Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No, because I'm tired of the same bland midieval european crap. Low magic settings = lazy dm'ing. You can limit the pc's in every way, force them to solve adventures in a specific manner, rely on lazy writing for mysteries etc.

I'd say they need a product on how to write intrigue within the D&D rules much more. Most DM's just take the simple way out of fiat and say "x doesnt work" forcing the PC's to solve the adventure in a mundane fashion.

 

[Kormydigar]

I voted no because there are already enough fantasy settings in print already. For a great low magic feel I recommend the Lankhmar setting. A reprint of the 1st edition supplement updated for 3.5 rules wouldn't be a bad idea. That way there would be a low magic setting available without having to build one from scratch.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

(Psi)SeveredHead: Thank you for cutting and drying the point I was alluding to earlier. So I guess the question really comes down to is, is there not some happy medium between standard D&D (where characters need to be decked out from head to toe to meet challenges commensurate with their level) and a game like IH (where characters have virtually no aid aside from the class abilities). We have two extreme cases, is there not a middle point within already-published d20 works? Again I think it's not so much a setting problem as the OP seems to think, but a rules problem.

I think Midnight 1.0 said you were supposed to get 1/4 of your expected treasure. I've never played it, only (obssessively) read over the book. It didn't seem all that balanced, actually (look at me, Mr. Crappy AC!).

You were often given "heirloom items" that increased in power with you in lieu of treasure. I never did get the hang of how you were supposed to assign these, but that's probably my fault more than the fault of the setting. While you might have a magical sword, it might also cast cure light wounds thrice per day "on a real hero".

Characters got "Heroic Paths" which basically gave magic to non-magical characters

As for spellcasting, there were base spellcasting classes that even used DnD spells. Again, I'm not sure it's balanced (more on that in a moment). The spellcasting classes were nerfed compared to DnD but got lorebook abilities and other things to give them a personality instead of just being spellcasting machines (whoops, my bias slipped ). There was an NPC-only legate class which was similar to a full-fledged cleric.

In an attempt to replicate LotR's flavor (Gandalf has powerful magic, but doesn't like to use it because it tells the enemy where he is), there are pets that "work" for the legate that can sense magic and magic items. Not having played it, I can't say for sure, but I don't think it would work. A spellcaster's abilities are much more useful than his "lorebook" abilities (something you find in IH, BTW) so the spellcaster will cast spells anyway. Oh no, a CR 2 creature might come after me! Okay, it'll probably bring the legate and part of his army, and then the party is in real trouble ... or it's a hard challenge, like most hard encounters. By the time the party has to turn in, the mage is going to be low on spells anyway, so it's not like a drained mage is going to end up "summoning" legates to him ... I think.

I do not know how it dealt with monsters. The setting had a few monsters, which suggests to me that you were supposed to use DnD monsters. I suspect that would result in "Mr. Crappy AC" getting shredded by wolves.

* Potential full spellcasting problem: I haven't played Midnight, but I have played two sessions of Wheel of Time. You can eventually cast 9th-level spells, just like in DnD. You're not supposed to have magic items, but you can cast spells up to 9th-level. I was a wilder - think sorcerer. (As a male wilder, my PC ran the risk of insanity... that's part of the setting, and nothing to do with balance.)

I knew there was a problem when my 2nd-level wilder could cast 2nd-level spells. There were some broken 2nd-level spells too (solid air anyone - an inexperienced player immediately broke that spell), but then again how often do you see 100% perfectly balanced pieces of work?

The save DCs of spells were too high (base saves were roughly the same as in DnD, and of course you didn't get Cloaks of Resistance), and the effects too powerful, when you consider how weak the non-spellcasting classes were. (They got a class bonus to AC, but unless they were an Armsman they couldn't benefit from it and armor at the same time. One of the players was an Aiel, and he complained that he was supposed to carry a small shield, but could get no benefit from it.)

The setting has its own monsters.

D20 Star Wars is a setting where "spellcasters" (the Jedi) co-exist with non-spellcasters. There are balance problems. The "spellcasting" is actually kind of weak - in general - because you give up vp (basically hp) to use them. Instead, Jedi usually use their overpowered lightsabers (because a 5d8 + Strength melee weapon is balanced with a 3d6 damage ranged weapon, right?). There are some very powerful Jedi abilities that almost everyone takes. I don't think they managed to balance it well. No magic items, you do get a class bonus to Defense but you can't use it and armor (as DR) at the same time.

The setting has its own monsters.

I think the only thing missing is a really popular low magic ruleset (there's many, but none are particularly popular on their own), complete with its own bestiary. Iron Heroes has a bestiary, BTW, although I've never seen it and can't comment on it.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

A visual analysis of the polling results is misleading. The "No" category has 3x as many possible choices as "Maybe" and "Yes", leading to depressed apparent results in each subsection.

The results of the survey are more accurately:

NO: 39.79%
MAYBE: 31.19%
YES: 29.03%

There's over a 10% lead in No over Yes.

Add to that the ambiguity of most of the choices (No, for some other reason; Yes, but ...; Maybe if XYZ ...) the polling data is also suspect.

I would say very very few people on ENWorld think a WotC low-magic setting would be, in any way, a good idea. (Count me in.)

And, here's the thing. The people on ENWorld don't ... really ... matter.

ENWorld-polls would be a HORRIBLE place for WotC to do any sort of real market research because, oddly enough, we're not really the target market.

People willing to spend hours a day on the internet talking about RPGs are THE MINORITY. The ENWorld community is pretty hardcore. So even if an overwhelming majority of ENWorld posters said: "Yes, WotC should rewrite D&D to do a low magic setting!", WotC would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did so. The "average" gamer is the casual gamer. The casual gamer probably couldn't work himself up enough to care if Wizards put out a low-magic setting.

--fje

 

[Plane Sailing]

Too much snarkiness in this thread by half. If you can't think of a way to say something without belittling someone else, don't say it please.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Secretly in your heat, you must have known that, sooner or later, I'd show up on this thread.

Obviously, I am firmly in the camp that there can be, and indeed should be, a reasonable "low-magic" option for D&D. Reading through this thread, I see a lot of objections to this idea, but not a lot of objections that I think are well supported. Realistically, WotC is very, very likely to be drafting (or considering drafting) 4.0, so it seems reasonable to make the changes the Core Rules need to support multiple campaign styles. After all, every poll I've seen shows that roughly a third of all respondents would like a lower magic option. That seems like a lot of people to me.

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.

When BD says a "setting" it seems to me that he means a standard setting, not unlike the "standard setting" of the Core Books -- more of an idea of what that setting is like, and rules that support it rather than a complete setting such as Forgotten Realms.

Really, how many base classes really have to cast spells? How much bling do you have to carry in order to feel like you're having fun?

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.

IMC, I use weapon skills that can be used both to add to your BAB (which I lowered) and to add to your AC, depending upon how you use them. This adds a bit of choice to combats that has nothing to do with miniatures, and adds a bit more swashbuckling feel to the game. Many systems (including this one) can be applied to a game regardless of magic level, allowing different characters to have different things to do....even if they don't cast spells.

 

[SWBaxter]

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.

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.

So far as low magic settings go, Harn is still out there and still great. As I understand it Kalamar is pitched at a relatively low magic level (by D&D standards, anyway). Heck, I've run Greyhawk as a low magic setting and it worked fairly well. In many ways, settings that have a traditional medieval-fantasy feel work best in low-magic games, since adding high magic tends to make those settings less believable.

 

[big dummy]

A visual analysis of the polling results is misleading. The "No" category has 3x as many possible choices as "Maybe" and "Yes", leading to depressed apparent results in each subsection.

The results of the survey are more accurately:

NO: 39.79%
MAYBE: 31.19%
YES: 29.03%

There's over a 10% lead in No over Yes.

All I'm arguing is that it's a significant minority who believe that D&D should be able to encompass low-magic which is of course, quite reasonable. I am not saying that the majority want it that way, I'm fully aware the majority like it best the way it is. But from this poll and many, many other threads I've seen and personal experience from 20 years of gaming I'm convinced that a sizable minority like low-magic games.

BD

 

[Umbran]

After all, every poll I've seen shows that roughly a third of all respondents would like a lower magic option. That seems like a lot of people to me.

If polls on EN World seem like a lot of people to you, perhaps you ought to consider the statistics for a moment. Polls on EN World are a poor indicator of what the market at large is likely to want - we are a small sub-population that is pre-selected for a great many traits that are not present in the rest of the market. If you've got other polling information available, you ought to present it.

When BD says a "setting" it seems to me that he means a standard setting, not unlike the "standard setting" of the Core Books -- more of an idea of what that setting is like, and rules that support it rather than a complete setting such as Forgotten Realms.

I think what he really wants isn't a "setting" at all. To me, he seems to be itnerested in game rules options that use less magic, before any particular setting information is mentioned at all.

Really, how many base classes really have to cast spells? How much bling do you have to carry in order to feel like you're having fun?

The old saying is "different people have different 'pinions. Some like apples, some like onions." What any individual here wants is probably beside the point. WotC needs to know how many spellcasting classes and how much bling sells products to a wider audience. Niche stuff is for 3rd party to cover.

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.

They aren't necessarily opposing. It may depend upon base assumptions - your opinion of how large a role the GM plays in maintaining balance. Personally, I feel that the GM can/should play a fairly large role in maintaining balance. Even if the rules didn't require it, I'd want the same level of involvement, to be hands-on. With that base assumption, it seems to me that D&D is well balanced, though I admit is must perforce be a dynamic balance, rather than a static one. But dynamism is more fun

If someone else is working form a different assumption - that D&D should have a static balance, that the GM shouldn't have to play much role in maintaining balance, I expect they'll find things less tolerant of change. And if they prefer to play in a way that relies on a static balance, they'll naturally be a bit less open to changes that may dsturb it.

So, not really opposite, but perhaps working from different sets of assumptions and desires.

 

[big dummy]

Secretly in your heat, you must have known that, sooner or later, I'd show up on this thread.

Obviously, I am firmly in the camp that there can be, and indeed should be, a reasonable "low-magic" option for D&D.

Agreed. I find it amazing, and an indication of how far things have gone, that this is such a contraversial idea!

Reading through this thread, I see a lot of objections to this idea, but not a lot of objections that I think are well supported. Realistically, WotC is very, very likely to be drafting (or considering drafting) 4.0, so it seems reasonable to make the changes the Core Rules need to support multiple campaign styles. After all, every poll I've seen shows that roughly a third of all respondents would like a lower magic option. That seems like a lot of people to me.

Again, agreed. We aren't a majority, but we are a sizable part of the market. And in fact, I think (just a hunch) we are an even more sizable chunk of the more hard core DM's out there.

When BD says a "setting" it seems to me that he means a standard setting, not unlike the "standard setting" of the Core Books -- more of an idea of what that setting is like, and rules that support it rather than a complete setting such as Forgotten Realms.

That may be a better way of putting it... something in between perhaps, I'd really like a setting with as few rules changes as possible (perhaps just a reinforcement of Rule Zero would be enough) but most importantly generic enough to encompass several specific "worlds" (although I think RPGs tend to make worlds a lot smaller than they really are, you could really fit several rather unique areas, each a 'world' of it's own, in one planet the size of the earth. How different is Africa from China from Antarctica?)

Really, how many base classes really have to cast spells? How much bling do you have to carry in order to feel like you're having fun?

Exactly. I have a lot more fun with a few precious, rare magic items than suitcases full of so many that I can't even remember them all...

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.

Excellent point. For that matter, I think the idea that it is so well balanced is also an illusion. How many DM's really go blindly by EL or CR? You have to look at the monster or encounter and the specific abilities of the party don't you? If the monster has some spell or ability that the party doesn't have any way of dealing with, you have to seriously consider changing something. Do people really just play by the numbers now 100%? I guess you really can replace the DM with a computer then....

IMC, I use weapon skills that can be used both to add to your BAB (which I lowered) and to add to your AC, depending upon how you use them. This adds a bit of choice to combats that has nothing to do with miniatures, and adds a bit more swashbuckling feel to the game. Many systems (including this one) can be applied to a game regardless of magic level, allowing different characters to have different things to do....even if they don't cast spells.

I use some very similar methods abd I have had no trouble runnning 3.5 Games which were low magic, with essentially quite a small number of modifications.

What people are complaining about primarily is armor class and saving throws, and a means to cause damage to magially resistant monsters. A few minor changes (which are frankly logical anyway, IMO) to the combat system can address a BIG chunk of this. I give the characters the ability to improve their own defense, and as they reach higher level, to cause severe critical hits. Weapons are more effective and play arole in both attacking and defending, but Armor is more effective too (as it is in real life) and works as damage resistance. You can also utilize many of the feats out there to give the players all sorts of interesting non-magical abilities.


Meanwhile magic still exists, it's just not so mundane as to be pedestrian...


DB