Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Hussar]

It is not unreasonable to say "pick a different system". DnD will do low magic, but, not out of the box. It takes a fair bit of work to do it. So, why not use a system that DOES work out of the box?

It's not a case of it not being DnD, just that some people think it's better to drive nails with a hammer and not a wrench.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is not unreasonable to say "pick a different system". DnD will do low magic, but, not out of the box. It takes a fair bit of work to do it. So, why not use a system that DOES work out of the box?

Excepting, of course, that this thread has demonstrated rather conclusively that you can do low magic with 3.X right out of the box.

At most, you would make the following changes:

* 1/2 XP according the CR.
* No magic shops.
* Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.

That doesn't seem to be a fair bit of work to me. YMMV.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Excepting, of course, that this thread has demonstrated rather conclusively that you can do low magic with 3.X right out of the box.

At most, you would make the following changes:

* 1/2 XP according the CR.
* No magic shops.
* Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.

That doesn't seem to be a fair bit of work to me. YMMV.

I clicked on this thread out of morbid curiosity, and now I can't hold back commenting. Appologies to all! This is based off my time Playing in a low-magic campaign that was run very poorly balance-wise.

If you're still allowing full spellcasting classes, it isn't a low-magic game. Rate of level advancement has nothing to do with low or high magic. Magic shops aren't in the rules so that's unnecessary to spell out. And, I'm guessing the third really means "Don't use treasure tables?" So here's my list:

1) No PC can have more than 1/2 levels in a spellcasting class.
2) Treasure tables are out.
3) XP is given ad hoc without regard to CR by DM's judgement.

The first limits the magic of PCs, since a Fighter 10 and a Druid 10, neither of whom have magical items doesn't work (personal experience playing the Fighter - it isn't fun).

The second means that the DM won't adhere to the treasure tables. I suppose it isn't a necessary rule, since the DM is free to give out treasure as he or she desires anyway, but it's a deviation from the Monster entries, so its safest to make note of it.

The last is important becuase monster difficultly will be hugely affected by lack of magical abilities in the party. For example, monster flight becomes much more powerful, and thus should yield higher XP amounts than normal. The DM might also want to give out more XP than CR would indicate, since the PCs will be fighting things far below their book CRs. (It isn't a requirement, but I highly reccomend it).


I'd still recommend Iron Heroes, though. It's fun!

 

[Hussar]

If you're still allowing full spellcasting classes, it isn't a low-magic game. Rate of level advancement has nothing to do with low or high magic. Magic shops aren't in the rules so that's unnecessary to spell out. And, I'm guessing the third really means "Don't use treasure tables?" So here's my list:

QFT

It still absolutely astounds me that people think that a full caster campaign is low magic. If the party includes a wizzie and a cleric that means that there are spells being cast in pretty much EVERY encounter throughout the life of the campaign. Even if it's just curing spells. How can that possibly be equated with low magic?

 

[JohnSnow]

I'd still recommend Iron Heroes, though. It's fun!

QFT

Woo-hoo!! I got to QFT something! I'm so excited!!

Now if I can just stop people from telling me that my Iron Heroes games reflect me "not playing D&D."

Nah, I'm dreamin'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It still absolutely astounds me that people think that a full caster campaign is low magic. If the party includes a wizzie and a cleric that means that there are spells being cast in pretty much EVERY encounter throughout the life of the campaign. Even if it's just curing spells. How can that possibly be equated with low magic?

"Low magic", like "High Magic", is a relative term. Relative to the typcial 3e game, a low magic game can easily exist where all the PCs are spellcasters.

* 1/2 XP according to CR.
* No magic shops.
* Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.

1/2 XP according to CR, btw, is going to dramatically slow down level gain as PCs hit higher levels. Because you are limiting their magical treasure, and using world-approriate encounters, they will continue to fight lower CR creatures, which in turn continue to be a challenge because of their lower magical theshhold. This has a pretty big effect in maintaining a low magic campaign.

 

[hong]

The day I saw Exalted described as a "grim 'n gritty" setting was when I decided these labels are as meaningful as the boil on my left toe that is slowly turning black and oozing straw-coloured pus, the same colour as the hair on the girl I saw but for a moment last Tuesday as I boarded the train back to old Kentucky for the amputation procedure.


Hong "is slightly late for the Bulwer-Lytton awards" Ooi

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to regret this.

How can you label a campaign low magic when the vast majority of encounters see spells being cast. In an all caster party, every challenge will be responded to by magic.

By RC's definition, Harry Potter would be low magic. Every character is a caster. While there might be a number of magical gimmicks, it isn't magic items that overcome challenges, but Harry and Co's mastery of magical spells. They advance pretty slowly - it has been six years after all and Harry isn't even a full wizard and gets his butt handed to him by full wizards frequently.

I'm all for a bit of relativity, but I gotta go with Hong on this one. When you can call a setting where every encounter features magic a low magic setting, well, I would say that the label is about as meaningful as Rounser's definition of "Sword and Sorcery".

 

[rounser]

the label is about as meaningful as Rounser's definition of "Sword and Sorcery".

Give it a rest. That argument was how many threads ago? I could say something about how meaningful I find your thoughts, but I don't snipe at you behind your back about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How can you label a campaign low magic when the vast majority of encounters see spells being cast. In an all caster party, every challenge will be responded to by magic.

The terms "high" and "low" relate to some standard median. In D&D 3.X, the standard median is very clearly spelled out. From a D&D standpoint, anything significantly lower than this median is "low magic" and anything significantly higher than this median is "high magic".

From a literary standpoint, the terms "low magic" and "high magic" most often relate to how the characters interact with magic, rather than with the presence or absence of magic in the setting. If most magical effects are within the means of the POV characters, or of the average citizen of the setting, the work is considered "high magic". If most magical effects are not within the means of the POV characters, and not within the means of the average citizen of the setting, the work is considered "low magic". In some cases these terms are used instead to represent what magic can accomplish; in this case keeping the higher level spells rare through controlling NPCs and slower level gain is sufficient.

The works of Robert E. Howard are almost always considered "low magic", yet magic is often used against the heroes...and even by the heroes (example, Solomon Kane's staff).

From a literary standpoint, my game world would probably be considered "mid magic", were such a term in common parlance. From a D&D 3e standpoint, however, it is definitely low magic.

RC