Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[big dummy]

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.)

On the flip side, sorry if I don't agree with the reactionary attitude of the 5 or 6 people who always chime in on every single thread which can however loosely be intepreted as some kind of attack on D&D as - is. I know some of you like every thread to be a universal cheerleading session for how perfect 3E is and how nothing should ever change, but not everybody feels that way. On the other hand, I'm equally bored with arguing the opposite point of view. I don't care if other people think D&D is perfect or not right now, I'm really only interested in exploring how it might evolve in ways that could be better in the future.

For the benefit of anyone actually reading this with an open mind, I'm replying to the thread primarily to clarify my position, so the discussion will actually make sense rather than going off into some off-topic tangent (like the pro / anti D&D one per above) I'm not trying to shout anyone down and if it comes across that way I apologize.

BD

 

[rounser]

The difference between "old" and "new" school D&D seems to that in the old days you 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.

Well then, what about Thunder Rift? Seeing as it was made to support levels 1-3, it's most definitely low magic, and in theme perhaps more "generic D&D" than any other setting out there. It's not currently supported, but it's from the old days. I suppose that rules it out; you want a supported, in print setting, yes?

 

[Psion]

Buddy, just because you don't like it doens't mean other folks don't.

Wonder if that's why he said "personal opinion". (Well, he mispelled it, but you get the point.)

You did start this thread asking for opinions, no?

 

[hong]

Hong, it means whatever you want it to.

No. This means whatever I want it to:


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Vestibulum semper nisi ac nisl. Vestibulum quis metus sit amet quam bibendum mollis. Praesent at nisl. Proin fermentum pede sit amet quam. Cras ligula nulla, tincidunt at, placerat nec, mattis a, dolor. Nam ultrices ipsum. Donec porttitor velit a velit. In tempus. Quisque ac elit eu massa feugiat convallis. Cras libero. Pellentesque ut magna eget tellus volutpat aliquam. Praesent aliquet. Integer elit. Donec at dui et quam tristique pulvinar. Vivamus fermentum adipiscing justo. In eu lacus. Aliquam erat volutpat. Quisque non tellus. Sed lacinia lacinia purus.

Duis consequat augue convallis mauris. In venenatis, nunc vitae venenatis cursus, nulla magna rhoncus neque, sed convallis justo augue eu nisl. Sed elit. Vestibulum in magna sit amet tortor lobortis condimentum. Vestibulum vel ligula eget enim facilisis vestibulum. In nonummy, risus eget faucibus tempus, metus felis dapibus massa, in elementum ligula nibh at est. Proin at est ac felis consectetuer ultrices. Fusce pellentesque aliquet erat. Donec dui quam, nonummy eu, pellentesque euismod, porta sed, odio. Morbi lacus. Sed porttitor, tellus vel ullamcorper consequat, turpis sapien gravida purus, quis nonummy tellus magna ut augue. Nulla in urna. Suspendisse eleifend, nulla at pellentesque malesuada, magna nisl egestas risus, sit amet egestas nisl metus et sem. Suspendisse convallis risus at neque. Etiam sagittis. Aliquam aliquet, urna nec iaculis faucibus, enim mauris tempor massa, facilisis tincidunt erat ligula nec risus. Vivamus lacus. Donec gravida aliquam lorem. Fusce euismod tortor quis nisi.


There is an art to semantic emptiness.

 

[big dummy]

Wonder if that's why he said "personal opinion". (Well, he mispelled it, but you get the point.)

You did start this thread asking for opinions, no?

My only problem with his statement was that he seemed to be saying that because HE thinks low magic is boring, nobody else should do it that way.

I don't have a problem with him not liking it.

BD

 

[big dummy]

Well then, what about Thunder Rift? Seeing as it was made to support levels 1-3, it's most definitely low magic, and in theme perhaps more "generic D&D" than any other setting out there. It's not currently supported, but it's from the old days. I suppose that rules it out; you want a supported, in print setting, yes?

Well, yeah but I'm glad you brought that up, I hadn't heard of it. I'll have to track that down.

DB

 

[delericho]

For the record, this is exactly the kind of attitude I find worrisome in D&D today.

And yet, you haven't provided any counter-argument.

If you simply remove the current easy access to magic items from the game, balance disappears. Using the RAW, a 5th level Wizard can fly. At 7th level, they gain Improved Invisibility. At 9th level (IIRC), add Stoneskin. Combine the three, and you have an opponent that no other class can oppose.

So, to make low-magic work you either need to nerf the Wizard somehow, or abandon balance. In the latter case, you're playing a deeply non-standard game that is probably not viable for a commercial setting. In the former case, you're starting to make big changes to the structure of the game (and that's just one example - you also run into trouble as soon as you hit creatures with DR).

I'm not saying low-magic games can't work, or can't be fun. However, what I will say is that the current ruleset is a poor choice for a low-magic game. In my opinion, you would be better off playing Iron Heroes than standard D&D.

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...

In principle, I like the idea of a low-magic setting. However, I think such a setting would be best served with a system other than D&D 3.5. That might mean waiting for the much-rumoured 4e (although I'll bet that's no more suited to low-magic than 3.5e). It might been reverting back to 2nd Edition. It might mean using Iron Heroes (or Conan, although I've not tried that game so can't comment). Trying to use 3.5e D&D with just a couple of mods strikes me as a poor option when compared with any of the others.

The difference between "old" and "new" school D&D seems to that in the old days you 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.

Okay, without making major changes to the system as it exists, and without relying on constant DM oversight (since we're talking about generating a new published setting), how would you design a low-magic variant that solves the problem given above WRT mid-level Wizards? What about creatures with DR?

 

[Crothian]

It's been said but there are low magic settings out there already. If a new one hit the market though that'd be fine with me, but it would need to redo the magic system once again.

 

[The_Gneech]

1) You can't have a low-magic D&D setting without significantly altering the D&D ruleset -- in particular, stripping out all the magic inherent to the various races and classes.

2) The main selling point of D&D is its "ready to go off the shelf" nature. Since a low-magic setting, by its definition, would require heavy customization, it would directly undercut the game's primary feature.

Thus, WotC would be suckers to put out a low-magic setting with D&D on the label; "d20" maybe, but then (as others have already noted) they'd be in competition with Conan (the best of the low-magic d20 things I've seen), Midnight, et al.

This is why "for a low-magic setting, go play something other than D&D" is the first answer that comes up!

-The Gneech

 

[big dummy]

Okay, without making major changes to the system as it exists, and without relying on constant DM oversight (since we're talking about generating a new published setting), how would you design a low-magic variant that solves the problem given above WRT mid-level Wizards? What about creatures with DR?

I think there are a number of ways of handling it, but it would have to be carefully done and may require a few minor changes which, if implemented, would nevertheless have to cascade through the entire system as you say (which is why WOTC should ideally be the one to do it)

I think the correct way to handle this would be to do a systematic analysis of rules used in the D20 and OGL games like conan, iron kingdoms, midnight etc., then also look at D20 modern and figure out what the minimum amount of changes would be necessary to implement lower magic (probably a lot less than most people think) and pick those out from among the best ideas already established in the existing lower magic D20 and OGL settings.

I would guess that the actual number of rules modifications would depend on just how low magic you wanted to go. You could probably do a 'medium' magic setting without much change at all.

My personal preferences are a different matter, but since you asked I prefer to use a spell failure / success sytem, a different critical hit system and some modifications to the combat system somewhat similar to what you see in Conan or true20.

DB