What is "grim and gritty" and "low magic" anyway?

[Fenris]

Ok, since a couple people have asked about this, I posted my low magic house rules in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1420956#post1420956

And to answer your question, yes I developed these rules in 3E, and they work perfectly well in 3.5 as well. In fact, I didn't have to change a single thing with them. I didn't really modify the item creation feats except for the fact that I require any items to be made to also require essentia to construct. Essentia is detailed in this document, but basically it is inherently magical material of variable type (necromancy, abjuration, etc) that is consumed in making the item. For every 2500GP value of the item, one use of essentia is required to enchant the item, with a minimum of one use of essentia for any item.

Thanks Gothmog.


And to the Mods: I hereby nominate this thread with all of it's excellent ideas, variants and cautionary tales to be archived when it peters out.

 

[MerricB]

There is a certain assumption built into D&D (of any edition) that does not conform to most fantasy tales: that of the level of personal magic available to wizards.

Consider the fireball spell, and then consider the power of wizards in most fantasy fiction. (Admittedly, modern fantasy fiction often owes much to D&D in its form). It is rarely a level of immediate power that can be seen - especially without consequences!

The mere existence of the AD&D magic-user as a hero immediately changes the landscape from one in which magic is hidden to one in which it is extremely apparent.

However, it is not merely the D&D wizard that contributes to the "high" magic level of 3E; there are also related issues concerning the hiring of magic-users to cast spells, the creation of magic items, the availability of magic items in treasure hordes, and the easy purchase of magic items - the types of such magic are also important!

AD&D had high availability for magic items in treasure hordes, and low for the creation of magic items.

3E makes all of those levels "high" by default; though this is not the only factor that has made 3E divergent from 1E - there are scaling issues that relate directly to the use of ability scores for monsters.

Indeed, it is in the nature of the challenges that a PC can overcome that the game is most interested. The level of magic just changes the point at which a certain monster can be overcome - if it can be! After all, if there was no magic weapon more potent than +1, then some creatures would be near impossible to defeat!

Because of the greater number of options in 3E, it also makes judging the difficulty of challenges more difficult, especially when fundamental judgements about the system are changed. Some changes, in fact, would not alter the balance equation overmuch - however, it's not always easy to tell which changes would do what.

Add to that the nature of advancment in 3E versus 1E (consider both how Hit Dice work, and the entire power level - including magic - begins to be pushed higher than it once was - which, as I said at the start of my post, is higher than what is normal in fantasy!

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've got no problems with going for a lmgng style game for the feel the particular mechanics give you -- if the idea of a magical arms race doesn't appeal to you, good on ya, and go for something different, something I'd probably even play in (though I'll still come back to the magical arms race......D&D for me is solidly in 'game' territory, sice I can actually get paid for the stories I write, and the one-upmanship plays out like a magical tactical warfare, and I dig that).

I just find myself getting defensive when people suggest that LM/GnG settings are *nessecarily* better at things like, say, weeding out powergamers, or intrigue, or ambiguity, or sacrifice. From where I sit, in a campaign with pretty normal magic, no powergamers, plenty of intrigue, ambiguity, and sacrifice (and level 5 becoming my base starting level), it's just patently false. To overhaul the entire system based on a false misconception about what a few spells can do is a bit reckless, I think.

To overhaul it based on what magic in general can actually do -- that's a bit more of a solid basis for turning the game on it's ear, I think. Again, it's a mountain/molehill problem, and, I think, where a lot of the "lmgng suxxors" sentiment is coming from -- DM's who have had commune foil a plot once or twice and who have thus developed a grudge against all divination because of their wasted campaign effort. DM's who see raise dead as being not just not their taste, but patently abusive and destructive to their stories. It's this reaction that I'm not a fan of, because (a) the problem almost never is as big as they think it is and (b) they'd change the entire system based on a few spells that they personally don't like existing.

Campaign flavor is one thing......but telling me that I can't have ambiguity and intrigue just because I have divination is pretty narrowminded, and not at all a flavor argument. It's just saying "Normal D&D is inferior to my epic challenge homebrew system!" Which is wrong. Just 'cuz you like your system better doesn't mean that the rest is crap.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

To overhaul it based on what magic in general can actually do -- that's a bit more of a solid basis for turning the game on it's ear, I think. Again, it's a mountain/molehill problem, and, I think, where a lot of the "lmgng suxxors" sentiment is coming from -- DM's who have had commune foil a plot once or twice and who have thus developed a grudge against all divination because of their wasted campaign effort. DM's who see raise dead as being not just not their taste, but patently abusive and destructive to their stories. It's this reaction that I'm not a fan of, because (a) the problem almost never is as big as they think it is and (b) they'd change the entire system based on a few spells that they personally don't like existing.

You're not paying very good attention to the thread as a whole, and that's a shame.

I regret calling out specific problem spells as you've seized on that as my only gripe. That's not the case. I'd go through the entire list of spells and magic items if I had the time or inclination to instruct you.

I don't have a problem with high magic as a DM-- I have a problem with it as a player. It is not that I have had plots foiled, it is that I have, as a player, seen them foiled, helped to foil them, with high level magic.

The longer you play in a game, the higher level you ascend, the more magic becomes a crutch and a cure-all. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a simple fact of the CORE DESIGN of D&D-- characters are expected to use magic in order to be heroic and achieve their goals.

And as others have already pointed out, that is simply inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth, that experience that we hope to capture or emulate.

Those of us who enjoy playing characters of wits, skill, and resourcefulness-- the qualities ascribed to classic heroes-- are given short shrift in a game where magic is a cure-all.

I'd wager there is no plot, no situation, no moral quandary faced by a hero in any classic tale that cannot be solved by a 20th level cleric or wizard in six spells or less.

Fire away if you like, that'd be an interesting game... Sort of a six degrees to solution kinda thing.


Wulf

 

[FireLance]

I'd wager there is no plot, no situation, no moral quandary faced by a hero in any classic tale that cannot be solved by a 20th level cleric or wizard in six spells or less.

Fire away if you like, that'd be an interesting game... Sort of a six degrees to solution kinda thing.

Wulf

Let's go with a classic: an invasion of githyanki from the Astral plane into your world.

Yeah, a band of 20th-level heros could probably take out the leader in a short, sharp battle, but what do you do to the tens of thousands of githyanki warriors (I use the term loosely) still at large and dangerous?

What if a particularly successful warlord manages to conquer an entire realm for himself?

Even if all the githyanki are defeated, what do you do with the survivors? Do you rehabilitate them or execute them? What if two nominally Lawful Good faiths argue for different resolutions with the tacit backing of their deities?

 

[Remathilis]

Wow! Ask a simple question and look at the answer I get! Thanks to everyone for answering, debating, and discussing this one.

That said, my personal feelings have been wavering of late. I was once in the category of "high magic" because most of the "low magic" games I saw were ill thought out and tended to be poorly run (by good DM's mind you). However, the current level of D&D magic makes it hard to have a game that runs smoothly without alot of constant DM one-upmanship and such. Some days I'd like to go to a lower level magic, more grim and gritty setting, but others I prefer D&D's escapism.

I asked for the definitions because somewhere in them I wanted to see how people deal with classic D&D issues like magical items, monsters, flashy spells, etc in a low magic setting, and how many people use alternatives to D&D. That, and it gave me some ideas to sell to my players.

I'll throw out another nugget: Would a d20 hardcover book that covered "low magic/G&G" rules in a generic way be useful? Things like alternate spellcaster classes, different combat/healing rules, variant spell lists, and monsters that don't require magic to beat? UA makes alot of this possible now...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Let's go with a classic: an invasion of githyanki from the Astral plane into your world.

I must have missed that one in classical mythology.

Yeah, a band of 20th-level heros could probably take out the leader in a short, sharp battle, but what do you do to the tens of thousands of githyanki warriors (I use the term loosely) still at large and dangerous?

You leave them to the tens of thousands of 10th level high magic heroes.

What if a particularly successful warlord manages to conquer an entire realm for himself?

Why, scry, buff, and teleport, of course.


Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'll throw out another nugget: Would a d20 hardcover book that covered "low magic/G&G" rules in a generic way be useful?

Gosh, I certainly hope so.

http://www.badaxegames.com/html/products/grim_tales/index.html

Wulf

 

[kamosa]

The longer you play in a game, the higher level you ascend, the more magic becomes a crutch and a cure-all. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a simple fact of the CORE DESIGN of D&D-- characters are expected to use magic in order to be heroic and achieve their goals.

And as others have already pointed out, that is simply inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth, that experience that we hope to capture or emulate.

Wulf

I would say that most fantasy is low level D&D. I know it would pain most people to admit this, but LOTR is a low level D&D game. Gandolf was not much more then a 5th level wizard based on the D&D game. Aragorn was not much more then a 4th to 6th level fighter. The hobits started out as at best 1st level rogues. If you want to play the setting, why not just have your campaign have a level limit and reduce the XP awards? I played in a great campaign that ran 2 to 3 times a month for three years and we ended it with the characters just crossing into 7th level at the end of the last adventure.

It's fine to want your game to fit in the fantasy worlds you read. What ends up being boo is the forcing of high level gaming into a low level straight jacket, because you don't want to admit you only want to play at low levels.

 

[nopantsyet]

I'll throw out another nugget: Would a d20 hardcover book that covered "low magic/G&G" rules in a generic way be useful? Things like alternate spellcaster classes, different combat/healing rules, variant spell lists, and monsters that don't require magic to beat? UA makes alot of this possible now...

I'll chime in here, as a DM who runs games of varying levels of magic and grittiness.

First of all, I have not had to make much in the adjustments to the core rules to evoke the feel I want. I don't necessarily want to make the game more lethal, nor do I want to weaken magic. But death and magic are an important part of any fantasy RPG, so how you define and deal with them goes a long way to defining the flavor of your game. What I want out of that is consistency.

Think, for example, of the ramifications of standard D&D magic in a large city. How are safety and security maintained when people can Ethereal Jaunt their way anywhere they want, taking what they please? How do they contain threats when they do appear?

On to weapons. Do they allow citizens to walk around armed? Is a permit of some kind required? What about peace bonding? What are the penalties for brandishing or fighting? No doubt both sides will be imprisoned until some or all parties are found guilty of something.

Answer those questions, and you've got yourself not just an interesting city, but probably lots of opportunities for danger and moral ambiguity.

I'm a firm believer that magic can solve lots, but not all. So you use divination to learn that a powerful noble is plotting to overthrow the king. What proof can you provide to satisfy the rules of law and society that protect his rights? How will you answer to the law for the murder of a presumably innocent nobleman? How are his co-consipirators going to take to all of this.

In my mind, magic and combat are just tools. They can open a can of worms, but it takes resourcefulness and wit to get them back in without making a bigger mess.

I use house rules sparingly to help fine-tune the flavor of my game. Mostly I rely on how I define the setting and I make sure that there are consequences to character actions. I like to have a gritty, dystopic feel to my games.
I like the players to feel like the odds are stacked against them, and their goal is desperate.

And while I draw inspiration from LM and GnG mechanics and settings out there, I don't need them, nor do I define my game using those terms. Even though the feel is grittier and lower magic than something like Forgotten Realms.