Normal/High Magic/Not Gritty How-To

[mmadsen]

Finally, I want to say that although I understand what mmadsen means by not "resorting to extensive magical countermeasures -- and that this magical arms race leads to an increasingly implausible, difficult-to-imagine world," I don't think this is a valid argument. Are not magical countermeasures the natural development in a magical world? How then is this implausible?

My point was not that no one would develop magical countermeasures in a highly magical world.

Kamikaze Midget opened the thread with a straw man argument that mystery, suspense, and drama are impossible at high levels. I didn't think that was the argument being made by the low-magic camp:

I believe the argument is that mystery, suspense, and drama are difficult to cultivate at high levels (with the correspondingly wondrous spells) without resorting to extensive magical countermeasures -- and that this magical arms race leads to an increasingly implausible, difficult-to-imagine world.

If magic can solve dramatic problems easily, then we need magical obstacles too; otherwise the dramatic problems go away. This "magical arms race" has a few effects. First, it moves more and more of the game into the realm of magic; mundane actions (and abilities) play proportionally less of a role. Second, the unintended consequences of these magical measures, countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures spiral. It becomes difficult to guess how such a world would operate, and inconsistencies pop up.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I think it's a definite risk. I've tried to counter this in a few ways: .... How's that for a start? I know I'm missing things.

GREAT start...

Too many templates are silly, unless the creature in question is unique, and an experimenter has been "tinkering" with a [whatever] for a very long time. Then, okay, 3 templates is kind of a practical limit, so yes, you're right.

Or, even, better, the creature has been tinkering with itself...

Perhaps gold blocks telepathy and mind control, which explains why gold is valuable and why kings wear gold crowns.

That would be lead, I believe (at least in 3.0 it did, though that may be only the low-level "sight" spells...).

You don't necessarily challenge the players combat-wise, but rather mentally.

It becomes a contest of wits, then. Interesting.

 

[Trainz]

That would be lead, I believe (at least in 3.0 it did, though that may be only the low-level "sight" spells...).

Given that the atomic weight of gold and lead is almost the same (gold 197 and lead 207.2), one could argue that gold is as efficient, which would support PC's gold crown theory.



/nerd

 

[VirgilCaine]

Given that the atomic weight of gold and lead is almost the same (gold 197 and lead 207.2), one could argue that gold is as efficient, which would support PC's gold crown theory.

/nerd

OR...one could have a gilt lead crown...

 

[Brother MacLaren]

OR...one could have a gilt lead crown...

Well, first, I know that lead and gold both block some spells, but I was saying "If you say that gold has these properties, then suddenly there's a reason for why people have always valued gold and why kings wear golden crowns."

And, second, I would IMC try very hard to encourage the players to NOT think scientifically about this. That is, NPCs would know "A golden crown keeps the king's mind free" and so they would give their kings golden crowns. They wouldn't test to see if there was some threshold below which the gold stops working. No, because the tradition is that a king wears a golden crown, and every king before him has worn a golden crown, and who knows what bad things will happen if you break with the tradition. Even in a magic world, there's no need to assume that even the wizards really know all the ins and outs of how high-level magic works (e.g., exactly how many feet of which types of stone will block scrying).

That's always one of the hardest parts of a normal-magic campaign but most important to me, keeping the magic MAGIC and not science.

 

[ciaran00]

Two paragraphs removed by Admin; when I said not to insult people, that also applies to not insulting people who prefer low magic games. I would have thought that was obvious.

That said, a high magic game deteorates when the world shrinks around massively powerful characters/entities/etc. My particular solutions:

• There is always a bigger fish. Collary of: never forget who your masters are. As the players themselves evolve, so do the gods and other powerful entities around them. If in a low-level game you admit that the players are unique and special in some way, stop doing it for the high level game.
• Gandalfs do not make good leaders. The kind of magicians that can level an island or fight a Balrog are grossly lacking in any ability to raise a kingdom or an army (it's just an example. Don't quote Tolkein to me. Tolkein had many misconceptions about world ecologies). A kingdom or an army is a different sort of resource than a +15 sword (and in many ways a more common and deadly one). Players that devote their time all to themselves will find themselves lacking in the true resource that is "power" (they would only have mettle, or personal power if you will). I call power a true resource because it converts to almost everything else (including currency).
• There are other equals. Sort of like #1, except that you track your world (in part) in generations. There is the generation long before the PCs... the sorceror king/Champion of Rajaat kind that has been ruling the world for ages. There are the generations before the PCs... the high templars... the archsorcerors, etc. The generations directly before the PCs... the NPC/PCs (characters that the DM has personally developed) and most interesting to me the generation OF the PCs. Other characters who have evolved at the same level as the PCs. The best is, of course, the characters after the PCs... the ones who will come hunt them down for atrocities or whatever (being high level also means you've made countless enemies).
• There are responsibilities. Power brings with it politics, complications, bureaucracy. PCs who've never encountered it before can get overwhelmed, making less trouble for DMs as they sort through the _meaning_ of having power... dependency, expectations, etc. <-- PCs should already be dealing with this in low level if your world has any dimension at all.
• There is technology. No, I don't mean guns. Take an Engineer from the '40s or '50s. Engineers now have different (much better curricula). Similarly, there may be better ways to learn to cast fireball over the course of a few decades. Magicians may be able to better use the forces at hand than the older crew who intuitively tapped their ways through it (less documentation = more effort and more work). Issues of magical obsolescence may occur.
• Forces of nature. Disease, plague, undeath, etc. These are always TOO large for any character of any level to handle. You're the DM. Sky's the limit.
• What if. All the situations that break the rules. The characters are weaklings in the new world order. The characters are forced to hop backwards through time. The world as they know it is false. This is sort of like Piratecat's solution. The PCs' weakness comes not from you taking power away, but with you doing things in an alienly different way.
• The Gauntlet. Any dungeon, long enough, will deplete the PCs resources no matter how high level they are.

Those are just some ideas. My tendonitis is preventing me from finishing this post, but I will return.

ciaran

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Since the above comments were removed, this is no longer needed. I'm not kidding, folks; we're having this discussion without criticizing those people who use a different style. If problems arise, please report the post by clicking on the "!" icon under each member's name. ~ Piratecat

 

[S'mon]

The most gritty, nasty, you-could-die-at-any-moment game I ever played in was in SHARK's world with a 40th level character. Its all about your DM and the feel they try to create.

That's the kind of feel I try to create when I run high-level.

I've found it's perfectly possible to run a high-powered game without it seeming silly. I've made a few changes, eg all divine spellcasting is spontaneous IMC, nerfed true resurrection, and magical shieldings vs scry & teleport are common, but if anything high-magic creates a sense of fear because you never know when the enemy will strike.

Deity-level scenarios I've run in AD&D include things like trying to rectify a change in the timeline caused by an artifact, battling demon lords and arch-devils, saving entire worlds from evil forces, that kind of thing. Through it all, smart PCs certainly know fear.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Some random meanderings...

Threats other than death are good for challenging PCs. Subversion of characters is often far worse than death. The worlds most powerful paladin is likely to be far more worried by the prospect of falling from grace than simply dying? Sepulcrave has several great examples of this sort of fear in his story hour...

One of the plots in Morrus game is a plague that has been eating away at the magic/magic users of the players home kingdom... it hasn't affected any PCs yet, but is a rather scary prospect for a high magic game? Needs urgent sorting out.

I agree that some politiking adds hugely to any game... but is particularly interesting in a 'high' magic game.

I think consequences of player actions are important. The players are hugely powerful in a high level game. I think the knock on effects of their actions can be interesting.

For example. What if a group of players killed a bunch of evil ratmen and the unintended side-effects unleashed the full power of the White Kingdom? They're kind of obligated to sort that sort of mess out?


Edit: High magic, normal magic. Bah! Labels are difficult - I guess I mean 'default' magic without too much nerfing. Sloppy thinking is never good.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

There is always a bigger fish. Collary of: never forget who your masters are. As the players themselves evolve, so do the gods and other powerful entities around them. If in a low-level game you admit that the players are unique and special in some way, stop doing it for the high level game.

You know, I'm curious about this. Everybody brings up this point as an important point in a high-level game - as if it's a balancing factor or something. Now, it doesn't sound like this was your point, but people often seem to be referring to NPCs. Why? Why can't the 17th-level PC wizard be the most powerful mage on the planet? Main characters who really are the highest-level dudes around or the best there is at what they do:
Hercules
Samson
Dark Phoenix
Merlin
Conan
Duncan MacLeod
... but most everybody has a weakness and all of these faced challenges.

Now, sure, you may want to toss in something off-plane for a super-duper challenge every now and then. And gods will remain gods. But do you have to be consistently reminding the PCs "You aren't the best"? Why should you stop letting the PCs be unique and special in a high-level game? It seems to me that in a limited sense you could make it true that "You're the greatest warrior that ever lived" while still maintaining challenges. (Such as numbers of slightly-lower-level opponents, political intrigue, puzzles, artifacts or monsters from a lost age, the challenge of wielding power, or monsters with special abilities that make them a particular challenge)