D&D 5E New D&D Survey, with some in-depth setting questions

[Parmandur]

It means there is widespread magic, but it is very low level, and there are vanishingly few high level magics or magic users.
A setting where only very ancient dragons and giant kings have ever cast 9th level spells, few people have ever seen magic greater than 3rd level spells, but every blacksmith knows a couple rituals, is wide magic.

Nah I think they meant exactly what they typed.

One big takeaway is that the D&D team has spent some considerable energy on getting a grasp on the core appeal of each of these Settings, and what they could do to expand on them for 5E.

 

[Charlaquin]

It means there is widespread magic, but it is very low level, and there are vanishingly few high level magics or magic users.
A setting where only very ancient dragons and giant kings have ever cast 9th level spells, few people have ever seen magic greater than 3rd level spells, but every blacksmith knows a couple rituals, is wide magic.

Makes sense. I suppose I’m a fan of “wide” magic then, as that describes my preferred approach to magic in D&D. Though, I dunno, things like magic trains and airships still seem “high” to me.

Nah I think they meant exactly what they typed.

I don’t see it. “I like how the widespread use of magic affects the world” doesn’t sound like it’s describing why someone likes a low magic world to me. A wide magic one, perhaps.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Makes sense. I suppose I’m a fan of “wide” magic then, as that describes my preferred approach to magic in D&D. Though, I dunno, things like magic trains and airships still seem “high” to me.

I suppose I can just about see how one gets there. For me, a magic train is not high magic at all. It’s a train, on a track. It’s a magnetic train but magic. Idk I guess magic that functions like tech “can’t” be high magic, to me. High magic is “Big Magic”, 9th level spells, the wizard’s academy having very high level teachers, the high priest being able to do a true rez, the gods walking the world and granting some followers extra special power like FR’s chosen. Stuff like that. Not high frequency of magical elements, but high power of those magic elements.

YMMV of course.

I don’t see it. “I like how the widespread use of magic affects the world” doesn’t sound like it’s talking a low magic world to me. A wide magic one, perhaps.

It’s not a great sentence, but I’m pretty sure the point is that Eberron doesn’t have a lot of Big Magic.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I feel that list was a huge rip off compared to others. Like why does Dragonlance list novels, but the Forgotten Realms doesn't, instead FR list introduction, it's only been the default setting for one addition. There seems to be an anti FR bias, like folks only pick it because it's 5e's default or something.

And FR isn't the most traditional setting, that would be Greyhawk, do these people even know the setting?

Other settings had cool lists, FR only got a couple of good options, most were super generic or worse.

They could have listed characters, novels, video games, etc..., I'll point out FR is the most steam punk setting (Eberron Magitech).

As @Parmandur said, these answers seem to be pulled from previous surveys.

I get you love FR, but I don't see why FR's answers show an "anti-FR bias." If anyone has the worst survey answers its Dragonlance, which has for some reason extremely short choices.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Makes sense. I suppose I’m a fan of “wide” magic then, as that describes my preferred approach to magic in D&D. Though, I dunno, things like magic trains and airships still seem “high” to me.

I don’t see it. “I like how the widespread use of magic affects the world” doesn’t sound like it’s describing why someone likes a low magic world to me. A wide magic one, perhaps.

I think Keith Baker may be getting a little too complicated with "Actually, Eberron is wide magic, not high magic!"

Low vs. high magic isn't a very exact definition by itself, and it's really an extension of low vs. high fantasy. I barely understand what "wide magic" is, sounds like a hipster getting out of definitions!

Low Fantasy: a subgenre of fantasy fiction in which magical events intrude on an otherwise-normal world (Game of Thrones is probably the most famous example). Alternative definition rests on the story and characters being more realistic and less mythic in scope (Conan the Barbarian).

High Fantasy: a subgenre of fantasy defined by the epic nature of its setting or by the epic stature of its characters, themes or plot (Lord of the Rings).

So Eberron as a setting is definitely not Low Fantasy, but the story and characters absolutely can follow many Low Fantasy themes (see the alternate definition). So it can straddle both in its own way.

 

[Parmandur]

Makes sense. I suppose I’m a fan of “wide” magic then, as that describes my preferred approach to magic in D&D. Though, I dunno, things like magic trains and airships still seem “high” to me.

I don’t see it. “I like how the widespread use of magic affects the world” doesn’t sound like it’s describing why someone likes a low magic world to me. A wide magic one, perhaps.

The gist ia that the people of Eberron live more modern lifestyles than Medieval, with low level magic acting like 20th century tech: magic trains and magic planes, but not much teleportation or individual flight going on, soldiers using magic walkie talkies but not having air support from a 15th level Wizard.

I believe it originates from them taking the default assumptions of the 3.5 DMG for worldbuilding, like the demographics for Class and Lwvwl, and changing the dials.

 

[overgeeked]

One big takeaway is that the D&D team has spent some considerable energy on getting a grasp on the core appeal of each of these Settings, and what they could do to expand on them for 5E.

I don't mean to quibble, but "considerable" is doing a lot in this sentence. And I don't think it's entirely justified if you're using it to mean "a lot". Anyone who's read a wiki article on the settings in question could have formulated those questions. And it wouldn't need to be a particularly close reading of the wiki article to get those questions. For example, one question on why I like Mystara was nostalgia (der), another was that it had real-world analogs in the setting. That's the thinnest of thin surface reading of the setting. So too with the others provided by the screenshots. I wouldn't call that a "considerable / a lot" of energy put in.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't mean to quibble, but "considerable" is doing a lot in this sentence. And I don't think it's entirely justified if you're using it to mean "a lot". Anyone who's read a wiki article on the settings in question could have formulated those questions. And it wouldn't need to be a particularly close reading of the wiki article to get those questions. For example, one question on why I like Mystara was nostalgia (der), another was that it had real-world analogs in the setting. That's the thinnest of thin surface reading of the setting. So too with the others provided by the screenshots. I wouldn't call that a "considerable / a lot" of energy put in.

More than I would have expected for Mystara and Birthright, to be honest.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suppose I can just about see how one gets there. For me, a magic train is not high magic at all. It’s a train, on a track. It’s a magnetic train but magic. Idk I guess magic that functions like tech “can’t” be high magic, to me. High magic is “Big Magic”, 9th level spells, the wizard’s academy having very high level teachers, the high priest being able to do a true rez, the gods walking the world and granting some followers extra special power like FR’s chosen. Stuff like that. Not high frequency of magical elements, but high power of those magic elements.

YMMV of course.

I’ve just always thought of “high magic” as referring to the prevalence of Magic in the world. Big, world-shaking magic certainly adds to a setting’s “magic height,” but so does widespread use of magic. The more a setting is defined by magic, the “higher magic” it is, so I thought of Eberron as very high magic. But, I’ve also always thought of “magic height” as a single axis. With the addition of a width axis, I can totally see how Eberron is fairly low, but very wide. I just had never heard of a width axis to a setting’s Magic before, but it makes perfect sense now that it’s been explained to me.

The thing about trains and airships is just that their existence has a big influence on a setting. They would have just as big an influence if they were non-magical too. I imagine it’s similar to how some feel about firearms. That kind of technology, whether magical or not, changes the vibe of a setting. And of course, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just a significant thing.

It’s not a great sentence, but I’m pretty sure the point is that Eberron doesn’t have a lot of Big Magic.

But the sentence doesn’t say anything about the presence or absence of big magic. It’s only talking about the widespread use of magic. It concerns width, not height.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think Keith Baker may be getting a little too complicated with "Actually, Eberron is wide magic, not high magic!"

Low vs. high magic isn't a very exact definition by itself, and it's really an extension of low vs. high fantasy. I barely understand what "wide magic" is, sounds like a hipster getting out of definitions!

I mean, it’s definitely a novel use of the terms, but it’s pretty intuitive and potentially more useful than just high and low. Having height refer to the power of magic within the setting and width refer to how widespread magic is, you can describe the presence of magic in a setting with more precision than you could with just high and low. And under that definition, I’d say I’m a fan of very low, very wide magic.