Low fantasy settings

I think it'd make the great basis for something. We could call it Plagues and Peasants, a game where one misstep in football, a single night with the wrong whore, one bottle of poorly distilled alcohol, or casting too many spells in attempt to heal a desperately bleeding fighter on the battlefield can permanently end your adventuring career. It would be great for roleplaying, since most of the time will be spent on the long and tedious recovery from injuries sustained in combat so as to encourage players to forge a real connection with their characters. Moreover it will instill a sense of real accomplishment in them when they finally manage to defeat their archenemies, as the many character sheets they will go through will no doubt impress upon them the difficulty and magnitude of the glorious task they have accomplished. When the man who has killed five of your characters finally dies at the hand of the sixth, there are no words to describe your feelings.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I think it'd make the great basis for something. We could call it Plagues and Peasants, a game where one misstep in football, a single night with the wrong whore, one bottle of poorly distilled alcohol, or casting too many spells in attempt to heal a desperately bleeding fighter on the battlefield can permanently end your adventuring career. It would be great for roleplaying, since most of the time will be spent on the long and tedious recovery from injuries sustained in combat so as to encourage players to forge a real connection with their characters. Moreover it will instill a sense of real accomplishment in them when they finally manage to defeat their archenemies, as the many character sheets they will go through will no doubt impress upon them the difficulty and magnitude of the glorious task they have accomplished. When the man who has killed five of your characters finally dies at the hand of the sixth, there are no words to describe your feelings.

I know, it's like lethality can add something more to the game, besides just sarcasm ;)

I've had an NPC recently be responsible to the death of 7 PCs (well, 2 weren't killed, but they left the party due to him). When he did die, it was during a TPK. The players did, in fact, chalk it up a win. Yes, they had to make an entirely new party, but they did, in fact, feel great accomplishment when that NPC was killed. I might also add that after playing with the same group for 7 years, they were due a TPK (first and only thus far).

Sometimes having a heroic death is really, really awesome.

At any rate, you purposefully paint a rather bleak picture. But then again, hyperbole tends to do that.

You know what you get in a campaign even if you implement every single option I've listed above? A game world where magic is rare (low magic fantasy), but it is powerful. Throwing out spells is no longer common for magicians (it is supposed to be low magic fantasy, after all), but when it is used, it's powerful.

Do all of those options all together gimp spellcasters to the point they can't be played? Nope. I mean, they're obviously much, much worse than they were before. No doubt about it. However, since magic will be a lot rarer, the abilities granted through spells will seem magnified in power. Spells will be even more powerful when compared to how they were before.

Yeah, you can make a game where drinking some bad ale could kill you (discounting poison). You can work in a lot of what you described above in your exaggerated reply. Of course, you're edging towards a medieval game, rather than a fantasy game. If you incorporate some or all of the options I presented, you are still well within the realms of fantasy, it's just a lower magic setting now.

Broken bones? Long recovery times for wounds? Having drawbacks to casting magic? These are well within the fantasy theme, especially a low magic setting. Object all you want, I didn't bring those options up as the Ten Commandments That All Must Now Adhere To.

If you like some of the ideas, you can work them in. If not, then don't. Saying "well, if you make magic worse, more mundane things will happen" is exactly what many people who ask about low magic settings want. You don't have to use them, Dandu, but at least make a contribution to the conversation when you reply. Hyperbole isn't helping. Well, I suppose it made me post this, so maybe it is ;)

At the end of the day, I like normal D&D, as per RAW, and I like heavily houseruled games of low magic. As for whoever is reading this, play what you like :)
 

Honestly, I dislike the idea of high-lethality games. If I want to roleplay a character, it helps if he doesn't die three sessions after the ink dries on his sheet and you have to choose between playing different versions of the same character who are only distinguished by the changing roman numeral after the name, or a new concept each time.

Now, I greatly enjoy Paranoia, but Paranoia instantly gives you a replacement clone character when yours dies.
 
Last edited:

Honestly, I'm against the idea of high-lethality games. If I want to roleplay a character, it helps if he doesn't die three sessions after the ink dries on his sheet.

Whereas I prefer them. I totally get where you're coming from, though. It's hard to get attached -and therefore hard to roleplay- if you have a constant stream of new characters. If the character turnover rate is high, it can make the game feel unstable or whimsical, and it can make the game world seem less interesting.

It's just a playstyle difference. I prefer high lethality games because it means that I have to be careful, or that my players do (as I basically never get to play). Avoiding fights is a good option. Tactics become very important. Muscling your way through and maybe throwing a Resurrection afterwards if someone dies isn't my cup of tea, but I don't mind that type of game if I do play in it.

I get where you're coming from. But, as the OP asked about low magic fantasy, I was trying to help out by throwing out as many options as I could, so he can pick and choose if any even sound appealing to him. I'm guessing to the large percentage of people in this forum, though (or even elsewhere), none sound appealing. And that's fine by me, too.

I'm glad you get to play in a game where it's not as lethal as my game is. We both get to play a similar game, and play with vastly different styles that we enjoy. I think that speaks to the versatility of the hobby. Play what you like :)
 


You'll have to point it out to me, as I'm not seeing anything that stands out under that description. Is using the word clone the rather entertaining bit?
 

Oh, I just thought you quoted me in mid edit.

Anyways, back to the topic:
Don't high lethality games encourage munchkinry? :p
 

Oh, I just thought you quoted me in mid edit.

Anyways, back to the topic:
Don't high lethality games encourage munchkinry? :p

Depending on the group, they would. However, I'd say that there are plenty of RAW games that have munchkins in them.

What ends up being aimed for by the players is survivability. That becomes the goal. That doesn't necessarily mean combat survivability, though. Sometimes they want a socially survivable character.

I think munchkinism is embraced by a certain group of people. I think this group of people tends to shy away from high lethality games, since they usually like embracing the power of their builds, which can come crashing down pretty hard when there are strong restrictions on the game world.

Would a munchkin play in my game? Probably not. And that's okay. My group doesn't have any. My group is competent, and rarely even optimizes (though they try to make well constructed characters). They will voluntarily give up a more powerful option to embrace a concept.

To that end, it's not something I'm really afraid of. If you think it's a valid concern (and I don't necessarily disagree for some groups), then I'd say it's a good thing to point out to the OP. But, if you're asking me my personal experience (and nothing more), then I'd say no, it hasn't encouraged that behavior.

My players like playing. We can roleplay for 20 hours (over multiple sessions, of course) without a violent conflict and nobody will get mad or upset, even with warrior builds. Now, we all like combat, and two of my players think it's the best part of the game (it looks the coolest in their minds when they're roleplaying), but we're all together to have fun and play the type of game we like.

Would high lethality encourage munchkinism any more than allowing all splat books? Not in my opinion. But that's me, and I might be wrong. No way for me to tell. YMMV, of course.

Again, play what you like :)
 

Basically, I could care less magic you can use in them, I'd just like to see more settings based off of the works of Howard, Moorcock, and Leiber. Are there any settings that are inspired by Solomon Kane?
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top