D&D General Low Magic vs. High; what is the difference, and are we confusing them with Low vs. High Fantasy?

[MichaelSomething]

What's lower magic:

A world with only cantrips, but everyone has them?

Or

A world with only twenty magic users; but they're all 20th level?

 

[Gadget]

I believe the definitions are somewhat muddled, and have changed somewhat over time. For example, High Fantasy has been defined at various times as:

High fantasy is sometimes called epic fantasy, and some of the hallmarks of this subset of the fantasy genre include a high page count, lots of characters, usually a quest, and, most importantly, an alternative or secondary world as opposed to the real or primary world. With high fantasy, there are usual global stakes involved—you know, good versus evil, saving the world, and all that.

For a long time, The Lord of the Rings was held up as a standard bearer for High Fantasy, as it it the very ideal of the Epic; what with a quest, global stakes, saving the world and the Good vs Evil. But most of us would probably refer to it as somewhat Low Magic. So I would agree that it is probably useful not to conflate High/Low Fantasy with High/Low Magic.

Yet Tolkien himself intended the story to be set in the mythical past of our world. He once stated in a letter that in Middle-earth, "miles after all are miles," indicating that Middle-earth followed the same general mundane rules of reality that we have today. Indeed, Bilbo and Frodo seem to live very mundane, prosaic real-world type lives (Hobbits & Hobbit holes notwithstanding), until adventure intrudes on them from Outside. All of which sounds very Low Fantasy by the definition up thread. Of course, this is not precise, because Dragons, Wizards, Goblins & Elves are rumors and legends for the most part to the rustic Hobbits, until they show on Bilbo's doorstep.

So I would think it depends on what part of the definitions you want to cling most closely to: The Epic quest with Good/Evil battles & saving the world, vs how closely the fictional story world hues to our own. You could classify Middle-earth either way, depending on which characteristic you want to emphasize. I would probably characterize tLotR as High Fantasy (with a Low Magic bent), with Conan largely being Low Fantasy (much more amoral with treasure and personal gain involved, good vs evil is really very relative, not so much save the world as save yourself) despite fantastical elements in the world. I don't think I would classify Harry Potter as Low Fantasy, both because there are so many fantastical/magical locations & creatures and because it is much more of an Epic Quest, Good vs Evil, Chosen One vibe.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

What's lower magic:

A world with only cantrips, but everyone has them?

Or

A world with only twenty magic users; but they're all 20th level?

I would say the world with only 20 magic users is lower fantasy than the other world where everyone has cantrips.

It's the ubiquity that decides it for me.

However, if those 20 magic users where ubiquitous rather than secluded, then it would be higher in fantasy. For instance, said world would be higher fantasy if those magic users ruled over whole kingdoms because of their magical power, and had great advances in technology powered by their magicks that was available to the people. Lightening rail systems for instance.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would say the world with only 20 magic users is lower fantasy than the other world where everyone has cantrips.

It's the ubiquity that decides it for me.

However, if those 20 magic users where ubiquitous rather than secluded, then it would be higher in fantasy. For instance, said world would be higher fantasy if those magic users ruled over whole kingdoms because of their magical power, and had great advances in technology powered by their magicks that was available to the people. Lightening rail systems for instance.

Which, I would have to say, the chances that those 20 god-like beings are not running the world are... incredibly low. You just can't have that sort of power disparity and not end up with those people running nations and altering the shape of the world.

 

[Raduin711]

I would say the world with only 20 magic users is lower fantasy than the other world where everyone has cantrips.

It's the ubiquity that decides it for me.

However, if those 20 magic users where ubiquitous rather than secluded, then it would be higher in fantasy. For instance, said world would be higher fantasy if those magic users ruled over whole kingdoms because of their magical power, and had great advances in technology powered by their magicks that was available to the people. Lightening rail systems for instance.

Which, I would have to say, the chances that those 20 god-like beings are not running the world are... incredibly low. You just can't have that sort of power disparity and not end up with those people running nations and altering the shape of the world.

I think it depends on the scope of their magic. If these beings are using magic to turn armies into pigs and call down flaming meteors from their enchanted flying castles and ruling the land with animated suits of armor, magic is still going to be ubiquitous, it's just that only a few small people hold it's reigns.

On the other hand, if these sorcerers instead divine the future through the stars, manipulate fate to bend circumstance, and bend things to their will using a network cabal of devotees, that is much less ubiquitous and would look on the surface like a non-magical setting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think it depends on the scope of their magic. If these beings are using magic to turn armies into pigs and call down flaming meteors from their enchanted flying castles and ruling the land with animated suits of armor, magic is still going to be ubiquitous, it's just that only a few small people hold it's reigns.

On the other hand, if these sorcerers instead divine the future through the stars, manipulate fate to bend circumstance, and bend things to their will using a network cabal of devotees, that is much less ubiquitous and would look on the surface like a non-magical setting.

True, I was assuming more of the meteor style since it was level 20.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think it depends on the scope of their magic. If these beings are using magic to turn armies into pigs and call down flaming meteors from their enchanted flying castles and ruling the land with animated suits of armor, magic is still going to be ubiquitous, it's just that only a few small people hold it's reigns.

On the other hand, if these sorcerers instead divine the future through the stars, manipulate fate to bend circumstance, and bend things to their will using a network cabal of devotees, that is much less ubiquitous and would look on the surface like a non-magical setting.

Sounds like we're building a setting to me.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I think it depends on the scope of their magic. If these beings are using magic to turn armies into pigs and call down flaming meteors from their enchanted flying castles and ruling the land with animated suits of armor, magic is still going to be ubiquitous, it's just that only a few small people hold it's reigns.

On the other hand, if these sorcerers instead divine the future through the stars, manipulate fate to bend circumstance, and bend things to their will using a network cabal of devotees, that is much less ubiquitous and would look on the surface like a non-magical setting.

Yes. If the magic is in your face then it's a high magic experience, regardless of the setting. Dungeons and Dragons is typically a high magic experience for players because they usually have a few spell casters in the party. I would add, that most of us as players, like the teens I referred to earlier, expect the setting to reflect our experience of high magic.

Another anecdote: I once played a 5-year campaign with two rogues and a barbarian. It was a very low magic experience. It was fun too or we wouldn't have continued to play every two weeks for 5 years.

In my experience, it's possible to play a low magic campaign, but you have to have a couple of things: 1) Buy-in from the players (Dungeonmaster included), and 2) No spell casters--which is most of the classes. Buy-in is very important. Most players want spell casters; that's why they play Dungeons and Dragons, and that's why most classes have spell-casting abilities. You would also need to limit classes (as far as the Players Handbook is concerned) to champion and battle master fighters, and thief and assassin rogues, and berserker barbarians, and maybe open hand monks. You would also need to limit race selection and feats as well; plus be mindful of your monsters.

It's doable and it's fun.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I think it depends on the scope of their magic. If these beings are using magic to turn armies into pigs and call down flaming meteors from their enchanted flying castles and ruling the land with animated suits of armor, magic is still going to be ubiquitous, it's just that only a few small people hold it's reigns.

On the other hand, if these sorcerers instead divine the future through the stars, manipulate fate to bend circumstance, and bend things to their will using a network cabal of devotees, that is much less ubiquitous and would look on the surface like a non-magical setting.

Somewhere in between sounds a lot like Mat Colville's world of the Invincible Overlord...

 

[Li Shenron]

I would have thought that "high fantasy" means "very different from reality", whether there is magic or not.

As an example, I would say that a world full of weird and imaginary creatures as well as places, but no spells at all, would be still high fantasy.