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

[Orius]

I guess I don't hate "low magic, grim & gritty" as much as I dislike gamers who think that playing such campaigns somehow makes them more mature and enlightened than people who play "standard magic, non-grim & gritty" campaigns.

I have to agree. I don't really care much for the opinion of the "real roleplayers" that D&D sucks because of hit points, alignments, or any other such features they don't particularly care for. I like a certain amount of power-gaming, but I also like a certain amount of game balance. There's no real satisfaction in easy victories.

Game that are too high-magic, high fantasy can suck too. I think though, there's more vocal criticism of G&G and low magic, because those are accepted, sometimes haughtily, while horribly overpowered games don't seem to have many defenders at all.

Also note that my arguments apply to D&D specifically. Certainly d20 is flexible enough to make a fantasy campaign that is tougher and less fantastic than D&D.

 

[el-remmen]

Th reason I find this thread so intgeresting is because we are discussing not only what comprises a "low magic" or a "GnG" game, but really what our expectations of a campaign are and what it is we identify with in our characters and what we want our characters to be/accomplish.

For myself, I much prefer running a low magic/gritty game (well, actually I think my game is "moderate magic", but others say it is low, but only in comparison to "standard" D&D - it would actually be "high" in comparison to Howard's Hyborean world, for example), and I think it is as hard as to run as a good high level (10+) campaign - if only because you have to keep the game engaging and fun when often there are no clear resolutions to and feelings of accomplishment in morally gray and "gritty" sitautions, and much like "real life" every action has a number of bad consequences along with the intended good ones.

I think "low magic" is problem in terms of how the rules are built and supposedly balanced, while "grit" is a problem of the actual flavor and fun of the game.

For myself, I have not changed how many spells spell-casters can cast or learn, etc. . . though I have greatly lowered the number of "free" spells for wizards (1 every 2 level, instead of 2 every 1 level, and it has to be of a school of magic of a spell you already know in order to understand the under-pinnings behind the magic spell), and except for certain spells I have not removed or changed spells (spells I have made "rare" are Make Whole, because a spell like that not only makes worrying about gear a thing of the past, it also would change the fundamental economic of society), thouhg I have added certian requirments to spells like raise dead or resurrection (being a devout follower of the god in question, or being raised comes along with a geas (no save) to fulfill some quest for the god/church (adventure hooks, anyone?). . .

But I have creatured cultural and societal rules and customs for how magic is handled in order to keep it under control and to add a certain amount of flavor (heck, even Sepulcrave's high magic masterpiece has "the Great Injunction") to help reinforce that low magic awe-filled feeling that I and my players like.

Another way of accomplishing this (which I do also) is by potentially changing the assumptions about certain monsters and magical items, - demons remain fearsome and mysterious foes, for example - are they immune to electrical attacks? Maybe, maybe not. . .

Another thing I do is making skills a lot more important to survival. . . I had one session that was detailed in my story hour not too long ago, that was all just making jumping, climbing, balance, tumble, etc. . . checks to escape a collapsing underground complex, while fighting zombies and avoiding falling stones, etc. . . The party wizard did not even have levitation at that point - but the players had a blast! And when the session was over I got a round of applause for how I had handled it (the first and only time that has happened for me as DM). A few stoneskins, levitate, fly, dimension door, teleport, passwall, phase door (is that even a spell anymore?), or what have you and that escape would have been over in a few minutes and while the description of the collapse might have been exciting the escape would have been much less so. . .

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

What I haven't really seen discussed too much are campaign reasons that include "low magic," middle-of-the-road, and "high" magic all in one campaign world.

Remember, I won't examine specific PCs in general; only the general "level" of society.

Say you have a campaign world where people of higher than 9th level are quite rare (not that dissimilar from a standard dnd game). This world has 4 continents, 2 of which are at least the size of Western Europe. You're going to have a lot of cultural seperation. I'd imagine this division of cultures would look at magic differently, so you may have 3 different cultural views about magic.

Consider a one small country that legally forces all spellcasters to register themselves with the government and swear a bind oath that they will never use magic to destroy or enhance tools of war. This oath is made binding by a special item upon which the spellcasters must swear (Wheel of Time's Oathrod). Perhaps this country has highly-trained, elite military, with a few wizards per unit that serve to magically buff the troops. Likewise, this culture might be more inclined to create magic items that heal and benefit society on the whole, focusing their efforts to keep the country clean, healthy, etc. This could lead to a very cosmopolitan society, without necessarily "crippling" them should another nation threaten them with force. Also, this does not necessarily raise or lower the magic level. It's still there. However, adventurers would have a tough time finding arms and armaments, but might be able to get their hands on potions, scrolls, this sort of thing. Offensive magic in general would be hard to come by.

This sort of keeps things middle-of-the-road, but alters it in such a way that in some illusive ways it gives off the appearance of both high and low magic.

You could also have another country far across the country that has developed such wonderful processes with metallurgy, architecture, etc. that they don't really use magic in their society. Mages have never been interested in this country (lack of useful magical resources, strange fluxes in magical "zones," whatever) and society has adjusted itself to get along without them. The land could have that "gritty" medieval europe style as well as some very romanesque feelings as well (highly innovative peoples). This gives off the illusion of "low" magic, however, this nation has developed weapon- and armorsmithing skills like no other, and thus its equipment is highly sought-after, and highly expensive. By some quirk, the metal they have developed is no better when enchanted...

My point (I think) is: in a campaign world that is large, fluid, and has a history, a good DM will provide a plethora of different "styles" of play as there are cultures, giving a certain feel to the campaign. 8th level PCs have more than enough funds to travel very far by mundane means, and travelling long distances just gets easy from there. I don't think a large world shold necessarily be all low or high magic (though it could be) or all grim n' gritty (though, again, this is possible). Consider the level of technology the Middle East had back around 900-1300 compared to western europe. It's very different.

I hope this makes sense, because I thought I had some valuable things to say, but it's 3am here, and this huge conference of highly experienced and intelligent gamers has left me somewhat intimidated.

I hope I could contribute meaningfully...

 

[Bendris Noulg]

WotC did do a game with rare magic items and strong social constraints on magic use, in d20 Wheel of Time. And if you put d20 WoT PCs in a situation where the game's version of magic can be used freely, those that can use magic kick butt and take names, because magic isn't significanly less powerful in d20 WoT than it is in D&D -- and there are no minor spellcasters and few magic items around that would let the others keep up.

Quite right, here, aside from sanity damage or some such; my memories of WoT are waned... I left the book with my brother in Chicago, as it had no re-usable OGC, but as I recall, the spells didn't scale as dramatically as D&D spells do (aren't there 3 or 4 different fireballs to account for it?).

One thing I remember vividly was the threads at the WotC boards proclaiming WoT "under powered", which was a big indicator that few people understood the difference between "under powered" and "lower powered game".

I expect Black Company to be pretty similar, actually; if they want to be able to model the Taken without going heavily Epic, it almost has to be set up that way.

I'm not sure what's up exactly, but at the GR boards, Chris Pramas has pretty much promised an entirely new magic system to account for the disparity between casters like Silent, One-Eye, Tom-Tom, and Goblin and casters like Limper, Lady, Soulcatcher, and the others. I'm personally looking forward to it on all fronts (with GR being one of the 3 companies I would have trusted with the project).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

(spells I have made "rare" are Make Whole, because a spell like that not only makes worrying about gear a thing of the past, it also would change the fundamental economic of society),

This is one big reason why I like rare-NPC-magic (which can be accomplished a number of ways without nerfing PC casters). As a DM, I would consider it my duty to develop a plausible world, which requires evaluating the logical in-game impact of having every one of the spells in the PHB exist and giving every village access to multiple spellcasters (as per the DMG demographics).

And that drives me nuts. I know I can't do a really great job of this, I must end up under-stating the effect of magic somewhat (missing the impact of some spells on the world economy and society), but then I think most game worlds have the same "flaw." The world isn't as alien and unrecognizable as the stipulated prevalence of magic should cause it to be.

3E helped out here by adding a spell component cost to continual light. Con Light no longer has quite as big and obvious a world-altering effect. But there are probably still dozens of other spells that do, where I just haven't though of the effect.

One other shortcut is to say "There just aren't a whole lot of NPC spellcasters. Only those with The Gift can learn magic - fortunately, being a PC means you have The Gift." Presto. No spell-nerfing required, but you've helped solve the question of "Why doesn't Spell Y change the world like it should?"

 

[Snoweel]

Consider a one small country that legally forces all spellcasters to register themselves with the government and swear a bind oath that they will never use magic to destroy or enhance tools of war.

I can't see why any state would do anything like this.

I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to go the furthest to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.

A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.

No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.

 

[kamosa]

I can't see why any state would do anything like this.

I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to go the furthest to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.

A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.

No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.

There are several examples of similar situations both in life and in literature.

In the real world we seek to know who is using and can create explosives. You need permits to purchase key elements. Another example is pilots licences. We don't want anarchy in the sky, so we seek to regulate it by ensuring that all those that fly know the rules and we know where they are flying.

In the relations between nations, there are disarmament treaties and agreements not to develope certain types of weapons.

A more sci-fi based example is the Psi-corp in B-5. In that universe, those that did not bend to the will of the government were forced to give up their Psi powers.

In D&D there was the Darksun setting that had a very similar view of magic

Now I would agree that these thing are not universally upheld, in either fact or fiction, but that's just part of the story.

I'm not saying that I'm in a rush to join that particular campaign, but I don't think the idea is pattenly stupid either.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I can't see why any state would do anything like this.

I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to go the furthest to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.

A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.

No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.

Because that continent's god of magic prohibits it.
Because each casting of Fireball strengthens the power of Surtur and brings him one step closer to the Prime Material Plane.
Because each spell calls on a unique spirit of limited power; not an issue if only a few casters are using it, but give 1,000 army wizards the spell Magic Missile and it degrades into uselessness
Because they have separate laws for use of magic against outsiders.
Because they would rather die than live as slaves under their own wizards.
Because prolonged exposure to magic drives insane their war-beasts.
Because their honor is more important than "winning by any means necessary."
Because any commoner can learn magic, threatening the power of the nobles
Because magic is unpredictable and dangerous, not reliable and safe
Because wounds caused by magic do not heal on their own, and the various nations on the continent have decided that a war fought with magic is too horrible to endure again

No offense, but you're wrong. There are a great many cases historically when countries have restricted the use of some offensive options. Crossbows in Europe in the Middle Ages (except for use against the Muslims); firearms in medieval Japan; chemical weapons in the 20th Century. In a fantasy setting, there could be far more reasons for restricting certain options.

 

[Snoweel]

Ok.

All these creative and flavourful and interesting and blatantly arbitrary explanations aside, what exactly is stopping this nation-of-limitations from being overrun by it's not-similarly-limited neighbours?

More house rules?

 

[milotha]

You are correct in saying that each person's experiences and preferecnes determine what they find enjoyable and engrossing, and good roleplaying doesn't occur in any one style of game. However, when I made the comment about being uneasy/afraid, it wasn't in reference to a TPK, losing magic items, or even having the character killed. It was more in reference to a fear of dark unknown places- the kind of thing that makes you look around the dimmed gaming room wondering what might happen if you go down the dark hallway to the bathroom. I have played in three adventures that evoked this kind of dread and unease in the players, and all three were low magic games. In my experience, this kind of engrossing factor is hard to achieve in a high magic game, because the characters are more like superheroes than normal people, and its hard to evoke fear/dread in empowered people. There is a reason horror games don't have superpowered characters, and why more "mundane" games (where players play characters more like their real-life selves) typically evoke a greater emotional response or attachment in players. I'm not saying its impossible in a high magic game, just much harder (and believe me, I have tried).

I've had very different gaming experiences from yours. I've been in many high/ normal magic campaigns where the GM made us feel afraid. One time in a gaming session the entire group screamed in unison, and other characters got up and hid behind the sofa. I've had times in normal/high magic games where the life of my high level character played for 5 years was completely on the line- one die roll away from permenant death. I was tense, I was worried, I was having fun. Though, I never chalked this up to the level of magic in the game. Sure, it helped us get into these situations, but it never created the mood or sense of character attachment. I always thought it was the result of GMing skill.

Yes, drama and suspense and terror can all be parts of fun gaming. But laughter is also part of gaming. I've witnessed much hilarity at absurd magical situtations, fantastical spell combinations, silly items and spells, and other things that only come through normal/high magic gaming. I've seen much fun from wands of wonder, decks of many things, wizard/priests with insane spell combinations, crazy magical contraptions, and ego weapons. This to me is also part of D&D, and I miss it in low magic grim and gritty campaigns. This isn't to say that you can't have laughter in grim and gritty, but really the grim mood kinda discourages it.

So, I think this thread is not only about what the terms grim and gritty and low magic mean, but also about why people choose to play or not to play them. I think that it is a player preference/taste, and there is no wrong or right flavor. I just don't want to be told that I'm not a good player because of my preference.