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

[Dragonblade]

This came about as a recent conversation I had with my friend SHARK and some other friends of mine about the nature of high magic in games and my distate for WotC's emasculation of the Haste spell in 3.5.

Basically, I have always felt that D&D was at its most fun and its most exciting when you do have high level magic.

I don't know why some DM's fear magic so much. I always see all these threads from people talking about their low magic campaigns or in some extreme cases talking about how they have eliminated magic altogether, taking pride in their "gritty" and "realistic" game world.

Thats nice and all and far be it from me to tell you how to play D&D, but don't some of you find that boring?

I do. I don't go to work for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week so that on the weekend I can get together with my friends and die because a kobold criticalled my PC. Nor do I enjoy tromping through some dungeon and at the end having nothing to show for it but some potions and a +1 sword!!

As my friend, SHARK put it so eloquently, "I don't play D&D to struggle for a +1 sword. $%^# that!! I play D&D so my character can wield that +5 Vorpal Holy Avenger!!"

I have played in low-level games, struggling against goblins, praying for the day when I can finally cast fireball and its no fun at all. Its like when I was playing Dragon Warrior on my NES and wandering the countryside fighting slimes for two hours in order to scrape together enough gold and XP to level up and buy better stuff just to continue to the story. Now, seriously, how much fun was that?

The answer is simple. Its NOT FUN!

Now, the last time I played in SHARK's world, I had a 40th level Sorceror/Monk, armed to the teeth with Epic magic and struggling to survive an ambush by 20 Winter Wights!! Or when my 40th level paladin was taking on 16th level fighter fire giants, each one armed with +5 Unholy flaming burst battle axes!

Now some of you may read this and roll your eyes, eager to get back to your low-power game world. And thats fine and dandy.

But there are some of you out there who read this and go, "Wow! I wish I played in that game!" Well, this thread's for you.

The reason for this thread? Simple. I see so many threads touting the virtues of low-power gaming and dissing high magic as the sole purview of the munchkin that I felt compelled to speak out.

Epic D&D is not just the realm of the munchkin. Epic D&D games are some of the most exciting of all!!

 

[Mark]

I don't know why some DM's fear magic so much. I always see all these threads from people talking about their low magic campaigns or in some extreme cases talking about how they have eliminated magic altogether, taking pride in their "gritty" and "realistic" game world.

A game need not be low-magic, or of a even standard magic level to be "gritty" or "realistic" and be exciting. The stakes of a game can be high, and the players can find themselves immersed in a struggle, when the characters (PCs and NPCs) have depth to them.

I enjoy games of all levels of magic but if the contention is that one is more fun over another simply because of the items carried by the PCs and what is available I'd have to respectfully disagree. When a game ceases to be about the characters and becomes nothing more than an arms race, no matter if the finish line is a +1 or +5 sword, then I lose interest in playing or running the game.

Personalities and plots are the key to my ideal of an RPG, no matter the system, level of play, or the physical trappings that make props of the game.

 

[Fenes 2]

I am a DM that restricts magic, especially magic items. My main reason is simple: I hate dealing with tons of magic items and having to compensate for a dozen spells just to run an adventure more complicated than "kick in the door and start slaughtering".

I also think people who complain about "struggling for a measly +1 sword" are unable to immerse themselves into the DM's world. IMC no magic sword is "measly", but something to behold and proudly carry. Not many possess magic weapons or armor - in short, that +1 sword is the equal of a +3 keen sword at least in a "standard" campaign.
The same goes for magic as a whole. If you play in a low magic campaign, then don't expect all the stuff in the DM's handbook to be available or even exist. And if you get a +3 keen warning sundering sword imc, you know it will know few equals.

I just don't see the point of taking hours upon hours in preparation time just so that the players can use level 40 PCs when the main goal - a challenging fight for the fate of the country - can be had with a couple 10+ PCs and much less magical toys. I'd rather spend my preparation time on plot and hooks and backgroud, not fine-tuning a dozen high-level enemies as cannon fodder.

In the end it all comes down to relative power. I saw that in my shadowrun campaigns. In one campaign the PCs had skills of 8-12 while the average grunt had skills of 5-6. In the next campaign, the PCs had skills of 4-6 while the average grunt had skills of 3-4. The relative power of the PCs is the same.
In D&D, what matters your vorpal holy avenger if everyone and their brother have similar weapons to challenge you? What matter your epic spells if every opponent has the means to defend himself against them just to be able to fight you?
IMC, very few opponents have magic weapons. The PCs' weapons, the +1 shocking burst longspear with fate points, the +3 keen warning sundering chinese longsword, the +1 cold burst personal bastard sword, they are all unique, and fitting weapons for a level 14 hero - in a campaign where a level 14 PC is not just a grunt to a host of "ELH-epic level" PCs wielding "ELH-epic weapons", but a mover and shaker.

 

[cable]

Whilst it's perfectly reasonable for people to like 1 style of gaming over another (ie high magic vs low magic) the game should not impose one style over another just because the designers deemed their preferred style better. The case in point is 3.5e is now practically forcing everyone to adopt a low magic style of game.

I agree that high magic style game is fun and I enjoy DMing high magic style games but I don't begrudge peoplpe who like their low magic games. Since both styles of games are popular in D&D the designers should provide the framework to use either style rather than straight jacketing the players and the DMs into 1 style.

I think the main reason 3.5e is moving in the direction of low magic is because many DMs don't want situations where spells can overcome barriers outside of the narrow story plot of their adventure.

 

[yennico]

I am a DM that restricts magic, especially magic items. My main reason is simple: I hate dealing with tons of magic items and having to compensate for a dozen spells just to run an adventure more complicated than "kick in the door and start slaughtering".

I also think people who complain about "struggling for a measly +1 sword" are unable to immerse themselves into the DM's world. IMC no magic sword is "measly", but something to behold and proudly carry. Not many possess magic weapons or armor - in short, that +1 sword is the equal of a +3 keen sword at least in a "standard" campaign.
The same goes for magic as a whole. If you play in a low magic campaign, then don't expect all the stuff in the DM's handbook to be available or even exist. And if you get a +3 keen warning sundering sword imc, you know it will know few equals.

I just don't see the point of taking hours upon hours in preparation time just so that the players can use level 40 PCs when the main goal - a challenging fight for the fate of the country - can be had with a couple 10+ PCs and much less magical toys. I'd rather spend my preparation time on plot and hooks and backgroud, not fine-tuning a dozen high-level enemies as cannon fodder.

In the end it all comes down to relative power. I saw that in my shadowrun campaigns. In one campaign the PCs had skills of 8-12 while the average grunt had skills of 5-6. In the next campaign, the PCs had skills of 4-6 while the average grunt had skills of 3-4. The relative power of the PCs is the same.
In D&D, what matters your vorpal holy avenger if everyone and their brother have similar weapons to challenge you? What matter your epic spells if every opponent has the means to defend himself against them just to be able to fight you?
IMC, very few opponents have magic weapons. The PCs' weapons, the +1 shocking burst longspear with fate points, the +3 keen warning sundering chinese longsword, the +1 cold burst personal bastard sword, they are all unique, and fitting weapons for a level 14 hero - in a campaign where a level 14 PC is not just a grunt to a host of "ELH-epic level" PCs wielding "ELH-epic weapons", but a mover and shaker.

I totally agree with Fenes 2 and I really dislike vorpal weapons.
With improved Crit, Keen, etc. the PC or the BBEG kills to often an opponent with one hit.

Just my 2 cents
yennico

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I would disagree very much that the changes so far has slanted D&D towards "low magic". It is still at it's core a "high magic" game with magic items and spell casters in abundance.

Personally, I've always been fond of relatively "low magic" games where magic items - while still retaining their powers - often are quest items and even lowly spells are sure to wow the general populace while a fireball would shock 'n awe. But I realise that it is only a style of gaming. There is no inherent difference between gaming "high magic" and "low magic" (as in roleplaying versus powergaming versus munchkninism versus hack 'n slash or anything). The power balance is usually the same - the arms race just hasn't reached the same level. Whether you use a fireball in a low magic game or a meteor shower in a high magic ditto - the effects are the same.

 

[DragonLancer]

I prefer low magic campaigns myself, both as a DM and as a player. Its no fun when magic and magical items get you out of a situation, which is usually the way it seems with high magic.

Wheres the fun for the DM when he invents a good riddle/puzzle challenge that the players need to solve in order to open the door, and then the players use spells and items to stone shape/knock/...etc their way past it simply because they can?

Not the best example by any means, but the point I think is there. If thats how you play thats cool, but to me thats a spoiler of a game. The same goes with magical weapons and armours. All too often, they throw encounters out of wack. And if every villain or monster has an enchanted weapon and armour, then thats even more magic floating into the parties hands.

But if it works for you, then go for it.

 

[Deadguy]

I agree with Mark that we should separate 'gritty' or 'realistic' from 'high' or 'low' fantasy/magic. A campaign loaded with magic can still be made to feel gritty if the opponent's tactics and tools are made to complement the PCs' abilities. Likewise, in any fantasy setting, what we really mean by 'realistic' is 'verisimilitude', a feeling that the consequences of actions flow naturally from events, even if those events and those consequences are fantastical in the extreme.

Hence this question really does come down to a matter of group style. The same stories can be told in most any style, even if the situations and events must be couched differently. I know - I've been doing that for years, telling the sorts of stories that I enjoy DM'ing in a wide variety of systems and settings. I've seen 'unrealistic' romps in original Cyberpunk (i.e. where there were no consequences week-to-week for PC actions), and 'realistic' play in the Council of Wyrms with everyone playing powerful dragons.

However, to get back to Dragonblade's specific point, there is indeed nothing inferior to a setting that decides to use plenty of magic, and no special moral virtue in playing D&D where getting food each day is a real challenge. They are different games, for different crowds, and great fun can be had by all. But there does sometimes seem to be a sort of snobbery involved, where people boast at how little magic their setting involves, and how their PCs, after two years of play, are now second level and still fear being attacked by wildfowl, as though that sort of DM was somehow 'cleverer'. The genius of the DM is in adapting to the setting and still managing to run the games he desires, rather than in trimming all settings to feel similar.

 

[Zappo]

The case in point is 3.5e is now practically forcing everyone to adopt a low magic style of game.

Wha? Man, they've just nerfed a half-dozen spells which a lot of people considered broken anyway. "Low magic" is a lot different from what you get by taking D&D and removing Haste. That's why many people enjoy one and not the other, after all.

 

[diaglo]

i agree with Mark. and Zappo.