D&D General Greyhawk and "Low Magic" : Why Low Magic is in the Eyes of Beholder

[Remathilis]

This is one reason why I have suggested that maybe other OSR and OSR-inspired games would likely be better suited for the purposes of cultivating the desired Greyhawk experience than 5e D&D.

I can see that in a way; if your perception of the setting is married to the rules it came from, then finding a system that emulates that older ruleset is imperative. Personally, I'm not so married to tradition that I think any setting is ruined by the inclusion of 5e rules elements. I've seen plenty of settings reinvented to the "latest" version of D&D and feel none (with one glaring exception: 4e Realms) did disservice to the setting.

I just find it funny that there is a desire to see settings like Greyhawk released for 5e, yet at the same time people don't want it to embrace the 5e rules and want to rewrite them to emulate older editions.

To borrow a popular meme:

Publish?
No adapt!
Only Publish!

 

[Aldarc]

I can see that in a way; if your perception of the setting is married to the rules it came from, then finding a system that emulates that older ruleset is imperative.

My suggestion was less of an imperative and more of a friendly suggestion. There is definitely something to be said for playing D&D settings using older or even non-D&D rule sets. And here is The Greyhawk Channel on YouTube running a game set in Greyhawk using Forbidden Lands:

Personally, I'm not so married to tradition that I think any setting is ruined by the inclusion of 5e rules elements. I've seen plenty of settings reinvented to the "latest" version of D&D and feel none (with one glaring exception: 4e Realms) did disservice to the setting.

The 4e Realms IMHO was less a problem of the 4e system itself and more about how WotC feeling that FR needed another "Time of Troubles" or cataclysmic update. But yeah, it's not as if Ghosts of Saltmarsh somehow failed to deliver Greyhawk.

I just find it funny that there is a desire to see settings like Greyhawk released for 5e, yet at the same time people don't want it to embrace the 5e rules and want to rewrite them to emulate older editions.

Agreed. I don't think that WotC wants to create confusion among the player base by generating too many alternate rule sets.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree. I feel that a lot of people who dream of low magic or Greyhawk just want to expand the first 5 levels of D&D over 10 or 20 levels and not wanted things like racial classes, name levels, strongholds, followers, epic NPCs)

It is kinda like the Total War community right now. Total War started with Historical war game series. However Creative Assembly has added Warhammer, 3Kingdoms, and Troy to do magical and mythical war games. Many of the original Historicalfans want a return to Historical war but if you listen to them closely you will realize they really don't want to play Historical war. They want the diversity and tactics of fantasy war but with humans only, no heroes, and no magic. They want squishy elves but as humans and strong orcs but humans.

It is often unproductive to take what people say they want, then say, "No, that's not really what you want. You really want something else. I will tell you what you want." Especially when you disagree with what the people are saying they want (given that you likely have some biases).

At best, you may be correct, but you will be off-putting and appear to be condescending (the whole, "Yes, you say X, but I know you really want Y.")

At worst, you're substituting your own opinions for other people's in order to delegitimatize what they want.


I try to remember this, not just in discussion about D&D, but in general.

 

[Aldarc]

It is often unproductive to take what people say they want, then say, "No, that's not really what you want. You really want something else. I will tell you what you want." Especially when you disagree with what the people are saying they want (given that you likely have some biases).

Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want
So tell me what you want, what you really, really want
I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want
So tell me what you want, what you really, really want
I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha)
I wanna really, really, really wanna Zagyg in 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

It is often unproductive to take what people say they want, then say, "No, that's not really what you want. You really want something else. I will tell you what you want." Especially when you disagree with what the people are saying they want (given that you likely have some biases).

At best, you may be correct, but you will be off-putting and appear to be condescending (the whole, "Yes, you say X, but I know you really want Y.")

At worst, you're substituting your own opinions for other people's in order to delegitimatize what they want.


I try to remember this, not just in discussion about D&D, but in general.

You are correct. What I said in the way I said it could be off-putting. I wasn't being gentle with my words since the people I was talking about for the most part aren't in this thread discussion.

However there is a phenomena in gaming where people use proper nouns, common phrases, and popular genres to describe their desires and do so incorrectly. That's how the muddiness of Greyhawk or the vagueness of low magic became things.

It's less ""No, that's not what you want" and more "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.". Humans are both fans of shortcuts and of painting large sets with the same brush. Very often people will advocate for something and once prodded for details describe something else. This is very common in gaming as the definitions of genres and subgenre constantly widen to the point that the use of the nouns and adjectives for them are no longer helpful.

It's why low magic is a bad term now. It can mean 12 different things.

 

[Cadence]

It's why low magic is a bad term now. It can mean 12 different things.

I had to go back and see which of the four Greyhawk threads this was in before parsing it...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's why low magic is a bad term now. It can mean 12 different things.

Agreed. That's why I started this thread. Low magic and high magic are like p***ography; you know it when you see it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

However there is a phenomena in gaming where people use proper nouns, common phrases, and popular genres to describe their desires and do so incorrectly. That's how the muddiness of Greyhawk or the vagueness of low magic became things.

So a quick blast from the past. Whenever someone starts talking about "the old days" of gritty dungeoneering, low magic, and smart players that know all the rules, I like to remember one of my all-time favorite letters to Sorcerer's Scroll, from May 1980:

Question: My character is a 9th-level Druid changed to a Magic-User (he is now 10th level as a M-U). I want to be able to put my previously owned Apparatus of Kwalish inside my newly acquired Mighty Servant of Leuk-O. Then I would have the ultimate weapon: If the need arose, I could abandon the Mighty Servant and escape via the Apparatus of Kwalish. My ability scores are Str 13, Int 18(83), Wis 18(90), Dex 12, Con 11, Cha 18(84) and MR 10 (mental resistance, a trait our group uses for psionic combat). He has an unbelievable 338 psionic points! Is it possible for my character to change classes a third time? He wants to become a Cleric. He is not content to just be able to cast Druid and M-U spells. Is there any way for this to happen? Also, if he changes alignment (not of his choosing) from neutral, does he lose his Druid powers? Our DM is very big on traps that change alignments.

Muahahahahaha!

 

[SkidAce]

... My ability scores are Str 13, Int 18(83), Wis 18(90), Dex 12, Con 11, Cha 18(84) and MR 10 (mental resistance, a trait our group uses for psionic combat)...

Percentile Int!, why didn't I think of that....brilliant...



...lol

 

[prabe]

Agreed. That's why I started this thread. Low magic and high magic are like p***ography; you know it when you see it.

Photography? There's really a controversy over photography?