Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[Philotomy Jurament]

I, too, believe the 3.5e rules are not really suited for low-magic play.

Put me in this camp, too. With standard 3E rules, low magic doesn't work well; you have to revamp a bunch of things: spells, magic-items being assumed in CRs and ELs, et cetera. Sure, it can be done, but why bother? I'd go with another system.

Games like True20 (with an AC that scales with level, armor that adds to toughness, and damage saves rather than HP) are better suited for such styles of play.

True20 would be at the top of my list of possible systems for low-magic play, too.

 

[diaglo]

no, they already exist

 

[Eosin the Red]

I think Midnight pulls it off with style, not to mention it has a dozen or more supplements to flesh out the setting. It has more than enough resources and more coming out all the time. Conan, AGOT, and Black Company aren't that shabby either.

 

[Aeolius]

No new settings, thankyouverymuch. I didn't buy Eberron and have no interest in any setting, save the World of Greyhawk.

 

[Seeker95]

Good Luck

Good luck interpretting the results. It would have been better to have three choices:
Yes. I want one.
No. I oppose it.
Don't care. I won't buy it, but have no need to object.

I voted "Yes, but..." because I would have replied in a more abbreviated poll: "Don't care. I won't buy it, but have no need to object."

Another abbreviated version would change the question slightly too:
"Would *you* buy a low-magic campaign setting product?"
Yes (assuming it is done well).
No.

 

[Psion]

Have to say, between Midnight, Thieve's World, Black Company, Game of Thrones, Conan, and Iron Heroes, I think I'm pretty well supplied on low magic d20 settings.

Pre-cisely.

Take note. It's an idea that has been brought up before, and companies have responded. Of these, it seems like Conan is getting the best support. Both Conan and Iron Heroes are by pretty big players (of those outside of WotC). Note that not one of these uses D&D d20 fantasy rules as-is (which sort of flows along with the point others have made about the inherently high magic nature of stock D&D), so I think it's unrealistic to expect it to be a straight up d20 fantasy product vice a variant d20 system.

If these don't work for you, you might ask yourself if your, um, discrimation against publishers who are giving you just what you want are a little too stringent.

I voted "no, other", the other being that the settings are already out there.

 

[big dummy]

Well the usual suspects have chimed in on this, and explained why nothing should ever change in D&D.

I should have put in another voting option: "No. I don't ever want change the way I currently play D&D and nobody else should either!"

The former idea is fine with me, the latter is suspect. Both points of view alas are firmly entrencthed in the most outspoken sector of the D&D community.

And yet, seems like a lot of people like the notion of a "Gutboy Barrelhouse" setting, based on the poll numbers so far, looks like at least half think it sounds good, and a quarter love it...

And, as a final thought, "old school" DnD was every bit as magic loaded as "new school". Pick up any module for 1st edition and tell me that it isn't.

The difference between "old" and "new" school D&D seems to that in the old days you at least had the option of doing it low or high magic, while today, many people believe that due to issues of balance, the current version can ONLY be done high magic.

DB

 

[drothgery]

I, too, believe the 3.5e rules are not really suited for low-magic play.

Yup. There's clearly a market for d20 fantasy games that are lower-magic in some/all respects than D&D. But every reasonably effective implementation (and outside of WotC, there have been a few mentioned up-thread; heck, you can make a case for d20 Past and Wheel of Time) you've got a heavily modified D&D (you're certainly not using standard classes anymore, and probably not standard monsters) or an all-new game.

 

[big dummy]

Pre-cisely.

Take note. It's an idea that has been brought up before, and companies have responded. Of these, it seems like Conan is getting the best support. (snip)

If these don't work for you, you might ask yourself if your, um, discrimation against publishers who are giving you just what you want are a little too stringent.

I voted "no, other", the other being that the settings are already out there.

The only problem with settings like Conan or Midnight are that they are too genre specific. What I'm advocating is a more generic system from which Conan or Midnight might be branches off of the main arm. This would have the excellent effect of among other things, standardizing some of the variant rules and the numerous ways of handling the same problem which each of these sub-settings have come up with. I think it would actually help them and it would personally lead me to be MORE willing to buy say, Conan products, if it was tied into the core game in this way.

Right now, to me, there is a major disconnect.

DB

 

[Seeker95]

big dummy,
Next time you want opinions from us, I think you need to tell us the opinion you want us to regurgitate, 'cause judging from your replies to the posts in this thread, you don't care what people think -- you're looking for a specific answer.

It appears we aren't the right group of yes-men for you to be polling.

(Either that, or put a few more ranks into your Polling skill, and a few more ranks in Diplomacy.)