it into "their" game is the better choice. The wizard ponders for a moment, recalls something and then casts. The sorcerer grunts hard, strains himself and then casts. The cleric looks to the heavens, talks to his supreme being and then casts. The psion squints his eyes funny, focuses his mind for a moment and then casts. Do I need to do the same thing for our beloved fighter types?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nothing is wondrous or magnificient outside of some context that makes it so.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

However, playing in a low magic world is no longer considered to be easily done, and is no longer considered to be supported by the rules. Yet, as you say, (and I agree) the edge of a dime balance (used as an excuse for why low-magic games won't work in 3.E) is a myth.

As you've pointed out, 3E is adaptable to low-magic. That is, you can adapt it to a low magic setting by tweaking things, and the system doesn't collapse. The many low-magic settings and variants out there attest to this. However, 3E, as written, is not really suitable for low-magic. That's why so many people suggest a variant system. All the campaign that I've seen that use 3E for low magic *always* tweak the rules, classes, et cetera. It's not really standard D&D anymore -- but that was the goal.

I think you can tweak and adjust 3E for a low magic game (and that a low magic game requires and benefits from such tweaking). But I also think it would be a lot easier to use one of the variant system (e.g. Iron Heroes, True20, et cetera) that have already done most of the work for you.

My $0.02, FWIW.

 

[delericho]

"Magic is what makes D&D what it is, get over it." may well be the official stance, but it is a lousy stance IMHO. D&D is, and has always been, more than the sum of its splatbooks. It is easy to simply throw more, more, MORE out there. It is easy to say "anything goes", just as it is inherently easier to create a generic setting than it is to create a detailed, strongly conceived setting.

It's quite hard to write a book that actively reduces the number of options that are out there.

Somewhere upthread, someone said that low magic campaigns were based upon lazy DMing. In reality, low magic campaigns require DMs to think and to choose, as well as to craft a world where the PCs can make a difference. In a low magic world, even low level PCs are special, and should have a greater effect on their surroundings than mid- to high-level characters in a standard 3.X world. Easy DMing? Far from it. Low magic takes work.

Or, low magic campaigns relieve the DM of the responsibility of considering how magic changes the world, of considering how the extraordinary abilities of the PCs might casually derail his plot. By reducing the power level of PCs, it becomes easier to insulate the setting from the abilities of high level PCs to affect the landscape. Low magic reduces the required work.

In low-magic worlds, players are encouraged to note how things are connected. Without the whizz-bang-pow of easy magic, settings have to make more sense, from the humblest village to the mightiest city. Lazy DMing? Far from it.

In high magic settings, the basic assumptions that players have grown up with no longer apply. It is no longer the case that a man cannot fly, a closed room does not mean someone didn't leave, and just because you didn't tell anyone your secret doesn't mean it hasn't already been broadcast to the world. Players are therefore forced to think in an alien mindset, and the DM is faced with the burden of making it all makes sense, because if the setting is not internally consistent then you're just making it up as you go.

Low magic takes work. High magic is relatively easy. Like the engineers speaking technobabble on Star Trek, the high magic DM can always wave his hands and intone "It's magic". The Low Magic DM has to have an explanation that makes sense, because using "it's magic" itself needs to be explained.

Alternatively, in the high magic world the rules of magic are clearly understood. So, you might have a technobabble explanation for how something works, but you need that explanation. In a low magic game, "it's magic" is enough, since no-one really understands how magic works. All you need is some notion of how the magic got there, and you can do anything you want.

Like a bad, but expensively produced, film, a poorly wrought high magic world can sometimes go forward on its own flash and special effects for a good while before it starts to feel hollow. But a cheaply made film, without the high-budget special effects, has to be good from the get-go or people stop watching. So it is with the low-magic game -- it has to deliver or it won't last long.

And a bad big budget film is better than a badly made low budget film, because at least the audience can be distracted by the effects. And a well-made big budget film brings more to the table than any any cheaply made film can.

IMHO, WotC picked the high magic road because it is easier. A good DM can go low-magic or high-magic. A weaker DM almost always picks high magic. And rightly so -- it is the easier choice.

I think perhaps you are confusing your own preferences with an objective measure of quality.

 

[Elf Witch]

I would like to see WOTC put out a low magic setting or maybe a ruleset on how to use DnD to play a low magic setting. Something like a players and Dungeon Master guide to low magic with the standard classes and spells tweaked. But unless they think they can make money I don't see it happening.


I have heard people suggest Midnight which I think is a great setting but not something I would want to play all the time. Its a little to dark.

One of the problems I see with going with a different system is some people will put up a fuss about having to learn a new way to do things or they don't trust it unless it says WOTC on the cover.

I have to agree with the people who are saying that it is hard to run a 3.5 game at higher levels low magic. My DM tried to run Kalamar as low magic and it worked great up until around 12 level and then the non magical users could not keep up with the magic users. I played a straight fighter with no real magic items and I found that the cleric/paladin with their access to spells out fought me had a better chance of living and was really the better fighter.

 

[delericho]

One way to implement lower magic in D&D is to actually play by the rules as written instead of fudging over things, namely the sleep / recharge period between spellcasting. In too many D&D sessions I've seen, particularly higher level games, parties will camp out the second the spellcasters cast even a few of their spells. Sleeping for 8 hours, adventuring / fighting for thirty minutes, and then sleeping for another 8 hours and on and on in this matter is often a stretch in many ways.

Yeah, that's a pain. However, what I've seen doesn't quite match this. In my experience, high level parties stop to rest as soon as they have exhausted their available healing resources. I encouraged them to stock up on Wands of Cure Light Wounds, and they rested a lot less. Of course, that option doesn't work in a low magic game.

But my dislike of the whole fight/rest paradigm is a topic for another thread, I think.

How much time is going by this way, can the kingdom wait for a year long exploration of the mad alchemists crypt or do they need it done in a week?

The counterargument that PCs will give is that if they fail, the kingdom is doomed anyway. Besides, placing a tight time limit on every single adventure is quite a stretch too.

With a cleric or Druid the players probably have enough food and water for eternity, but do they have enough material magic components to keep casting every spell over and over?

Per the RAW, once they have a spell component pouch, yes (for the inexpensive components).

Even if you are hiding up in the rope trick hole, how hard is it for local bad guys or monsters to eventually figure this out? Set up an ambush?

Significantly harder in a low magic setting than a high magic one - the local bad guys probably haven't encountered the rope trick tactic before, so won't even consider it.

Also don't forget, interruptions of the "rest" at camp out time add more required rest time. Conditions have to be right. Spellbooks have to be available.

There is the 8 hour restriction between memorization as well for both divine and arcane casters.

Great, so every time you ambush the PCs you reset the 'rest clock'. Which means a slower game, and more wasted time. And a DM who regularly removes the Wizard's spellbook will at best soon find himself with a party of spontaneous casters, or at worst find himself without a group. Playing a Wizard who can't cast spells is no fun at all.

Basically, DM's let players slide on this, which is fine if thats how you want to play. But if you want to try a lower magic game, one way to balance the power of the spellcasters is to just enforce the rules as written. That way the spellcasters are not so dominant, since they have to be a bit more careful as to when they cast spells and are more limited in how many they can cast. Fighters and rogues have more power and more to do in comparison.

Except that the fighters and rogues are burning through their hit points more quickly, and can't be healed as easily as normal. Which means the group as a whole needs to retreat and rest more often as well.