D&D is best when the magic is high, fast and furious!

[glass]

WTF is WHFRP?

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Although I would abreviate it as WFRP.

You wouldn't like it: it has gunpowder.

glass.

 

[Dragonblade]

Awesome post snipped for length.

Excellent post!

Unfortunately, life is interfering a bit with my ability to post long treatises on the nature of high level gaming so I'll try to type as fast as I can.

Basically, the reason that I think most people have a problem with high level gaming is because they have never played high level gaming in a balanced system. 1st and 2nd edition D&D broke down considerably at high level because of the imbalance created by the power of the PC's compared to the rest of campaign world. In a game world where the default assumption is that NPCs are 1-3rd level then PC's in the teen levels become nigh unstoppable. The DM is forced to tailor his adventures more and more to curtail their abilities so they don't run amok.

Everyone knows that something is wrong but no one knows what really. When holding up the PC's to the rest of the world it seems that what seperates them from everyone else is items and magic. Hence if we strip these away from game balance is restored and everyone has fun again and the DM doesn't have to work as hard.

But even though we have cured the sympton you haven't really cured the disease which is that the D&D's default assumptions as flawed. If you want to run a low magic world smoothly, it takes more than just nerfing spells. You have to nerf or edit monsters as well. You also have to restrict level to a certain point or simply give so little experience points that level advancement is delayed to such a degree that high level play is never really reached.

I have seen all these tactics mentioned in this thread and others, often described in glowing terms by those who use them as if not using them is to not really "role-play". This elitest attitude is what I most take umbrage at and is what led me to post this in the first place. But I digress.

Its interesting for me to examine this attitude because it seems to have evolved somewhat from the flaw in the game of PC magic compared to NPC magic. Those who don't play in these low magic games have experienced the game breaking down for them, not having any fun at all and thus making them subconsciously cling to their low-magic worlds.

In other words, you have been conditioned to not like high level/ high magic gaming since you have never had any fun doing it. And you have never had any fun playing at high magic/levels because the rules are flawed and the game breaks down at higher levels.

Now some of you might disagree with this and thats fine. If you truly object to the notion that you have been programmed, albeit inadvertantly to like low-level gaming to the exclusion of all else, then I believe you.

But I do think there is a kernel of truth to my theory.

Anyway, I often use high-magic and high-level interchangeably because the two are invariably intertwined. At higher levels it is impossible to maintain game balance without magic and vice-versa, higher magic also requires higher levels to maintain game balance. To illustrate this better, notice that when magic is stripped from the game, WotC's designers were forced to introduce the concept of Defense and base it on level. See this in d20 Modern and in Star Wars and Spycraft. Not also that there are other subtle changes to the game to attempt to offset the stabilizing factor that magic no longer provides. For example, the wound/vitality system, and having high level NPCs be more common.

Now if we break away from the default assumptions that D&D makes and allow for magic to be more common and for NPC's to be of an average higher level than high level gaming becomes viable. SHARK's world is a perfect example. A high level game world, with tons of magic and yet its just as gritty and role-play intensive as the coolest low-magic setting. SHARK has broken the shackles imposed on him by the rules. The PC's operate at a mid to high magic level but the rest of the world does as well. So from level 1 onward into Epic levels, balance is maintained without a problem.

Okay, I have to go back to work now so I'll let you guys digest this and await your responses.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But I do think there is a kernel of truth to my theory.

Not a bit, and mostly because your assumptions are based on 2E experiences. Fact is, there is plenty in 3E alone that turns me and others off. The constant use of magic vs magic tactics looks more like an arms race than a part of the fantasy genre. The monstrous builds found on the Min/Max Board at WotC are entirely dependant on magic. The fact that powerful magic items become trivial with the next level up is gained and the newest power up items are available is antithesis to the concept of magical items within a fantasy world.

I came to the D&D game because it, as a frame-work, permitted the creation of a multitude of worlds. Now that only one type is presented as balanced (despite all the drawbacks I list above and the multitude of others have posted earlier) and all others require some degree of justification by those that play in them is 3E's greatest hindrance: Rather than including the multitude, it validates only the one, and those who play by that one are the true elitists, since they can lean on the "rules" to support their views.

Low Magic games are not hindered at higher levels, and level and magic is not intertwined in the manner you describe except by CR, which is easily changed and adjusted to fit the level/magic level of the individual campaign. After all, many DMs ran games (magic light to magic heavy) perfectly well without it for many years. Now suddenly, with CR holding the hands of those DMs that couldn't hack it previously, anyone that doesn't adhere to its dictates are looked down upon.

So who seems the more programmed: The ones that break the mold, or the ones that proclaim that mold as "the way"?

 

[Desdichado]

Well, I typed a somewhat lengthy post on yesterday that got eaten by the boards going down, but I'll post the executive summary here, if I can. First, let me address this:

Basically, the reason that I think most people have a problem with high level gaming is because they have never played high level gaming in a balanced system. 1st and 2nd edition D&D broke down considerably at high level because of the imbalance created by the power of the PC's compared to the rest of campaign world.

3e breaks down for completely different reasons, i.e. the actual die roll starts to become meaningless for most tasks. Then again, rather than assume that we'd all love high level gaming if only we played in the right game, maybe you should give us some credit. Some of us, myself included, actually genuinely do not prefer it for matters of taste alone.
And this:

Everyone knows that something is wrong but no one knows what really. When holding up the PC's to the rest of the world it seems that what seperates them from everyone else is items and magic. Hence if we strip these away from game balance is restored and everyone has fun again and the DM doesn't have to work as hard.

That's completely untrue. It's a lot more work for the DM to strip away magic items, as the system supports a balance based on them. It only takes a session or two of trying this as "the DM not working as hard" before you've got some kind of spectacular disaster.

 

[Tsyr]

You have seen such high magic games 1000 times before? Where? Certainly not among these low-magic diehards!

Plot and interesting locales, hmm...

Low-magic plot: A plot to undermine the king results in the prince being kidnapped and his cousin who bears a strong resemblance and who works for a shadowy organization takes his place.

High-magic plot: A plot to undermine the king results in the prince being kidnapped and replaced by a doppleganger who works for a shadowy organization.

Two simple plots but immediately one is more interesting with far more ramifications both magical and mundane.

Low-magic locale: A grey stone citadel set on a windswept peak overlooking the countryside.

high-magic locale: A gleaming crystal palace floating mysteriously atop the same peak glows with a strange blue light when gazed upon at night.

Two locales but one is instantly more interesting and wondrous than the other.

Actualy, in each case, your low-magic example sounds far, far, far better.

 

[Tsyr]

You want to know why I hate high magic games?

They aren't magical.

Chew on that one for a while. If no one is able to explain what I mean by the time I get enough free time to post a lengthly explanation, I'll do it.

 

[Fenes 2]

You want to know why I hate high magic games?

They aren't magical.

Chew on that one for a while. If no one is able to explain what I mean by the time I get enough free time to post a lengthly explanation, I'll do it.

I'll take a shot at it:

As others have said before, in some high-magic campaigns magic is just another tool, not something magical. The PCs "know the rules of magic" (since they are experienced adventurers), and use magic the same way we use technology - without any sense of wonder for magic itself, only with an eye on the effects, the options it provides and the possible counter-measures to take into account.

In some high-magic campaigns fireball has all the flair of a hand grenade/grenade launcher, with disintegrate substituting for a rocket launcher and teleport/scry for halo-drops and satellite images. Numerous magic items serves as flak vests, medpacks, radios, spare magazines, high-tech tools and convenience goods.

 

[mmadsen]

Everyone knows that something is wrong but no one knows what really.

I think a lot of people know exactly what's "wrong": the game doesn't feel like classic fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Conan, King Arthur, whatever).

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Joshua Dyal:

3e breaks down for completely different reasons, i.e. the actual die roll starts to become meaningless for most tasks. Then again, rather than assume that we'd all love high level gaming if only we played in the right game, maybe you should give us some credit. Some of us, myself included, actually genuinely do not prefer it for matters of taste alone.

Great point Joshua, and something that nobody had hit on yet. With enough magical gizmos and levels, chance no longer plays a part in the game- its just a comparison of modifiers to DCs or ACs. I don't know about everyone else, but to me this is boring as there is no longer much risk to characters. In order to bring risk back into the game, ACs and DCs have to be artifically jacked way up with more magic, but when the characters overcome this- they have even more goodies to throw at a situation, making this a vicious cycle. Its much better IMO to restict the total modifiers and keep DCs and ACs lower so that things don't break down so badly.

Dragonblade, while I respect that you enjoy high fantasy, not everybody does. I have played in six high fantasy campaigns since I began playing many years ago. Most of them were rather bad, but one of them was actually pretty good- with fairly complicated plots, good roleplaying, a player-driven storyline, and epic feel. While it was fun to socialize with my friends while I was there, the game itself did very little for me because I had a really hard time identifying with my character or the world. It was more like playing an X-man than a real person. And while it was sort of fun to weild incredible power, hurling two dwarven thower hammers with a girdle of storm giant strength- after a short time it becomes boring because you get the feeling you have seen and done everything. There isn't a sense of wonder anymore, and extreme supernatural stuff happens so often that it becomes mundane. On some level, it is also sort of offensive to me as a player to kill 2 ancient red dragons in three rounds with the dwarf I mentioned above (this was in 2E).

To me, the atmosphere and feel of a low fantasy game is much more compelling because I can identify with my character and the world, and I can suspend disbelief much more easily and get into the proper mindset. There is also a sense of wonder and the unknown in a low fantasy game that is impossible to capture in high fantasy. In my experience, PCs in a low fantasy game are willing to try more varied types of tactics to achieve a goal than they are in a high fantasy game. For example- trying to stop a slaving organization. Most high fantasy characters will scry, teleport, surgical strike, retreat- repeat until done. I have been in three low fantasy games where there has been slaver enemies, and each time the result was vastly different. The first time they infiltrated the organization and lead a midnight break-out; the second time they assassinated the leader of the ring and had the rogue disguise himself as the leader, then intentionally make a dumb mistake that alerted the authorities; and in the third case they "sold" several PCs into slavery, and lead a slave revolt from the inside.

To each his own I suppose- but do keep in mind that some of us have tried high fantasy, and it simply isn't to our tastes, no matter how good the game is.

 

[Dragonblade]

Not a bit, and mostly because your assumptions are based on 2E experiences. Fact is, there is plenty in 3E alone that turns me and others off. The constant use of magic vs magic tactics looks more like an arms race than a part of the fantasy genre. The monstrous builds found on the Min/Max Board at WotC are entirely dependant on magic. The fact that powerful magic items become trivial with the next level up is gained and the newest power up items are available is antithesis to the concept of magical items within a fantasy world.

Whose concept of magical items in a fantasy world? Certainly not mine. Yours perhaps. And although you are not the first to decry magic items and magic because of the magical arms race you feel takes place at higher levels, my theory is still valid.

The magic arms race is simply the logical extrapolation of a world where magic works. Just as in the real world, where guns have evolved to replace swords as the weapon of choice, so will more powerful magic items evolve to replace others. Technology is limited only by the laws of physics but magic, since it doesn't exist can only be limited by two things. Writer's fiat or by imposing upon magic a set of internally consistent rules or laws. In other words, magic as science.

Now some of you may prefer magic by writer's fiat, and that's fine. You prefer not to want to know how magic works, you just want to be captivated by it when it does. But ultimately, I'm unsatisfied with this. Since magic isn't real, I have to engage in the willful suspension of disbelief to be captivated by the writer or DM's portrayal of magic. But since the "mysteriousness" of magic is dictated to us by a writer or DM who is just as human as we are, certain logical inconsistencies invariably crop up.

For example, if there exists certain creatures with a certain amount of power, DR, spell resistance, etc. Then I expect those monster to be held in check by characters of a certain power level. If they are not, then I don't find it believable that a certain monster will not rampage uncontrollably across the countryside. A town of 1-3 level NPC commoners cannot exist anywhere near a dungeon filled with CR 10 or higher monsters. The only way it can is by the DM coming up with some metagame rationale for it.

Likewise, if mages have access to teleport or fly or can create magic lanterns, then I find it unbelievable that a mage would prefer to walk across the countryside or that magic lanterns wouldn't be commonplace. Either the DM or writer has come up with some metagame reason why they can't or they have decided to impose magical laws upon their world to justify why they can't. But once you impose understandable laws of magic it then becomes possible for people to use those laws to their advantage. To know how to manipulate them to increase their own power or profit by it. Such is human nature. Anything else is arbitrary writer's fiat. And when such writer/DM's fiat is held up to the light of logic, I find it suddenly thrown into sharp relief and I can no longer engage in the willful suspension of disbelief.

I came to the D&D game because it, as a frame-work, permitted the creation of a multitude of worlds. Now that only one type is presented as balanced (despite all the drawbacks I list above and the multitude of others have posted earlier) and all others require some degree of justification by those that play in them is 3E's greatest hindrance: Rather than including the multitude, it validates only the one, and those who play by that one are the true elitists, since they can lean on the "rules" to support their views.

The rules framework of the d20 system can be used to simulate a wide variety of worlds. But you must be prepared to make changes to maintain internal logic and consistency. If you don't want your world to contain high level magic items you either must use DM's fiat to simply say they don't exist and ignore the fact that your game world no longer has any internal consistency. Or you have to change the game system itself. See my previous post for the kinds of changes you would need to make to play in a viable low magic world.

Low Magic games are not hindered at higher levels, and level and magic is not intertwined in the manner you describe except by CR, which is easily changed and adjusted to fit the level/magic level of the individual campaign. After all, many DMs ran games (magic light to magic heavy) perfectly well without it for many years. Now suddenly, with CR holding the hands of those DMs that couldn't hack it previously, anyone that doesn't adhere to its dictates are looked down upon.

If magic was not used in D&D as a balancing factor then you could remove it from the game without having to make any other changes at all. But you can't.