Is it time for a low-magic setting?

[gizmo33]

Or, low magic campaigns relieve the DM of the responsibility of considering how magic changes the world,

It seems likely to me that a DM who choses a low-magic setting HAS considered how magic changes the world - hence the choice.

What I think you really want is not for the DM to consider it, but for the DM to make a certain choice.

Some of the arguments in this thread don't make a lot of sense to me. One is that high-magic equals some sort of sense of wonder. I most Monty-Haul games that I've played in, high magic equals bigger numbers. Creating an interesting magical effect takes work, and is based more on the quality of the DM than the "magic level". Perhaps someone can explain how an Amulet of Natural Armor +4 adds anything to a sense of wonder/magic.

I don't agree that the EL/CR system is finely tuned. IME the circumstances of the encounter, abilities of the particular PCs, and magic items/spells that they have at the time effect the actual difficulty of the encounter. I don't think that the first EL 8 encounter of the day is the same difficulty as the fourth. The EL/CR system is a nice way to give out XP, and it keeps me from having to glance over the Hit Dice and attacks of the creature before making a judgement - but it's not a whole lot more accurate.

Also, saying that a PC is entitled to X gp worth of magic stuff doesn't say how useful that magic stuff really is. Randomly determined, there could be duplicates or items not usable by anyone's class. I find it hard to believe that if the party finds a superfluous +1 guisarme or too many potions of remove fear that it spells doom for them all.

IMO DnD is higher magic than the setting of pretty much any fantasy story that I've ever read. From what I can tell, authors tend not to see the story value in having characters with piles of magic items. From this, it could be argued that piles of magic items and spell effects do not create a sense of wonder (or else why haven't writers discovered this fact?)

I wonder how many folks are interested in a low-magic setting because the idea of medieval technology, like castles, seems less plausible in a high magic world. I've often said on this board that some counter-spells or low-tech counter-measures seem like they are missing from DnD.

In spite of some folks opinion that DMs should enable their sense of entitlement, some of us prefer to create our campaign worlds from our vision, and hope for the rules to support that vision. If I really felt like I had a "responsibility" as a DM to facilitate WotC's view of a fantasy world, I wouldn't DM.

 

[LostSoul]

(2) The idea that folks want D&D to be specialized "to do what it does" seems to suggest that folks only want the game to do what it currently does, or even that what it currently does is universally seen as better than other things that it could do. Thread after thread, and poll after poll, show that this is untrue.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm reading, "Most people don't like D&D the way it is, and would like it changed." Am I reading this wrong?

 

[buzz]

Thank you, buzz, for your standard answer to any suggestion that the current edition could be improved or changed in any way.

It's better than the Quixotic crusade that you seem intent on pursuing at every available opportunity, RC.

You know, like in the other thread where this exact same subject is being discussed. We might as well be tlaking about 4e, this same stuff comes up so often.

However, if WotC is really the company that listens to gamers, then discussing this on the web would seem to be a really, really good idea. Of course, if you don't believe that WotC is a company that listens to gamers, this becomes a much less useful idea.

WotC does more market research than any other RPG publisher on the planet, by a margin so wide you could drive an ocean liner through it. The far more logical assumption to make is that WotC has listened (and still listens; get on their survey list), and the way D&D is right now is what the majority of the game's fans want, while still being profitable.

The main point is that ranting about things on ENWorld only serves to help you and the OP engage in some sort of communal pity-party. No one at WotC is monitoring these boards, and even if they were, they'd know better than to give any weight to some random thread crying out for products that already exist. If you want to tell WotC something, post on their boards or email customer service.

But, if posting these sorts of threads over and over again is somehow enjoyable for you, please go right ahead.

I, for one, don't see the harm in suggesting that the "third-party product" you mention should not actually be "third-party".

I'm sure a book of this nature would sell at least as well as Sandstorm.

I, for one, think you're on drugs. You look at the Amazon Top 100 in Gaming on any given day, and you'll see that the D&D core line sells better, consistently, than either of the setting lines. The further a book deviates from being usable in book-standard D&D, the less well it sells. A "low-magic" variant supplement would essentially be a product that was, by design, wholly incompatible with every other D&D product.

It's possible that, as a WotC product, it might sell well in comparison to other publishers, but I can't see it selling well by WotC's standards. If anything, it's heading down the path of the 2e days of TSR, which is just plain stupid business strategy.

Nothing being discussed here is anything new, and the industry has been responding to the needs expressed since the late '70s with games like Chivalry & Sorcery and RuneQuest. If there were a big market for a D&D that emulates these games, WotC would have created it already.

Look, there are two things you and the OP can do:

1) Curse the darkness

or

2) Light a candle.

Bitching about D&D in General is the former. It's a waste of time and energy. It demonstrates nothing more than one's lack of interest in actually taking action to solve their problem.

The latter is a far better use of one's time. It could consist of DIY'ing your D&D cmapiagn into what you're looking for (as you tell us you have done, RC), or simply purchasing products that do the work for you. It could also include what ace indie-designer Jared Sorensen of InSpectres fame considers the best form of criticism: design your own game and publish it.

The simple fact is that WotC is not going to change D&D based on complaints in this thread. D&D, as written, works. Whether you think it works well or could work better is really irrelevant. If you genuinely want to "fix" your D&D, go to the House Rules forum and start asking for help. That, or send your complaints directly to WotC.

Or... buy any of the 8,327 non-WotC products that do what you want. Why so many gamers demand that WotC do anything end everything is beyond me. This thread is partly the whole frickin' point of the OGL.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm reading, "Most people don't like D&D the way it is, and would like it changed." Am I reading this wrong?

You are....Or I was writing it wrong.

What it is meant to imply is that there is not a homogenous "folks" who simply like D&D the way it is, doing what it does, because it is what it is doing what it does. Lots of people tweak the rules to make them closer to what they want to do. Lots of people would like a lower magic version. I'd bet you that some people out there would even like a Wild West version (sorta like Deadlands, but with elves)...I've been tempted to write that last one myself.

I'm basically calling that a myth.

Oh, and gizmo33? Great post.

RC

 

[LostSoul]

You are....Or I was writing it wrong.

What it is meant to imply is that there is not a homogenous "folks" who simply like D&D the way it is, doing what it does, because it is what it is doing what it does.

I gotcha now. I guess I just disagree.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's better than the Quixotic crusade that you seem intent on pursuing at every available opportunity, RC.

You know, like in the other thread where this exact same subject is being discussed. We might as well be tlaking about 4e, this same stuff comes up so often.

What if we were talking about 4E, Buzz? What if, unknown to you, I hold great influence as to how 4E is going to be put together? What if this is part of the WotC market survey? Would you then support 4E as vehemently as you do 3E on the basis of "That's the way it is. Like it or play something else."?

The rest of your post is just personal attack, so I hope you don't mind if I assume you were merely having a bad day.

RC

Oh, and if anyone is wondering, this isn't part of any WotC marketing survey. The above is hypothetical.

 

[buzz]

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.

A nice person here on ENworld once went through Keep ont he Borderlands and counted how many magic items were available for PC's to score. The final count was, iirc, 61.

One more time: 61. Keep on the Borderlands. 1st level module.

I don't know if the "option" was literally there in 1e. Magic items were certainly a huge part of the game, and the 1e DMG did have it's equivalent of the 3e wealth-by-level table, iirc.

What is true is that so many people played the early editions in so many ways with so many varying levels of rules-drift, that it's hard to speak specifically about what early D&D "was" or "wasn't".

IME, we had m-u's lobbing fireballs, fighters runnin' around with glowing swords, and everyone carrying cases of Cure potions. Not realy much differnt from today, 'cept for a more primitive ruleset.

 

[fusangite]

Chiming in a little late, all I have to say is that it is way more work to modify the RAW for low-magic play than it is to just buy a system designed for low-magic play.

 

[buzz]

What if we were talking about 4E, Buzz? What if, unknown to you, I hold great influence as to how 4E is going to be put together? What if this is part of the WotC market survey? Would you then support 4E as vehemently as you do 3E on the basis of "That's the way it is. Like it or play something else."?

You're asking me how I would feel about something I wouldn't know about? Wha?

The point you're continually missing is that I am not making any qualitative statements about 3e. I am simply stating that, as far as we know, no amount of ranting on ENWorld is going to affect WotC's release schedule, especially if that ranting consists of requests to make drastic changes to the fundamental nature of D&D. The whole "low-magic" argument is a taste issue. You're not even pointing out a genuine problem with the system; all you're doing is vehemtly stating, "I prefer low-magic games!"

The most logical response to this is to point you to some "low-magic" games, or else point you to resources to make your D&D game "low-magic."

Ergo, you (and I mean the general "you" here) can either continue to waste effort spinning vitriol into the ether, thereby accomplishing nothing more than demonstrating that you have a lot of free time on your hands, or you can face reality and do someting productive.

The rest of your post is just personal attack, so I hope you don't mind if I assume you were merely having a bad day.

It was not a personal attack and I am not having a bad day. That you read it that way is a possible indicator that you are being as close-minded as you accuse me of being. The gist was simply: you can act productively, or you can act unproductively. I heartily suggest you and the OP do the former.

RC, you've mentioned many times that you've modified your cqmpiagn to fit your "low-magic" sensibility. Stop the pointless arguments and go to the House Rules forum and post your mods. That simple act would be 4,753,110 times more positive and productive than what you're doing here.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Oh, and if anyone is wondering, this isn't part of any WotC marketing survey. The above is hypothetical.

Oh, sure. That's just what we'd expect you to say.