Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[big dummy]

So, you want the standard to be lower? Fine. But don't make out like it's some trivial little change that the precariously balanced game is in error for not being able to handle. It's a big change.

Man, listen to what you are saying. I know you are a really smart guy, just back away from the desk for a second and think about this. All we are talking about is the system being flexible enough to handle a little less magic . I don't know where you are getting the idea that knocking out the continual-light streetlamps is somehow going to make fighters unplayable, or ruin the game.

On the issue of magic item saturation,
I have seen a lot of D&D games in the last few years, partially due to the job of a friend and co-worker of mine, and the amount of magic items seems to routinely be crazily inflated. I think you could lose a few of those items and still have quite powerful characters.

But regardless, there are some heavily flawwed assumptins here in play.

Here are three QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS which leap to mind:

1) The system is really balanced as is. Do you really think this is true? To use your car anaology far from a perfectly aligned sports car I see 3E D&D as an overloaded truck with one roller skate, one wagon wheel, one racing tyre, and a solid rubber run-flat, just barely staying on the road (yet arguably still a major advance over the earlier square wheeled donkey cart system). EL's and CR's do not seem to be balanced to me at all. From polls I've seen and personal experience few DM's seem to even use the Canon experience point system which is a big part of this whole balance issue. The idea that there is no leeway within this supposedly finely balanced system seems full of holes to me.

2) The only way to make non-magic using classes fun / interesting / or powerful within D&D is by giving them lots of powerful magic items. Again, is this really true? Talk about lazy DM'ing! Can't you imagine being able to tweak the combat system a little bit or even better, couldn't any DM emphasize some other aspects of the game such as stealth and diplomacy to make things more interesting for fighters and rogues? I mean, to me the very nature of the campaign could have a great effect on how relatively powerful the magic users are.

3) Lower magic means VERY LOW MAGIC, including for the party. Again, lower magic doesn't mean there is no magic. Just because you don't have a duffel bag full of magic swords does NOT mean you don't have even one magic blade to kill that werewolf with. Lower Magic CAN mean very low, but it can also mean just a bit lower. The fact is as it currently stands DnD is kind of being forced into a much higher magic saturation than a lot of people like. That doesn't mean 5 or 6 strong magic items per player in a world where their items and personal abilities really stand out is terrible compared to a world where each player has 20 magic items and their skills are commonplace.

BD

 

[Land Outcast]

The ENWorld community is pretty hardcore.

Had to do it

 

[buzz]

The important thing here is to know that there are many companies addressing this need. WotC doesn't really need to, IMHO (any more than they did with Modern, anyway). The work's already been done, and, in many cases, been done excellently.

QFT. Big time.

My bad... sorry about that. But I don't mean D20, I mean a major 3.5 campaign setting by a big player, preferably WOTC.

I think the main reason you'll never see this happen is that "low-magic," whatever that may mean, requires a massive overhaul to D&D as-is. Catering to this need requires WotC devoting time and energy to a product that is likely of no use whatsoever to the majority of D&D players.

If you look at what WotC releases, you'll notice that they have yet to release a D&D product that is flat-out incompatible with all their other products. Even UA is a collection of options that are fairly easy add-ins/ons for RAW D&D. FR, Eberron, core... every WotC book has something you can use in any D&D campaign.

Its so typical any time you bring up anything about changing D&D in any way, people send you off to other games...

I think it's mostly because, 9 times out of 10, it's the appropriate answer.

As KM said, there are a host of RPGs, both d20 and non, that address this need. Why people continually feel that WotC needs to do so as well is beyond me. (And if you count d20M, they already have.) Do people do this with other companies as well? "Man, I really wish those jerks at WW would put out a low-magic setting for Exalted."

I have to wonder if it's just an issue of "It'll be easier to sell to my players if it's got the official D&D logo on it." And, honestly, that's what's really sad. Why? Because either the group is on the same page, all wanting a low-magic game, but can't see past their D&D blinders... or else one player wants a low-magic game and is either unable to talk to his group about it or feels he has to foist it upon them because he know they don't want it.

 

[Psion]

Man, listen to what you are saying. I know you are a really smart guy, just back away from the desk for a second and think about this. All we are talking about is the system being flexible enough to handle a little less magic .

Are we? I must have missed that. Because if we are just talking about a "little change", you don't need to change the system at all IME; it's usually within the DM's cap. If you are looking for a new system, that doesn't seem consistent with your protestation here about "a little" change.

 

[buzz]

[/i]1) The system is really balanced as is. Do you really think this is true?

Yes, at least in the sense that it's balanced for the default level of magic. You start messing with that default level, and many bits of the system are affected.

Honestly, just skimming this thread, I'm seeing a lot of the usual arguments, arguments that are pretty much synonymous with "I don't like D&D, at least not as-is." The only useful responses to this are:

a) Don't play D&D, then.

or

2) Find a third-party product that has done the modifications for you, or else do the modifications yourself.

Ranting on the Web isn't going to get WotC to change their development standards, regardless of whether one feels they are good or bad standards. You're just pissing in the wind.

 

[big dummy]

I think the main reason you'll never see this happen is that "low-magic," whatever that may mean,

I said "lowER magic" all along, and I think I defined it pretty clearly.

requires a massive overhaul to D&D as-is. Catering to this need requires WotC devoting time and energy to a product that is likely of no use whatsoever to the majority of D&D players.

Again, I can't imagine any reason why it would be any more of a "massive overhaul" than D20 modern was, in fact if it requires even 25% that much of an "overhaul" I'll eat my boots.

As for whether it's of no use to most D&D players, what about D20 modern, or D20 cthulhu, or Eberron for that matter? Are you sure a MAJORITY of D20 players are using Eberron?

If you look at what WotC releases, you'll notice that they have yet to release a D&D product that is flat-out incompatible with all their other products.

Again, how do you know low magic would be incompatable? More so than D20 modern? How is Eberron compatable with FR?

As KM said, there are a host of RPGs, both d20 and non, that address this need. Why people continually feel that WotC needs to do so as well is beyond me.

Hmmm... if an apparently substantial number of people "continually" feel that Wotc should do it, maybe they should? Didn't 3E arise largely based on certain wishes of the player community? If it is something which keeps coming up over and over why should it be ignored or stamped out as you seem to be implying?

(And if you count d20M, they already have.)

Well, was D20M a failure? Were you against that too? Which is it? Maybe D20 "Gutboy Barrelhouse" would be another helpful addition which will actualy grow the game and work out even better.

Do people do this with other companies as well? "Man, I really wish those jerks at WW would put out a low-magic setting for Exalted."

Delighted that you brought this up. Brings to mind 2 more fallacious concepts which seem to be at play here:


4) D&D is inherently a high magic game. Patently false. There are a number of ways to play D&D, and at least a significant minority of players STILL play D20 lower magic than any of the published settings, even now.

5) D&D should be all things to all players. A questionable doctrine which IMO leads to all the strife one finds in the increasingly fanatical (actively online) D&D community. Clearly people like to play the game different ways. What is wrong with the core rules encompassing more than just D20 high magic and d20 modern?

I have to wonder if it's just an issue of "It'll be easier to sell to my players if it's got the official D&D logo on it." And, honestly, that's what's really sad. Why? Because either the group is on the same page, all wanting a low-magic game, but can't see past their D&D blinders... or else one player wants a low-magic game and is either unable to talk to his group about it or feels he has to foist it upon them because he know they don't want it.

Whats sad is the aggression and hostility (passive or otherwise) which any suggestion of any change in D&D brings up in some people. I'm not going to speculate why, though I could as you did here invent an amusing theoretical scenario. I just think it's sad.

DB

 

[big dummy]

Are we? I must have missed that. Because if we are just talking about a "little change", you don't need to change the system at all IME; it's usually within the DM's cap. If you are looking for a new system, that doesn't seem consistent with your protestation here about "a little" change.

Please read or reread my posts through the thread then. I just brought up the idea of a "lower" magic setting from D20. People pointed out that if it was very low magic it might require some rules tweaking which I agree may be the case, (though I probably differ in how much). I stick to my original idea that any kind of lower magic setting would be welcome, I frankly think a 'medium' magic setting would be a good step in the right direction, even though I'd probably prefer a bit lower than that.

In other words, if on a scale of magic saturation between one and ten, Eberron is a 9 and FR a 7, I'd like to see something in the 1-6 range. Thats all I was proposing. People are focusing on 1 vs 9 dichotomy for a variety of their own reasons.

BD

 

[Psion]

In other words, if on a scale of magic saturation between one and ten, Eberron is a 9 and FR a 7, I'd like to see something in the 1-6 range. Thats all I was proposing. People are focusing on 1 vs 9 dichotomy for a variety of their own reasons.

Aside: I don't really thing Eberron is not higher magic than FR.

That said, my point remains. If you are talking about a big enough change that your needs are not being tended to, I think it's pretty much natural in absence of some sensible qualification that the onlookers think you are speaking of a pretty large shift.

 

[painandgreed]

I said "Yes, but..."

I think it can be done. I'd like to see spell-less versions of the ranger, assassin, and bard. If they want magic, then they can multiclass into a level or three of wizard. Then assume that wizards a little rarer than one per small village, and similarly cut down on the avaiablity of magic items. It might throw off the level/wealth charts, but that just means they don't need to be taking on monsters of equal CR all the time. CRs are metagame knowledge that the players shouldn't be including in their factoring anyway. They may advance a little slower, but IMHO, advancement should be slowed a bit anyway. Spell casters may be a little powerful at higher levels as they weren in previous editions, but without all their magic items, they'd be paper tigers. A 9th level wizard who gets fully prepared and is fighting on his choice or terrrain may be near unstoppable, but then again, so would a fighter with three rounds of surprise with his choice of terrain. If you still felt they needed nerfing, a few tweaks to the costs of magic item creation, learning spells, and wizard training would probably put them back on par with any other character in the long run (and again IMHO, they need to be tweaked anyway because they weren't designed very well). I think it can be done with the current rule set and I think I'd enjoy it.

Of course, I played 1E and 2E and I think such changed would make it more like those with 'old school feel'. One of the things I dislike the most about the new 3E is the neurotic tendency to be over balanced. Players no longer seem to need to think about how to overcome obtacles, they are just automatically pitted against an equal CR and the game has been carefully crafted so they have everything they need to win in a stand up fight.

 

[big dummy]

Implementing lower magic

One way to implement lower magic in D&D is to actually play by the rules as written instead of fudging over things, namely the sleep / recharge period between spellcasting. In too many D&D sessions I've seen, particularly higher level games, parties will camp out the second the spellcasters cast even a few of their spells. Sleeping for 8 hours, adventuring / fighting for thirty minutes, and then sleeping for another 8 hours and on and on in this matter is often a stretch in many ways.

How much time is going by this way, can the kingdom wait for a year long exploration of the mad alchemists crypt or do they need it done in a week?

With a cleric or Druid the players probably have enough food and water for eternity, but do they have enough material magic components to keep casting every spell over and over?

Even if you are hiding up in the rope trick hole, how hard is it for local bad guys or monsters to eventually figure this out? Set up an ambush?

Also don't forget, interruptions of the "rest" at camp out time add more required rest time. Conditions have to be right. Spellbooks have to be available.

There is the 8 hour restriction between memorization as well for both divine and arcane casters.


Basically, DM's let players slide on this, which is fine if thats how you want to play. But if you want to try a lower magic game, one way to balance the power of the spellcasters is to just enforce the rules as written. That way the spellcasters are not so dominant, since they have to be a bit more careful as to when they cast spells and are more limited in how many they can cast. Fighters and rogues have more power and more to do in comparison.


This is just one of many ways a slightly different playing style can make a big difference.

DB