Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[drothgery]

Not really true - older versions were unbalanced at more levels, they just offloaded balance concerns to the individual group (most often to their DM). It wouldn't be any harder for a DM to make those kinds of changes in 3.X, the major obstacle nowadays is the culture of entitlement that permeates the playerbase - people believe their characters are entitled to roll over CR 10 encounters when they're level 10, so when they end up in a low magic game and find they have a tough time with CR 8 fights at level 10 they think the DM is "cheating" by not dishing out all the loot they're used to. Groups that can get past that can run low-magic games just fine.

... if they don't mind being back in a 2.x mindset where

- the rogue is useless in combat
- rangers, monks, druids, clerics, and paladins are better fighters than fighters
- mid-level and higher pure spellcasters completely dominate the game
- and the game is pretty much unplayable much past level 10,

... then yes, you can play low-magic item D&D 3.x. But that kind of game wasn't much fun in 2e unless you were the guy playing the wizard. About the only change 3.x makes is that Cleric, Sorcerer, and Druid are viable.

 

[Terwox]

If you want to say that low-magic D&D simply means magic is less prevalent in the world, you could probably get away with that.

If you want to say that characters should not follow the wealth guidelines per level, go get your gaming group and run a one-shot at level nine with characters that are suitably "low magic." The game will be unbalanced, the casters will have more solutions to their problems, and the fighters and rogues will very likely have less fun.

If you want to play a low-magic game with the simplest fix I've heard of that makes sense -- your casting class levels can't be more than 50% of your total level -- well, that's not a "3.5 setting." And, you'd still need to follow the wealth-by-level guidelines.

If you want to ignore all that, well, you can, and you seem to be doing so so far.

But honestly -- get some friends, gen some properly low-magic characters for them, and see what they think in actual play, at about ninth level.

If you wanted to run a setting where magic was very sparse and no one was above fifth level or so, you might have something. Maybe.

Anyway, I run my low-magic homebrew game in True20. D&D isn't made for low-magic, at high levels if you mess with wealth the game topples over... Just try it. Really.

And once you start having to make heavy system edits to make it enjoyable, perhaps you'll see this is maybe something for an Unearthed Arcana style book rather than a easy drop-and-go setting. The system changes you need for this to work are pretty sweeping.

Oh, and I've played in a game where I was a 16th level rogue/divine disciple, and my only items were a +3 warhammer and studded leather. Unsurprisingly, my character was horrible compared to the druid who could shapechange. It was flat out a poorly thought out game that wasn't fun. (The roleplaying part of the game was dull as well -- the DM focused on his favorite players while the rest of us sat around.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is true that statistics should never be used as anything more than an indicator pointing toward where more investigation might prove fruitful. Whether or not rats in a test exposed to X get cancer more often than rats not exposed to X doesn't in and of itself prove that X does or does not cause cancer. All it does is give researchers some clues as to whether or not examining X as a causitive agent is worthwhile.

Similarly, looking at EnWorld polls doesn't "prove" that D&D should have an official low magic version. All it does is give some clues as to whether or not further investigation of that question is worthwhile.

I would say that the clues suggest it is worthwhile.

As for the suggestion that one cannot have a low-magic game without importing the less desireable aspects of previous editions, I say "balderdash". The level of magic in any version of the game has nothing to do with whether or not one accepts less well developed systems to promote the playstyle desired. Did 3.X keep the worst high magic systems in previous editions? No. Neither would 3.X Low Magic Edition keep the worst low magic systems in previous editions. This is a spurious argument at best.

RC

 

[Woas]

Read my lips, no new settings!

 

[The_Gneech]

Back when the mags were still run by WotC, I remember reading in Dragon and Dungeon magazines' submission guidelines clauses that boiled down to, "NO low-magic alternative systems, please! Everybody and their brother sends us these, and we don't, don't, DON'T want 'em. Magic is what makes D&D what it is, get over it."

I suspect that they're aware of the interest and have thoroughly checked out the idea.

I'm a low-magic-guy myself, and I feel your pain on the subject. But D&D is the Windows of gaming, and as such it has a carefully-orchestrated "everything almost fits" philosophy. If you want Conan, that almost works with low-level or fighter-and-rogue-types-only campaigns; if you want LotR, that almost works in mid-levels; etc. Getting them to abandon this philosophy is going to be like convincing McDonald's to toss out burgers in favor of sushi.

-The Gneech, liberally mangling metaphors all over the map

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, well. There's a very big difference between "SHOULD there be an official low-magic ruleset for D&D?" and "WILL there be an official low-magic ruleset for D&D?". I suspect that the answers are "Yes" and "No" respectively.

"Magic is what makes D&D what it is, get over it." may well be the official stance, but it is a lousy stance IMHO. D&D is, and has always been, more than the sum of its splatbooks. It is easy to simply throw more, more, MORE out there. It is easy to say "anything goes", just as it is inherently easier to create a generic setting than it is to create a detailed, strongly conceived setting.

Somewhere upthread, someone said that low magic campaigns were based upon lazy DMing. In reality, low magic campaigns require DMs to think and to choose, as well as to craft a world where the PCs can make a difference. In a low magic world, even low level PCs are special, and should have a greater effect on their surroundings than mid- to high-level characters in a standard 3.X world. Easy DMing? Far from it. Low magic takes work.

In low-magic worlds, players are encouraged to note how things are connected. Without the whizz-bang-pow of easy magic, settings have to make more sense, from the humblest village to the mightiest city. Lazy DMing? Far from it.

Low magic takes work. High magic is relatively easy. Like the engineers speaking technobabble on Star Trek, the high magic DM can always wave his hands and intone "It's magic". The Low Magic DM has to have an explanation that makes sense, because using "it's magic" itself needs to be explained.

Like a bad, but expensively produced, film, a poorly wrought high magic world can sometimes go forward on its own flash and special effects for a good while before it starts to feel hollow. But a cheaply made film, without the high-budget special effects, has to be good from the get-go or people stop watching. So it is with the low-magic game -- it has to deliver or it won't last long.

IMHO, WotC picked the high magic road because it is easier. A good DM can go low-magic or high-magic. A weaker DM almost always picks high magic. And rightly so -- it is the easier choice.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Which means that, by the numers, WotC should stick to high magic. Weak DMs outnumber the strong by a sizeable margin. As DMs are a much smaller group than players, low-magic DMs are a sliver of the audience.

I agree that it would be nice to get a low-magic setting out there with the visibility WotC would give it (and I am not, nor ever been, a real low-magic DM). But it's not happening.

Low magic DMs should spend more time advocating Iron Heroes (playing up the "Monte was a key designer of d20" angle) or Black Company (referencing the novels).

 

[big dummy]

But honestly -- get some friends, gen some properly low-magic characters for them, and see what they think in actual play, at about ninth level.

I've DM'd several low-magic campaigns, usually up to around 12-15th level over the course of about a year. Worked out great.

(snip)

And once you start having to make heavy system edits to make it enjoyable, perhaps you'll see this is maybe something for an Unearthed Arcana style book rather than a easy drop-and-go setting. The system changes you need for this to work are pretty sweeping.

Like I said several times, at the very most a few changes to the combat system (many of which have already been pioneered in D20 Modern, Conan RPG, True 20 and others) and possibly a small amount of tweaking to the magic system, and I think you could get there quite comfortably.

Even if you do make some changes there is no reason to assume that they would have to be any more disruptive than say, D20 modern was, and that hardly made the world end.

In fact I would personally guess you would need only maybe 10-20% of the modifications that D20 modern introduced to pull this off.


The combat system enhancements (giving more tactical options and more power to fighters and rogues and the like) and something like a spell-failure system can make it work better for folks who like a grimmer or grittier game, (and I like them) but I don't even think that its necessary to do more than a little of that even for a very low magic setting. For a more medium magic setting I don't think it would be neccessary at all.

DB

 

[Psion]

WotC also never seems to worry about being a Johnny-Come-Lately; a slew of other books dealing with oceanic adventures didn't prevent them from selling Stormwrack, as an example.

This is true, but I think, not the point. What third party publishers do have about zero impact on wizards' sales of similar products. But wizards, given their high fixed cost, cannot or will not go green lighting products unless they think it will sell a sizeable chunk.

But you know that.

I keep hearing people say that 3.X is very well balanced, and then I keep hearing people say that it is balanced on the edge of a dime, so that any real change makes it fall over. These two statements are dichotomous, IMHO. Something that is very well balanced is well balanced enough to support change. A well-balanced object does not tip over because you lean on it. That is, instead, a precariously balanced object.

This, of course, relies on you applying an anology that draws a comparison between the physical meaning of balance and game meaning of balance that does not hold. One class becomes unbalanced, then people are either drawn to it or away from it, as appropriate. It does not "tip over". It is less fun as variety goes down as more people want to play it if it is too powerful, or they feel that their preference got shafted if it is week.

If you want to pick a real world analogy, I think it's more like the alignment of a car. Having your car in alignment does not mean that the driver (or DM) doesn't have to do any work. Having your alignment out does not make the car undriveable or the game unplayable, but it does require more attention from the operator to keep it on the road.

The level of magic in a game is no light decisions, and I am surprised that anyone would make the case that it is. It's not some whisper thin breeze if you jerk out or half the magic in the game... it's a big alteration. If your game "falls over", it is certainly not because it is precariously balanced. It's because you shoved it over.

What I am getting out here is that past editions didn't factor in magic into their balancing and this was not because it was getting away with it. I am sure if you went to the dnd usenet newsgroup and did some old searches (or better yet, looked at the forum column in an old dungeon), you could dig up scads of tales of woe about campaigns wrecked by too much magic. The principal reason why is the lack of standard for magic.

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.

 

[big dummy]

Which means that, by the numers, WotC should stick to high magic. Weak DMs outnumber the strong by a sizeable margin. As DMs are a much smaller group than players, low-magic DMs are a sliver of the audience.

I agree that it would be nice to get a low-magic setting out there with the visibility WotC would give it (and I am not, nor ever been, a real low-magic DM). But it's not happening.

Low magic DMs should spend more time advocating Iron Heroes (playing up the "Monte was a key designer of d20" angle) or Black Company (referencing the novels).

I'll say it yet again: there are some nice D20 products out there (and the popularity of say, Conan RPG should give some idea of the potential viability of lower magic products), but whats really needed is a broader base system to tie them all together. This would be synergistic IMO and actually energize D&D AND the Lower Magic Genre based D20 products which are out there, just like D20 modern works well with star wars or whatver.


BD