Limited magic campaign......has never failed yet!

[Piratecat]

I think maybe your lack of enjoyment of a high level game hinges on the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Saeviomagy, please go reread the Rules at the top of every forum; insulting people is absolutely not allowed. Feel free to disagree with their opinions, but personal jabs are both rude and oh-so-tacky.

If you find you can't read someone's posts without wanting to be insulting, we have a handy dandy ignore feature just for you. Whatever you have to do, please follow our guidelines when you post here.

Sir Thorncrest, please don't respond to Saeviomagy's post. Also, please don't quote someone's entire post when you're just responding to a small part of their post. It's considered good netiquette to delete the parts of the quoted post that aren't relevant.

 

[Aristotle]

I didn't really read "personal attack" when I quoted that message. My bad. My argument stands, but was in no way meant as a personal slight. As I said, lots of people with a great deal of knowledge of the game have trouble with high level play regardless of the prevelance of magic. They prefer low level play, so they play low level games.

 

[shilsen]

And I actually prefer my players/PCs having lots of options since there are more chances that they will do something creative and interesting.
I really don't see the "less options" argument. Low magic generally means (to me, at least) that encountering unfriendly magic is just about as uncommon as encountering friendly magic. In other words, the playing field is fairly even most of the time, and the proportion of options available to the player characters are kept mostly to scale with the number of options that can be used against them. I think creative players, who work hard at coming up with surprising sollutions to the problems you throw at them, can be creative regardless of how much magic is available to them (so long as the mechanics of the game allow for creativity).

We're addressing different things here. I wasn't talking about the playing field, which (assuming a good DM) can stay fairly even, whether the game is low/medium/high magic. An advantage with a non-low magic game, for me, is that the PCs (and the DM) have a whole lot more options at hand. For me, a game where the PCs have 10 options to use against the NPCs and the NPCs have 10 options to use against them is generally more interesting than one where both groups have 3 options each. I agree that a creative player will be creative regardless of how much magic is available in the game, but I think that such creativity will be facilitated in a higher magic game. YMMV.

 

[Jdvn1]

While I don't think an ultra-low magic world like is that is 'better' or 'worse', it seems like an interesting idea. Someone mentioned a while ago that ECL = CL*.8 when you have no magic items, so you have to scale encounters accordingly. Aside from that, I'd lower all DRs by 5 and weaken monsters because at higher levels there's more of an unbalance between monsters and parties, especially with save-or-die sorts of things. The party could be casters, but it'd be like a prestige class or something.

I think you could make it work really well, although a friend of mine mentioned that d20 Modern might be a better system for it and allow for more class diversity.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

You don't necessarily have to weaken things for a low magic world so much as just scale down the "scope" of the campaigns.

In the low magic campaign I play in, the typical "encounter" is with "everyday" or commoner monsters. Goblins, orcs, lizardmen. Kobolds. Bandits. Those sort of things. But the "magic" creatures are outside of the players domain. The CRs (well this is me guessing, since I don't actually bother looking at what the DM does specifically) aren't necessarily scaled down too much. You just make encounters different.

You don't "lose" options persay with low magic so much as the options aren't as obvious or swift. In high magic, the ideas are numerous, but alot of them can also be quick-fix in nature. Puzzles can become things that you solve within a day or just a few days using high magic. A low-magic campaign asks, sometimes, for more long term, lenghthier plans. But this is only occasionally. The game dynamic doesn't change too much.

But basically, you just scale back on the power, and allow it to trickle. Characters do get the items they need to be victorious in low-magic campaigns... it just doesn't run like a stream like most D&D campaigns. Custom items that are toned down, and access to only special, character specific gifts... that kind of thing.

It's a different way of doing things, and it can also make certain events special. Like the character who gets the special sword. That sword is special because he knows that of the NPCs and PCs he meets, no one is going to have quite the same weapon, or items that simply trump it or make it obsolete. And you avoid decking out characters with "magical" equipment. Someties you can get crafty ad give them more mundane weaponry and items that give good bonuses, but are not necessarily "Flaming Sword of Doom...+3".

A different kind of game that works really well... so long as your players aren't too interested in a more superhero like game, which is also perfectly fun.

 

[Aristotle]

such creativity will be facilitated in a higher magic game. YMMV.

It's likely an agree to disagree situation, but being that this is a forum for discussion... lets talk about it a little. It occurs to me that maybe for a decent "low magic" setting to be successful some new game mechanics need to replace some of the 'options' that have been eliminated by lowering the level of magic. Thoughts?

I guess some areas just don't have much wiggle room. There are only so many ways to get up a cliff face when you lose access to spells, depending on the level of technology in the setting. But, how about more open resolution systems? I've only heard a little about Book of Iron Might (I ordered it yesterday though), but perhaps something like the combat maneuvers presented there might open up the possible options in combat situations?

Just a thought. As I said, it's likely just an agree to disagree situation.

 

[Jdvn1]

Well, one of the reasons I like monster books is for variety. If I want to throw higher CR creatures at my party (like, when they're higher level), I have to scale things down. Otherwise it's impossible to get past DR.

I could run a game with nothing but levelled kobolds, goblins, and lizardmen, but then I'd be limiting my scope. Not to say that I wouldn't use levelled lower-level creatures, but that I want variety too. And that includes higher CR base creatures.

And puzzles... well, I use those regardless. Special weapons, not just "Flaming Sword of Doom... +3"... I do that regardless.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

I have played high level, epic pc's..with high magic and low magic

I have found a little restriction on magics allows pc's to roll dice more, you know using skills etc and thats why for the most part by the time you get to 15th and above I feel the pc's really get to powerful...We had a campaign where we fought the Dread Emperor from the BoVD..we wiped the floor with him...no prob!

So I have played in epic level play and depending on the game its fun. I just like keeping the doors open for different campaign settings. It's more chalenging and you dont need to fight a great wyrm to be chalenged, when playing the controlled magic. Low magic or controlled magic keeps all pc's on a level playing feild.

Sounds like some people are getting angry at the possibility of changing campaign settings.

As far as telling someone what is wrong with thier campaign???I dont recall doing that? Call me crazy. Whom am I just an old gamer from Australia.

no worries
ThornCrest

 

[shilsen]

It's likely an agree to disagree situation, but being that this is a forum for discussion... lets talk about it a little. It occurs to me that maybe for a decent "low magic" setting to be successful some new game mechanics need to replace some of the 'options' that have been eliminated by lowering the level of magic. Thoughts?

I guess the easiest way would be to expand skill use and have more options available at lower levels. Maybe make epic level skill useage easier to achieve? Of course, once you go far enough with that, you're bending/breaking the boundaries of "normality" just as much as magic does, so it's difficult to pull off.

I guess some areas just don't have much wiggle room. There are only so many ways to get up a cliff face when you lose access to spells, depending on the level of technology in the setting.

True. That's partly my point about what happens in a low magic setting. If you have a ten mile trek to do in a magic setting, you walk it, or get some mounts, or join a caravan, etc. In a high magic setting, depending on level, you either do what you'd do in the low magic setting, or you fly, or you teleport, or you jump on a flying carpet, or you summon up something to help you do it, or you shadow walk, or you jump into a tree and come out ten miles away, etc. The downside to the high magic way is that it becomes a lot easier to do things. The upside is the wealth of options and it gives the DM more ways to make things interesting. Of course, YMMV.

But, how about more open resolution systems? I've only heard a little about Book of Iron Might (I ordered it yesterday though), but perhaps something like the combat maneuvers presented there might open up the possible options in combat situations?

Good idea. But doesn't that again come close to high magic at some point?

Just a thought. As I said, it's likely just an agree to disagree situation.

Sure. As long as you're enjoying your game and I'm enjoying mine, it's all good. By the way, I used your Poetics with my students last week. Thanks

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Ive noticed that I have left entire posts when responding to part of post

I have kept my responses mid to lower screen so the post Im responding to is off screen-outa sight outa mind. Plus I'm new to the USA and game forums....Im used to gaming in the middle of a desert with no computer.

There are some rude people here I'll give ya that. I try to engage over different settings and get roughed up a bit.

Thorncrest

Saeviomagy, please go reread the Rules at the top of every forum; insulting people is absolutely not allowed. Feel free to disagree with their opinions, but personal jabs are both rude and oh-so-tacky.

If you find you can't read someone's posts without wanting to be insulting, we have a handy dandy ignore feature just for you. Whatever you have to do, please follow our guidelines when you post here.

Sir Thorncrest, please don't respond to Saeviomagy's post. Also, please don't quote someone's entire post when you're just responding to a small part of their post. It's considered good netiquette to delete the parts of the quoted post that aren't relevant.