Drifter Bob said:
I think this problem is heavily exxagerated. Scaling the monsters to fit a low-magic campaign is largely a matter of competent DMing. It's never been very hard for me. I also think you are much more confident in the value of the CR system than I am. Dragons have been sited here as one example of incaccurate CR's, but that is just the tip of the iceburg. You have to evaluate the potential threat of an encounter on more than just that one number, and few people rely on it to issue experience points anyway, especially in a low magic campaign.
I don't think it's heavily exaggerated, and I think it's possible that many of the tailorings of the rules required for running low magic games are so heavily ingrained in your game design that they run as background processes. That's a compliment, by the way: I'm saying that you might do some things so naturally that you forget they are work.
I understand that evaluating CR is more art than science. I think the elite stat array tends to be overpriced, for example, especially in games that use 32- or even 36-point buy for character stat spread. The SRD recommends a CR bump for size, but if you face a party almost universally equipped with Spring Attack, tumble and reach weapons that becomes a non-issue. Undead are more challenging against a party without a cleric, and some undead are a cakewalk with a cleric. CR is a baseline for a DM to work from, and not a math problem with easy predictable answers.
It is from this knowledge, and the low magic games I've played (both as a player and a DM), which leads me to the conclusion that the problem is not exaggerated. You may disagree, and that's fine. But my opinion does not arise from ignorance, nor a fixation on numbers. You'll notice that the same person who said he never changed monsters is also the person who talked about multiplying the CR of dragons, and considered them to be generally epic-level combat encounters best addressed with artifacts. DR, especially DR -/magic, becomes a more important consideration. So do spell-like and supernatural abilities. So does ability damage, ability drain and energy drain. Incorporeal creatures move from challenging to a TPK in a bottle. SR becomes less of a factor, and thus less valuable in determining a monster's CR. All those things and more need to be considered.
Drifter Bob said:
Personally, I think high magic games can be fun too, but I see it as more of a junk food experience, more krispy kreme than good local New Orleans food from my neighborhood. I think low magic generally has more potential to be more fun, but it depends what you like. High magic is more like a computer game, more just judgling of resources and accumulating wealth and power. Low magic are the only types of games I 've ever experienced in 25 years of gaming in every edition of D&D and 20 some odd other games all over the world, where you can really get a sense of immersion and drama.
Just as some things are more a matter of taste, others are a reflection of experience.
(And before somebody goes off half-cocked saying that I'm accusing low magic folks of inexperience, I'm not: I'm talking about DIFFERENT or DIFFERING experiences.)
When I was running and playing games in Living Greyhawk, for example, which was both low magic and very low treasure, I found that players were much more fixated on juggling resources and keeping track of every single copper piece. I tend to view low magic games as more like a high fiber diet. Maybe sometimes it's useful to cleanse the system, and get people away from certain bad gaming habits. But after a while, I get constipation from chowing down on too much raw fiber. Magic is part of the appeal of fantasy. That is where magic lives. I still take giddy delight in fighting high-magic, high fantasy battles with powerful agents of evil. I've done my time slogging through the mud, and clawing for a +1 dagger with 3 pages of backstory.
