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

[Bendris Noulg]

Easier, yes, but there are fewer limitations in actual practice. In a low-magic game, while your imagination is certainly constrained by the campaign "reality," you are far less likely to come up with an idea that has been specifically trumped by the DM. (Far less likely to hear, "That doesn't work..." or "You can't do that..." or "For some reason, magic is different here...")

The amount of front-end work required of the DM to curb, curtail, limit, head-off, and otherwise railroad the PCs is far more often a feature of a high-magic game than a low-magic game.

The examples of "high magic play" put forward in this thread and the other are stark proof of that.

Hammer, meet nail... Nail, meet hammer.

Nicely said.

 

[Altalazar]

Actually, my "limited view" is fairly much in-line with the DMG's description of what a DM is and does.

With all due respect, seeing something "different" from you isn't limiting the discussion (unless, of course, you believe that conceding to your point is the only means of making "progress" within the discussion).

See, we do agree... Mostly. I don't believe the story is outside of the GM's control, only the course of action chosen by the PCs, as it's the GM that determines how the world/environment around the PCs react to the PC's actions and how the world "advances" over the course of time.

See, not everything can be painted with broad strokes from the same brush. You might consider learning from your own exceptions that other exceptions are possible (even if you don't care for those exception personally).

Check it out, dude... This thread basically started as a "why like low magic or GnG" discussion. However, it quickly turned from explaining why we like it to defending our preferences for it.

I personally don't care what other people do in their games. And you don't see me jumping into threads about high magic games spewing a bunch of ignorance and arrogant opinions. However, as you'll see in this thread and many others on the same topic, there's no shortage of folks jumping in to attack others for their preferences in taste and style (hence the repeated and increasing boring drivel about laziness, railroading, and overall poor GMing skills).

Fact is, it has nothing to do with bad experiences with High Magic; When I took the helm as a GM, I started with the magic level as presented in the books and various modules. But with each incarnation of the rules, and especially so with 3E, I've noted that the game has grown increasingly cheesy. There was a time when I could pick up a D&D book, read it, and be inspired to do something with the material on hand. Now, I've got little compulsion to purchase too many products all around (especially WotC products) because of the cheese factor (and there are some publishers I've written off completely because of it).

See, I don't see 3E as "medium" magic, in that the only incarnations of higher magic I can find are the 3E settings that add more magic in (FRCS and now Eberron, which is just more cheese from the looks of it).

As is, though, I'm in the same mind set: If I could get half the people that have presumptions about low magic to get to my table, and to do so with an open mind, I'm sure I'd change a lot of opinions too. Unfortunately, this medium (message board with world-wide access) means that we all really have two choices: believe what someone else is saying about their personal experience even if it doesn't fit our conforting preconceptions, or cling to those preconceptions and ignore the experiences of others.

It's not rocket science to determine which of the two leads to more productive discussions.

As I said before, I think there is a lack of total communication here. I NEVER said low magic wasn't fun - I have, in fact, said that I enjoy BOTH low magic AND high magic. Most of what I have been saying is in defense of high magic - and instead you've seen my defense of high magic somehow as an attack on low magic and perhaps on you personally. That is not the case at all. I was merely attempting to indicate why I thought high magic was just as fun and is just as viable as low magic and you instead see that as an attack on low magic - that sounds like a lack of effective communication to me.

I can play either high or low magic. I don't see any inherent problems with using either. I am open to both. I get the sense that you really are only open to one - which is fine, but it seems incongruous for you to protest, as if others do not have an open mind about low magic, when you are basically yourself closed to the idea of playing high magic games.

I think both can be fun. I think there is no reason both can't work. There is certainly no need to "nerf" (the imaginary "required" "magic arms race") just to play high magic - not unless your version of high magic is just to play low magic dependant plots and then try to make them work in a high magic world.

 

[Altalazar]

Hammer, meet nail... Nail, meet hammer.

Nicely said.

See post above about Starfleet academy... I think something has been missed here. Watch out for your poor thumb when that hammer comes down...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I seem to recall Heart of Nightfang Spire had its moments of railroading, too.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Alright, I'll go over it...

I've never had to deal with that in running or playing high magic, with the odd exception of anti-magic zones, which can be interesting in their own right. Spells just work, and the DM takes into account that they are there and what happens, appropriately, when they are used.

Why does the DM need to curb ANYTHING upfront in such a manner? The only reason I can think of is perhaps an attempt to play a higher level game as if it were still a low-level game by negating all of the higher level magic. But then, if you do that, might as well just start over at first level.

You can't design an adventure around a wilderness trek when you know your party can just teleport to their destination. If the DM just says "teleport seems to fail" then that is just playing a low level adventure with high level characters. It is like playing a Star Trek role playing game as cadets at Starfleet academy - up through them making Captain and commanding ships and fleets, and then complaining that your "hapless cadet" type adventures require too much "nerfing" of abilities - like saying the Captain's fleets are all powerless, the crews abandoned them, and they are all now back together like the academy, with no ships, no crews, nothing that their ranks and experience had given them - and saying that shows that games with the "higher level" ships Captains don't work because they require too much railroading to force them back into playing like they were all hapless cadets again.

I believe Star Trek II (ship wounded and outgunned) is an example of what you're talking about here. The main systems and armaments of the Enterprise are out of commision.

However, Kirk didn't whine like a space cadet rookie because he lost most of his techno goodies. Rather, he chose another course of action: Head for the nebula and the Reliant will be just as nerfed as the Enterprise. "Suace for the goose," as Spock put it.

And then there is Star Trek III, with the Enterprise running on automated systems on the bridge to permit 5 people to fly it on their own, and then the Klingon ship disabling those system. Did Kirk whine like a space cadet then? No, he chose another course of action: Lure the Klingon crew onto the Enterprise, beam down to Gensesis, blow up the Enterprise, and face the Klingon Captain in good ol' fashioned hand-to-hand.

(Edit: Okay, yes, he whined like a cadet when he learned his son was dead, but that should be understandable and goes beyond the context of discussion.)

Oh, and then there's Star Trek IV, with the crew trapped in 20th Century Earth (where they can't openly use their technology and have trouble understanding the concept of money).

Of course, there's Star Trek VI, with the Captain and Bones imprisoned on a Klingon Mining Camp without any technology at their disposal to permit them easy escape solutions. And later, the Enterprise and Excelsior facing off the superior Klingon ship (superior by way of being able to fire while cloaked).

Or perhaps Star Trek VII, where the two captains, with no weapons, must face the evil doctor on the planet's surface to prevent the planet from being destroyed by a cloaked, force-field protected weapon of mass destruction. Or the Klingon vs Enterprise battle in the same movie, where the Klingons gain the shield modulation frequency of the Enterprise shields and are able to penetrate them.

Mayhap Star Trek VIII is a better example, with Picard trapped with a civilian from Earth's past within a section of the Enterprise that had been assimilated by the Borg, with barely the right weapons for the task and no means of calling for back up.

Or let's try Star Trek X, with Diana fearing the telepathic power of the BBEG's mentor and seemingly powerless to defend against it, finding a way to turn that power back at him, thus allowing her and Worf to target an otherwise undetectable ship that had the Enterprise out gunned and out maneuvered.

But none of this outclasses Star Trek I, where a few Ranks in Knowledge: History of Space Travel was far more useful to resolving the V'ger incident than any of the "new and improved" Enterprise technology.

Sorry to say, but nerfing abilities and fiat seems par for "high level" Star Trek adventures as well, with determining a means of defeating the foe without techno goodies fully available being a very common theme.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think both can be fun. I think there is no reason both can't work. There is certainly no need to "nerf" (the imaginary "required" "magic arms race") just to play high magic - not unless your version of high magic is just to play low magic dependant plots and then try to make them work in a high magic world.

Note the following quotes:

As for Bad modules...I'd say The Standing Stone and Bastion of Broken Souls were the worst and most egregious examples of poor module design (particluary in regards to this thread, where they highlight the 'cheat the players to enforce the plot' that we've been arguing about). Deep Horizon and Lord of the Iron Fortress weren't bad, but not particularly good, either.

Return is an excellent module, for the first half of the book. Then it just becomes a slog. If the latter half was a good as Hommlett and the Moathouse and the first parts of the mines, it would be a great module. But at some point, it just becomes a Bataan death march.

I seem to recall Heart of Nightfang Spire had its moments of railroading, too.

If the high magic games of individual groups are lacking these elements, than good for them. Obviously, they are better at adventure design than WotC is. However, how high magic is perceived isn't going to be based on the individual groups that play high magic, but rather will be based on the image presented by the same folks that set the "standard", being WotC themselves. And, obviously, their examples of high magic play at upper levels includes a lot of fiat and one-up-manship, as well as a dash of railroading.

 

[I'm A Banana]

When I took the helm as a GM, I started with the magic level as presented in the books and various modules. But with each incarnation of the rules, and especially so with 3E, I've noted that the game has grown increasingly cheesy.

...And you see that as 3e's problem, and not yours? If a game, 1e, 2e, 3e, GURPS, MERP, OD&D, Star Wars, whatever, is "cheesey," it's not the ruleset, it's the game, it's the campaign, it's that particular adventure. I'm not saying your a bad DM or anything, I mean, we've all run adventures that were cheesey, sub-par, and, in my cases, a few dozen times that were absolutely horrid and downright insulting. But it's not the fault of 3e that I ran those adventures, it's my own....it's not the fault of Low Magic that some GMs who choose it are railroad-happy drama queens, it's not the fault of High Magic that some GM's who choose it are simplistic nerf-herders who just want to beat the players. You can't assume that just because your games were cheesey, the game itself is.

It's okay if you don't like normal magic D&D, and prefer low magic. But don't assume just because your games with 3e were 'increasingly cheesey,' that it means that 3e itself is cheesey. Your basing your entire opinion on a type of gaming purely on your own experiences, which may have not been typical.

Where I come from, we call that an invalid generalization.

....which indicates that your opinion that "high-level D&D is grossly limited in the conflicts that can arise by the magic the players possess" could maybe *not* be typical of high-level play in general? That maybe just because WotC put out crappy adventures doesn't mean that it's what most higher-level games are like? That perhaps you need to re-think that particular criticism of high magic games?

Sorry to say, but nerfing abilities and fiat seems par for "high level" Star Trek adventures as well, with determining a means of defeating the foe without techno goodies fully available being a very common theme.

So, what, are you saying that to mimic myth and literature and other adventure stories that arbirtrary nerfing is desirable? Or that these movies would make bad games because of their railroading tendencies?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

...And you see that as 3e's problem, and not yours? If a game, 1e, 2e, 3e, GURPS, MERP, OD&D, Star Wars, whatever, is "cheesey," it's not the ruleset, it's the game, it's the campaign, it's that particular adventure.

Quite the opposite... Picture this if you will: I'm in my local gaming store and I pick up a book. I open it up, look at a page, and say, "cheesey". I flip the page, "cheesey", flip again. "Cheese," flip, "cheese", flip, "cheese", flip...

And this is the Player's Handbook.

I'm not saying your a bad DM or anything, I mean, we've all run adventures that were cheesey, sub-par, and, in my cases, a few dozen times that were absolutely horrid and downright insulting. But it's not the fault of 3e that I ran those adventures, it's my own....it's not the fault of Low Magic that some GMs who choose it are railroad-happy drama queens, it's not the fault of High Magic that some GM's who choose it are simplistic nerf-herders who just want to beat the players. You can't assume that just because your games were cheesey, the game itself is.

I'm not assuming. I'm assessing the flavor of the default setting (and the rules that support it) based on their presentation within the rule books.

It's okay if you don't like normal magic D&D, and prefer low magic. But don't assume just because your games with 3e were 'increasingly cheesey,' that it means that 3e itself is cheesey. Your basing your entire opinion on a type of gaming purely on your own experiences, which may have not been typical.

Boy, are you wrong.

Tell you what... Go back to page 1 of this thread and start reading from the beginning. Note how many derogatory statements are made about low magic games before the people that play low magic start "firing back". The reason being that most low magic gamers have no inherent desire to rip on high magic games; We'd rather talk about what we like about low magic rather than what we don't like about high magic. Yet, after X pages of defending our personal tastes, it's eventually going to turn towards what we don't like about high magic since stating what we do like about low magic doesn't seem to satisfy the "other side" of the debate.

Interestingly, rather than solving the problem, this seems to only add more logs to the fire.

In short, forget everything that's been said in this thread about what people don't like about high magic, leaving only the reasons given for liking low magic. If these reasons aren't enough, than why not just state that you think we're wrong and that neither diplomacy nor anecdotes are going to sway your opinion (which would be far more effective than spending X number of pages telling folks they're tastes are wrong or misguided).

I don't like high magic because it just comes across as cheesy. Too much magic. Too much superheroics. Character design focused on creating characters that don't interest me in regards to playing as or GMing for. A CR system that labels characters I would like to play as "sub par" or "ineffectual" when such things are actually a product of the individual group and not the generic rules.

Where I come from, we call that an invalid generalization.

Again, re-read this thread from the beginning. It's full of them, and mostly about low magic.

....which indicates that your opinion that "high-level D&D is grossly limited in the conflicts that can arise by the magic the players possess" could maybe *not* be typical of high-level play in general? That maybe just because WotC put out crappy adventures doesn't mean that it's what most higher-level games are like? That perhaps you need to re-think that particular criticism of high magic games?

I don't need to "re-think" my criticisms; I fully stand by them. However, I'm not prone to post my criticisms until I feel that my tastes and prefereces have been attacked repeatedly and blatently long enough.

As for the modules, no, I don't think WotC's adventures are bad examples. After all, if all these discussions assume that the D&D rules are the "standard" by which comparisons of gaming environments are made, than why wouldn't their D&D adventures be considered the "standard" by which comparisons of plots and adventures are made as well? WotC is either the shiznit or they aren't.

So, what, are you saying that to mimic myth and literature and other adventure stories that arbirtrary nerfing is desirable? Or that these movies would make bad games because of their railroading tendencies?

I'm saying that one man's nerf is another man's challenge. At the very least, nerfs and fiat are common in literature, they are common in movies, they are common in the adventures WotC has produced, and they even have a fairly high-average frequency in the "How To" thread you started.

In short, if you want the curteousy of being viewed as an exception to the stereotype, or even to have that stereotype-image removed from the community completely, than perhaps you should also consider a bit of fair play regarding those stereotypes you like to apply on others yourself.

Open-mindedness and acceptance are two-way streets, last time I checked.

 

[WizarDru]

I seem to recall Heart of Nightfang Spire had its moments of railroading, too.

You know, we played that one almost all the way through (and let's not have that discussion), and it should be a mark of how dissatisfied it eventually left me that I forgot about it, here. And yes, it's almost a poster child for it's railroading. I could go on for some time about my dissatisfaction about the module....oh wait, I ALREADY did.

EDIT: fixed link

 

[rounser]

The reason being that most low magic gamers have no inherent desire to rip on high magic games; We'd rather talk about what we like about low magic rather than what we don't like about high magic.

There are years of, for example, FR threads with evidence to the contrary...and when the backlash finally does come, you're claiming victim status? Part of the discussion in this thread is how many low magic enthusiasts have a tendency toward being snobby and arrogant about how their game is bettah than high magic, and how much it sucks (especially if a target like FR presents itself).

I don't like high magic because it just comes across as cheesy. Too much magic. Too much superheroics. Character design focused on creating characters that don't interest me in regards to playing as or GMing for.

You even proved yourself wrong in the same post. That's gotta be a record.