good books for a low-magic campaign?

[molonel]

Judging from the number of posters here who are outright hostile to the very words, "Low Magic" my impression is that there are many GMs who don't know how to do it properly who are muddying an otherwise superior (IMHO) game experience.

I'm not particularly hostile to low-magic games. I've run them, and I've played in them. I just don't think they are inherently superior games because I've been in both good low-magic games, and bad ones. The skills necessary to run a good D&D/d20 game are, in my opinion, much the same no matter what genre, rules set or campaign tweaks you bring into the world. To people who want some of the elements a low-magic game offers, I'm sure it SEEMS like a superior gaming experience. Some things truly are a matter of taste. But simply blaming hostility to the idea of low-magic games to lack of understanding is rather like the thread I read not too long ago which blamed people who didn't like the ELH for simply not having enough experience with it.

I tend to run mid- to high-level games. Simply saying that parties should learn to run away from creatures they can't beat is entirely insufficient in constructing a rules set.

I've been running low magic for several months now, and haven't had a problem with monsters as is from my books.

What level is your low-magic game up to, now? Just out of curiosity.

 

[GlassJaw]

Judging from the number of posters here who are outright hostile to the very words, "Low Magic"

Hmm, I've found that a good percentage of people in here like low-magic settings. I know I've learned more about low-magic games in here than any where else and it's the main reason that I became interested in them.

I'm not saying there aren't people in here who don't like low-magic games, I just wouldn't say that they are openly hostile.

 

[Conaill]

Unless high-level Grim Tales characters are also covered with magic items, they'll be outclassed by stuff you could find in the Fiend Folio or MM III. [...]Simply changing the character classes without changing the monsters will only lead to weariness on the part of the players as every non-classed creature they run into has a good chance of just stomping them.

I might suggest that running a low-magic game entails a little more work on the GM's part than simply stripping the players of all their magic without changing some fundamental assumptions of the campaign world, one of which is to challenge the players at the appropriate time with the appropriate level of magic and to expect the appropriate response from them.

Sounds to me like those are just two sides of the same coin.

Yes, many of the "standard" D&D monsters have magical abilities that would make them much harder opponents in a low-magic world. But it is possible to select monsters that will work just fine as-is in a low-magic world.

Essentially, the problem only comes up when you're trying to mix low-magic PCs with high-magic opponents...

Wulf, Considering that we may still want to include the occasional very rare high-magic creature even in a low-magic campaign, how would you deal with that? For example, how would you deal with slaying a dragon, a staple of medieval low-magic fantasy? Would you tune down the dragon's magical abilities, or would you use the dragon as-is from the MM and assume the party will get slaughtered if they try a frontal assault? (Note that the latter is essentially equivalent to saying that that dragon is a higher CR in your low-magic world.)

 

[GlassJaw]

Considering that we may still want to include the occasional very rare high-magic creature even in a low-magic campaign, how would you deal with that?

Without using any specific examples, the "sterotypical" or "generic" dragon from fantasy literature probably didn't cast spells. They also usually only breathed fire and weren't necessarily red. They could also be hurt with non-magical weapons. 3ed dragons have tons of abilities including the kitchen sink.

A dragon's CR is already on the low side in MM because it's assumed the PC's will be loaded for bear before the battle. Low-magic PC's don't have such luxury.

So yeah, I would say you would have to tone down the dragon, perhaps even more than a little. PC's glowly like Christmas trees have trouble with dragons never mind the kids with coal.

Another idea is to have some kind of campaign-specific item that greatly aids the party or hero. This is pretty commonplace too. The hero must find XYZ item in order to defeat the dragon once and for all, in which said item is usually destroyed in the process. There are examples in literature of a single shield completely protecting the character from the dragon's breath.

 

[Desdichado]

What level is your low-magic game up to, now? Just out of curiosity.

4th, so not that high yet. Although the CR's I've tossed at the PCs range from less than one to nearly 10.

I also seriously doubt that I'll still be running this campaign beyond early teens in terms of PC levels. I'll be ready to do something else by then, if not before.

In terms of open hostility at ENWorld towards low magic, there certainly hasn't been any on this thread. But a casual search of some of the threads in the past we've had do indeed show a fair amount of surprisingly open hostility towards the very concept. There's even someone running around with a sig file that says (I don't remember the exact wording) "Leave D&D alone; if you want low magic, play some other game!" There's a lot of snide "you must be an inferior DM if you can't handle high magic" type of stuff that starts popping up. Even a casual question about some aspect of running a low magic game has, in the past, been met with threadcrapping folks who are somehow morally offended by the very concept.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Simply saying that parties should learn to run away from creatures they can't beat is entirely insufficient in constructing a rules set.

Hmmm... How to dissect this statement.

Let's take your statement at face value for a moment. Given that the party can't beat the monster they are facing, what ruleset can possibly be sufficient?

Please note that this is independent of low magic, high magic, or any other consideration other than that the PCs are faced with a monster they can't beat. I am curious how any ruleset can "sufficiently" respond to that.

Is the solution, then, to make EVERY monster beatable by ANY party? Is that sufficient?

On the other hand, if your statement is simply a straw-man argument, I can only assume that you either do not own or have not read Grim Tales. My "position" as far as the GT ruleset goes is based on a desire to make as much of the existing d20 library (including monsters) usable as is, as possible; and yes, "sufficient" accomodations in the ruleset were made for this.

Wulf, Considering that we may still want to include the occasional very rare high-magic creature even in a low-magic campaign, how would you deal with that? For example, how would you deal with slaying a dragon, a staple of medieval low-magic fantasy? Would you tune down the dragon's magical abilities, or would you use the dragon as-is from the MM and assume the party will get slaughtered if they try a frontal assault? (Note that the latter is essentially equivalent to saying that that dragon is a higher CR in your low-magic world.)

First things first. Keep in mind that the CRs for dragons are already too low. For the true measure of a dragon's power, multiply the CR by x1.5. This is based on a core design parameter that decided to deliberately under-value the CR of dragons in order to make them more "fearsome."

Even in D&D, if you go by CR alone (matching the party CR to the dragon) a frontal assault is more than 50% likely to end up in TPK.

To the heart of your question, I'd point first at the fact that dragons in staple fantasy are universally deadly creatures on an epic scale.

Nowhere in staple medieval fantasy is the hunting and slaying of dragons a typical "adventuring" pastime: If dragons are so plentiful as to build an entire industry around hunting them, I'd say you've left low-magic behind. This is a phenomenon that really only appears in D&D and similar high-fantasy genres.

I can't think of an example of a successful frontal assault on a dragon in staple medieval fantasy. Of all of the dragon-slayings I can think of, epic or artifact level magic was involved.

So essentially I'd say, if you want to feature a dragon in the game, no changes are necessary, other than to give the PCs the tools they need to slay the dragon (or set them on the path to their retrieval): If there is a dragon, there must be a dragon-bane they can find and use.

Wulf

 

[Red Spire Press]

So essentially I'd say, if you want to feature a dragon in the game, no changes are necessary, other than to give the PCs the tools they need to slay the dragon (or set them on the path to their retrieval): If there is a dragon, there must be a dragon-bane they can find and use.

Alternately -- and this is my personal preference -- how about raising an army! Use those leadership feats, gather the cohorts, place the traps, set up the diversions, and employ real strategy. Sure it's more work, but it puts a much more epic and realistic bent on the situation, if that's what you're after. Going up against something along the lines of a dragon in a low-magic campaign should never be rudimentary.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Shameless Plug

Wulf, in another thread you mentioned having a lot of material for a more in-depth book on magic. Any developments on that?

It's not exactly classy to toot your own horn, but the Primer of Practical Magic was designed with low magic in mind, there are 30 something cantrips for example, most of the spells are 1st -4th level, and there are lots of interesting minor magic items. I use it in my campaign (not surprisngly) and honestly feel it grants a huge variety of interesting but fairly low powered magical options which can greatly enhance a low magic campaign in particular.

I always felt that there werentr enough cool options for low level spellcasters and spell / magic dabblers of various types. I think the Primer fullfills this need quite a bit.

Anyway, you can read Psions review here at ENworld to get a better idea about the Primer.

I also like a lot of Pelgranes other books like cugels compendium and the excellent prismatic spray. I like thievery and crime a lot in my campaigns and their stuff often focuses on really cool confidence games and tricks.

I also perhaps ironically use and like Magic of Faerun a lot, as it has several useful and interesting low level spells (though not as many cantrips).

I really liked several of Avalanche press' sourcebooks, especially their outsatnding Celtic World which is fantastic for setting a fairly low magic, realistic campaign in a very compelling, wondrous world setting.

Another interesting though flawed sourcebook was E.G.G.'s "Canting Crewe" which takes you into the Medieval criminal underworld in great detail. Full of great flavor thoguh the art is distractingly bad.

I do think Conan is a good idea though I agree the price is a major obstacle, as are a few of the problems with the 1st edition I saw. Another good place to go are some of the other fantasy author sourcebooks. Primer, listed above is Jack Vance stuff of course. You may like the Melnibone books, the Cthulhu stuff, (the Chaosium material has lots of really interesting modules) and there are even some old Fafrhed and Grey Mouser material left around from 1E and 2E which you can find on Ebay. I find all of these have good material for low magic campaigns in particular.

It doesn't hurt to read the novels either.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

A non-magical stone giant is still going to hurt a low-magic party worse than it will hurt a high-magic party. Spell-casting monsters aren't the only thing different about a low-magic campaign.

We use modified, more realistic combat rules in our campaign, and the players are very, very devious in their combat tactics, (which is interesting, they were far less "into it" when we played regular D&D) I doubt my low magic 5th - 7th level party would have too much trouble killing a stone giant, depending on the circumstances. (they would have trouble if it ambushed them or something)

DB

 

[Conaill]

To the heart of your question, I'd point first at the fact that dragons in staple fantasy are universally deadly creatures on an epic scale.

Nowhere in staple medieval fantasy is the hunting and slaying of dragons a typical "adventuring" pastime: If dragons are so plentiful as to build an entire industry around hunting them, I'd say you've left low-magic behind. This is a phenomenon that really only appears in D&D and similar high-fantasy genres.

I totally agree. Obviously, a low-magic world that has scads of high-magic creatures running around in it is no longer low-magic, so dragons should be extremely rare. But that is really an orthogonal issue to what I was trying to get at...

If we compare standard-magic a party of adventurers in a standard D&D world facing a dragon of a certain age category, to a low-magic party of the same level in a low-magic world facing the same dragon... would you agree that the dragon would be more of a challenge to a party in a low-magic world, than it is in a standard D&D world?

This is a question not about the "flavor" of the world, but about the game mechanics. For the same party level and dragon age category, should the PCs be rewarded more XP for defeating the dragon in a low magic setting? Because that is equivalent to saying that the dragon should be a higher CR in a low magic setting...