Low level, low magic

[der_kluge]

Thread redirect - has anyone ran, as a corollary to low magic/low level, a game with low combat?

I was thinking, for a game to be as realistic as possible, it would also have to be combat light, because let's face it, most of us wouldn't be so willing to just run up to an orc wielding a two-headed axe and attack it with a longsword, no matter how much training we had. The threat of death is just too great in the real world.

So, has anyone successfully pulled off a game with very little, to no combat? What were your experiences with that?

 

[Uruush]

Thread redirect - has anyone ran, as a corollary to low magic/low level, a game with low combat?

I was thinking, for a game to be as realistic as possible, it would also have to be combat light, because let's face it, most of us wouldn't be so willing to just run up to an orc wielding a two-headed axe and attack it with a longsword, no matter how much training we had. The threat of death is just too great in the real world.

So, has anyone successfully pulled off a game with very little, to no combat? What were your experiences with that?

I played in a homebrew d20 Middle Earth campaign where 6-8 sessions would go by without a single combat. I enjoyed it, and I think most of the players did. Lots of politics and intrigue, etc. I think you'll find that a substantial minority of rpg'ers have played in games with little to no combat, particularly if they've played systems other than D&D. I played in an amazingly fun GURPS campaign set in Harn that was on and off again for about for 12 years. There was combat about every 3rd session which I wouldn't describe as "little to no combat," but I suspect that many on this board would, as they seem to have 2-3 combats per session. That doesn't work too well in GURPS as the combat is substantially more lethal (realistically so).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Thread redirect - has anyone ran, as a corollary to low magic/low level, a game with low combat?

I generally describe my game as 50% role-play, 45% problem solving, and 5% extreme bloody gore.

So, has anyone successfully pulled off a game with very little, to no combat? What were your experiences with that?

If you mean a whole campaign, no. I have had adventures that had only 2-3 combative scenarios, yet included several weeks of game time (generally 3-4 sessions, with individual sessions covering a few hours to a few days depending on specific events within them).

One thing to keep in mind also is that if, in "game time", there is suffiecient time between encounters and a few of them provide some degree of hinting towards later ones ("the prophecy speaks of a guardian demon at the gates, a being of fire and ice..."), then you can establish encounters well above the typical CR rather than below it (the biggest CR variable being situations/creatures that require resources not available in the campaign or at that time, which will go up or are simply unviable encounters for the world).

 

[Malk]

I played in a homebrew d20 Middle Earth campaign where 6-8 sessions would go by without a single combat. I enjoyed it, and I think most of the players did. Lots of politics and intrigue, etc. I think you'll find that a substantial minority of rpg'ers have played in games with little to no combat, particularly if they've played systems other than D&D. I played in an amazingly fun GURPS campaign set in Harn that was on and off again for about for 12 years. There was combat about every 3rd session which I wouldn't describe as "little to no combat," but I suspect that many on this board would, as they seem to have 2-3 combats per session. That doesn't work too well in GURPS as the combat is substantially more lethal (realistically so).

i try to have about one <i> meaningfull </i> combat per session. But odly enough, one of the most combat filled bloody and yes almost powergamed (but still fun) games ive ever played in was in gurps.

 

[hong]

Hong, that's actually a pretty good insight. I hadn't really considered that angle. I was talking to a friend of mine, and we came to the conclusion that in Lord of the Rings, no one was really above about 4th or 5th level. The most powerful thing Gandalf does (now, keep in mind I still haven't seen RotK) is to cast something akin to Prot. from evil, and then minor globe of invulnerability. That's it. No, walls of force, or fireballs. I've also heard arguments that tend to place Gandalf more into the Druid category, as well.

I think that's where the discussion of various subgenres of fantasy in the various HERO sourcebooks is very useful. You have swords-and-sorcery, which is relatively low-powered and close to the real world. You have what Fantasy HERO calls "epic fantasy", where characters are powerful but still close to the tropes in literary fiction, and world-shaking magic exists but is limited to the realm of plot devices (the world-building consequences of this may or may not be thought through). Then you have high fantasy ("D&D fantasy"), where super magic can actually be used by PCs.

Unlike nearly every other game out there, 3E (and to some extent, 1/2E if you actually played up to high levels) moves through different subgenres as the level increases. You start off mundane, gain power, and by the end you're wallowing in magic and boom stuff. This is good if you like the subgenres you're moving through. It's not so good if you'd prefer to stick to one subgenre.

 

[der_kluge]

Unlike nearly every other game out there, 3E (and to some extent, 1/2E if you actually played up to high levels) moves through different subgenres as the level increases. You start off mundane, gain power, and by the end you're wallowing in magic and boom stuff. This is good if you like the subgenres you're moving through. It's not so good if you'd prefer to stick to one subgenre.

Yes... I think this would make a good poll...

 

[Takeda]

I have played Combat-Heavy GURPS games, ... but it was a do or die and we had the advantage of better armour and gear than most of the Picts that we were fighting.

I've played LOWWWWWW-Tech, Looooowwwwwww Magic and Low-Level games at times. I started the party as 0-level apprentices when their village was overrun by a goblin army, ... the palatable terror characters had knowing that they wouldn't survive even one hit was brilliant! ... The campaign went on a few levels of the party fighting a guerrilla (sp) war. By the time they were 3rd level most of them had armour and a few superior quality weapons but nothing magical.

I've played in games where the average player had 500,000 experience points! That was AD&D of course, ... and it was silly in my opinion. But that might have been the DM?!

The 'Everyman Syndrome' appeals to me very strongly. I am not interested in playing Bruce Wayne, King Arthur, Peter Parker, Conan. I'd rather be 'The Mouse' (played masterfully by Mathew Broderick) in Ladyhawk or Christian Slater's character in Name of the Rose, the 'Wolverines' in Red Dawn, Rand in the Wheel of Time. An otherwise ordinary or at least not extraordinary person in extraordinary circumstances.

Alternatively I like movies/books/graphic novels/etc. where someone is not 'quite' your average 'Joe Shmoe' but not the King's Champion either. Having your character be the most notoriously dangerous duellist in the Empire can be droll after awhile unless you have a very good supporting cast and a great DM/Director/Screenwriter/Editor.

Having someone who has some advantages and the potential to be a hero, yet still having to struggle in a gritty way to survive let alone shine as the Arthurian Knights of the Round Table did is more my thing.

"You have fought your way past the bandits that were trying to keep you away from the pallisade around the village. You can feel the slick film of sweat all over your body and the sticky heat of blood on your face. You don't know how much of the blood is yours as your head begins to pound. The sword falls limply from your hand as your numbing fingers loose all strength. You collapse to the ground unconscious."
DM to player: Well fought. You totally ran out of Vitality and you took a few minor Wounds aside from the Serious scalp Wound. It is nasty and was bleeding badly as you were dragged over the all. You have the sense that someone is pressing something firmly against the gash above the hairline as you fade to black.
Player to DM: Wow! That was brutal! ... Do I wake up eventually? What do I see?!
DM rolls dramatically! ... Etc.

 

[der_kluge]

That's another good point - heroes. That was one of the questions I gave my players in a sort of poll/questionnaire thingy I put together before we started. The question had to do with whether people preferred to be people of importance "destined for greatness", or just regular folks "what am *I* doing here?"

Which kind of game do people prefer?

Myself, I've always had a hard time with the Harry Potter type of game. That is, the characters are special - they have some special bloodline, or are part of some prophecy, or they are heir to a throne, or some such nonsense. I'd rather pay a schmuck who just happens to work himself up to great things, and becomes powerful through struggle and adversity. It also seems to fit better with the whole "low level, low magic" genre better anyway.

 

[diaglo]

Agreed Buttercup. Expousing High Level Magic isn't always recieved, but I don't think sneering happens here. Maybe I just haven't noticed it is all.

you just have a poor sense motive check.

 

[Darklone]

Myself, I've always had a hard time with the Harry Potter type of game. That is, the characters are special - they have some special bloodline, or are part of some prophecy, or they are heir to a throne, or some such nonsense. I'd rather pay a schmuck who just happens to work himself up to great things, and becomes powerful through struggle and adversity. It also seems to fit better with the whole "low level, low magic" genre better anyway.

Felt soooo good to read that. That's exactly the reason why I love one special players game style in my group. He's usually the weakest char with the worst dice luck evah and the lowest stats ... and he's the big hero in the end. Every time.

He just goes for style.