Low Magic Campaigns?

[Mallus]

To which I can only respond, my experience of gaming does not correspond to yours.

It might, rabbit, it might. Whether it does or doesn't isn't germane to my point.

If everyone you game with is first and foremost having a power fantasy...

That's not quite it. I think fantasies involving personal power are an integral part of the appeal of the literature (including film and television) that underlies D&D. And whether it's problematic or not, I do see RPG's as an outgrowth of a couple of literary subgenres, as much, if not more so, than the outgrowth of certain wargames. Reading stories about (and identifying with) Conan, Kirk, and Aragorn, et al, is indulging in power-fantasy. Playing games rooted in those kinds of stories even more so.

Not to mention that in D&D, the rise from destitute to demigod is inevitable, given a long enough time frame (which is usually 1 year of play time, BTW).

I think that this ought to be obvious without lengthy explanations, because otherwise you'd have to believe that all players would refuse to play low power/low magic/grim and gritty games.

Or I'd simply believe that the players of low magic/grim-and gritty games were exercising their tastes for power-fantasy of a slightly different flavor. Put another way, beer and whiskey are both still booze.

But I've had alot of bad experiences with those whose sole or primary purpose in gaming was to endulge a power fantasy.

See, I've had good and I've had bad, but in the end it's what we all were doing, though our methods might have differed.

Hell, all games are all about power. I'm trying to beat you. It's locking horns, humiliating rivals, practicing for war, the whole nine yards. My enlightened view of games must come from all the chess I played as a youth... pitiless as the sun, that game is.

At least with RPG's the framework isn't zero-sum. We're supposed to take turns indulging in our power-displays. Even lend a hand (which is exactly how my gaming groups tend to operate. I've made some memorable characters, but I couldn't have done it with the support of the other players and their characters... aww... I feel a group-hug coming on...)

When you find someone whose primarily motivated by power tripping whose idea of a power trip is creating an exceptionally humble character, let me know.

That was a joke, son...

My point was that even Frodo wasn't a normal guy. He was exceptionally humble. Fantasy is rarely, if ever, about truly unexceptional people... which is another way of saying its almost always a kind of power-fantasy, even when it's pretending otherwise.

 

[molonel]

Or even if you struggled through the filth while dying of tetnus you contracted from a rusty nail? You are moving the goal posts.

No, because in order to enact a power fantasy, you must actually have power. In that particular sort of campaign, the only person enacting a power fantasy is the GM. I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm simply looking at the whole picture instead of focusing on the player's perspective.

If all that is required is tremendous success as an ultimate reward, then the character can still 'suck' and doesn't need a big sword or big spells. You earlier implied that all D&D players played the game as a particular sort of power fantasy, namely that they would play empowered characters that don't 'suck'. But you can haul the ring to Mt. Doom as a 1st level commoner, and still thereby be the most important person in the world. If you retroactively change your definition of the 'red beating heart of D&D' to merely the oppurtunity to achieve success, then sure if I remove the oppurtunity to succeed from the game few players will come back. But if I remove the big swords and big spells from the game, that's an entirely different thing because the oppurtunity to achieve success is still there, but not the opputunity to 'swing big swords and cast big spells' which you earlier defined as essential to the game.

It's all very much a power fantasy. There are people trying to deny this, and act like we're out to write a novel, or create a work of art, or get into the Julliard School, or pass the qualifying exams for MENSA.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I never identified Frodo as a 1st level commoner, so if you're going to lecture me on not reading meaning into other people's posts, then lead by example, sport. The payoff for Frodo came at the end, and let's face it, if you took out the Battle of Helm's Deep, and the siege of Minis Tirith, and Merry and Pippin's comic relief, and Treebeard, and focused entirely on Frodo and Sam trudging for mile after mile of wasteland and swamp, as an adventure that would be boring as hell. The whole "saving the world" schtick is still a power fantasy, but that sort of adventure would suck. And most people wouldn't play it.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, sometime might derive vast joy and satisfaction from it, and God bless them. But it would be a boring book, it would be a boring game and it would STILL involve a power fantasy on some level. The vehicle of delivery, though, would be a bitter pill indeed.

I did not assume that compentancy would be limited only to being competant in one particular thing. Of course people can ego trip over different sorts of competancy. But you seem unable to catch that some people, even some seeking an ego trip, see character competancy as a hinderance to what they want in the game.

I fully grok that some people get off on all kinds of things. I have asserted, however, that RPG is largely a power fantasy. People scratch that itch in all kinds of ways. I've had the guy sitting next to me at a Con who rolls his eyes when I show up with a half-orc barbarian I threw together five minutes ago. I've also sat next to the guy who plays the deliberately nerfed bard and shows up decked out in his costume to emphasize his acting skills.

Whatever. I can occasionally poke fun at those guys, and I'm sure they occasionally poke fun at me.

Again, you are making assumptions that are unwarranted. A player that wants to play a character with 22 INT and who is skillful in everything, falls into the category of 'power gamer' that I've been talking about. But a player that wants to play a character with only ordinary abilities because if the character had extraordinary abilities it would make the game 'too easy' or would interfere with his ability to demonstrate his wit as a player may be an 'ego gamer', but he's a very different sort than the one that wants to vicariously swing a big sword or be a very beautiful or desirable person.

And that is where we differ. I see an ego tripper, and I call him an ego tripper.

If he wants to view himself as somehow superior, well, that kinda puts another log on the whole "RPG as a power fantasy" thing, now, doesn't it?

You insist on seeing a difference where there is none.

One that has absolutely nothing to do with character competancy.

They are two roads to the same destination.

Except, explicitly, this is one type that does. I've met problem solvers that get bigger kicks out playing powerless characters than powerful ones.

So have I. But the "powerless characters" always seem to require an extra double-dip helping of stage time and DM bones covered with whipped cream and cherries thrown to them in order to feel complete, don't they? Just like the big dumb half-orc needs fields full of enemies to practice his backhand Cleave, the Problem Solver wants puzzles, mazes he can track with graph paper and riddles that require endless pondering in order to get his gaming ya-ya's satisfied.

And that's fine. But don't tell me he's a better breed of roleplayer. Or really all that different.

Those that respond to what someone else actually writes, and those that can't and instead respond to what they themselves write.

Or those who know how to grin mischievously, and those who don't?

I believe if you'll look I was responding to a question that refered specifically to those people who do not seem to be intelligently disagreeing, but instead seem to have some emotional stake in disproving that D&D can be played any other way than power gaming.

Oh, right! THOSE people. Wink wink nudge nudge.

It's not at all clear why someone with one preferred gaming style should want to not only advocate thier own style of play, but also denounce any other. I think Hobo is quite right. A discussion of grim and gritty or low magic games invariably draws alot of people who are quite angry about something and who will say that not only are grim and gritty games not thier preferred style, but that they are badwrongfun and/or impossible.

These threads drawn contention like flies to honey. That's why I can nearly always expect you and Hobo, and several others, to show up.

You guys seemed to enjoy it. Of course the "diseased sewer you are forced to crawl in to escape, rolling FORT saves all the way" was an added bonus...

Shh! You're ruining my "You only play high fantasy powergaming munchkin twinkfests!" rep!

(This is the guy who ran one of the "Break out of jail and poke people with sharp sticks" game.)

Who said anything about enjoying it? I very much enjoy low magic discussions, which is why I frequent them. I don't understand why it brings out the "you're playing D&D wrong, you Philistine!" crowd. In fact, I'm not sure I understand why there is a "you're playing D&D wrong, you Philistine!" crowd at all.

If you don't enjoy it, then you certainly seem to inflict a lot of needless suffering upon yourself.

 

[gizmo33]

You DO know that the locks on the outside are merely illustrations, right?

I'm not the one with the Slayer's Guide to the Obvious, so you tell me. My guess is no. But I didn't say that my players don't read the DMG, so I'm not sure what you're worried about. I'm pretty sure they don't think those are locks either.

 

[molonel]

Hell, all games are all about power. I'm trying to beat you. It's locking horns, humiliating rivals, practicing for war, the whole nine yards. My enlightened view of games must come from all the chess I played as a youth... pitiless as the sun, that game is. At least under RPG's the framework isn't zero-sum. We're supposed to take turns indulging in our power-displays. Even lend a hand (which is exactly how my gaming groups tend to operate. I've made some memorable characters, but I couldn't have done it with the support of the other players and their characters... aww... I feel a group-hug coming on...)

Oh, that was exceptionally well said.

 

[Desdichado]

These threads drawn contention like flies to honey. That's why I can nearly always expect you and Hobo, and several others, to show up.

(BTW, we really need a better confused smilie--that guy doesn't look confused, he looks like he's about to throw up.)

I don't come for contention. I come to talk about low magic. I honestly don't understand--or I'm too optimistic to believe Celebrim's rather cynical appraisal, perhaps--why it has to be contentious to talk about low magic D&D.

I just like low magic, so whenever there's threads about it, I tend to show up.

If you don't enjoy it, then you certainly seem to inflict a lot of needless suffering upon yourself.

Again with the bizarre implications! I'm not inflicting any suffering upon myself in any regard whatsoever. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hell, all games are all about power. I'm trying to beat you. It's locking horns, humiliating rivals, practicing for war, the whole nine yards. My enlightened view of games must come from all the chess I played as a youth... pitiless as the sun, that game is.

I don't subscribe to this philosophy when I DM. For chess, sure, but D&D is a cooperative game....As a player I am trying to beat the scenario, and various and sundry imaginary monsters and villians, but not the DM (who can win that one?) and not my fellow players.

RC

 

[Celebrim]

No, because in order to enact a power fantasy, you must actually have power. In that particular sort of campaign, the only person enacting a power fantasy is the GM.

Ok, note that this is an example of my case #1. You are claiming that DM's that run that particular sort of campaign must be control freaks.

I'm not moving the goal posts.

Yes, you are. You are waltzing with them all over the place.

It's all very much a power fantasy. There are people trying to deny this, and act like we're out to write a novel, or create a work of art, or get into the Julliard School, or pass the qualifying exams for MENSA.

And they are having badwrongfun, right? Worst of all, these deceptive badwrongfun players are denying that they have a power fetish, because we know, everyone must have one. Thanks for proving my point.

I never identified Frodo as a 1st level commoner...

To my knowledge, I never did either. I just said that someone could have dragged the ring to mount doom as a 1st level commoner. The assumption was that you were playing an RPG in Frodo's place. I was highlighting the fact that Frodo, as a character, doesn't need to have any the aspects of a traditional powerful hero. The Hobbits are rather uninviting to power gamers.

...so if you're going to lecture me on not reading meaning into other people's posts, then lead by example, sport.

Riiiiiighhhhttt.

The payoff for Frodo came at the end, and let's face it, if you took out the Battle of Helm's Deep, and the siege of Minis Tirith, and Merry and Pippin's comic relief, and Treebeard, and focused entirely on Frodo and Sam trudging for mile after mile of wasteland and swamp, as an adventure that would be boring as hell.

In your opinion. And for the record, when Tolkien adapted the story to be a screenplay, he pretty much did exactly that. He took out all that 'adventure', and focused on what he believed was important to the story.

The whole "saving the world" schtick is still a power fantasy, but that sort of adventure would suck.

In your opinion.

And most people wouldn't play it.

Maybe. That's a statement I can neither prove nor disprove.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, sometime might derive vast joy and satisfaction from it, and God bless them. But it would be a boring book, it would be a boring game...

In your opinion.

...and it would STILL involve a power fantasy on some level.

Right. Because a story about humility, mercy, and sacrifice must be an ego trip at its heart.

I have asserted, however, that RPG is largely a power fantasy.

In your opinion. One that you've yet to demonstrate. It seems to me that all I have to do to knock down that line of thought is to demonstrate that there are ways to play and motivations which are not primarily power fantasies. I don't expect such illustration to resonate with you, although you don't seem to deny that there are large number of these people, but I do suspect some readers will recognize themselves or people that they know amongst the alternate styles and motivations I mentioned (which is only some).

And that is where we differ. I see an ego tripper, and I call him an ego tripper.

So what. Whatever you call him doesn't defend your initial claim.

If he wants to view himself as somehow superior, well, that kinda puts another log on the whole "RPG as a power fantasy" thing, now, doesn't it? You insist on seeing a difference where there is none.

Even if it did, my point is that its not helpful to your claim because you didn't begin by saying merely that people are driven to play because of ego. You claimed that they were driven to play a particular style of empowered play because of ego. If a player is driven to play a powerless character because of ego, it still disproves your initial claim.

So have I. But the "powerless characters" always seem to require an extra double-dip helping of stage time and DM bones covered with whipped cream and cherries thrown to them in order to feel complete, don't they?

No. And even if they did, it still wouldn't prove your initial claim.

Just like the big dumb half-orc needs fields full of enemies to practice his backhand Cleave, the Problem Solver wants puzzles, mazes he can track with graph paper and riddles that require endless pondering in order to get his gaming ya-ya's satisfied.

Naturally, but that still doesn't support your initial claim.

And that's fine. But don't tell me he's a better breed of roleplayer.

Better breed of roleplayer? I don't think I was setting out to prove that he's a better breed of roleplayer. I set out to prove that there were different types of role players. I also said that in my experience, the ones you insisted initially where the only types of roleplayers were not only a minority but made up the bulk of problem players. Now, does that make 'power gamers' of necessity bad roleplayers? No. In fact, its nice to have a power gamer at the table if he's of the better sort that is willing to share time with the other players, doesn't rules lawyer, doesn't metagame, and so forth. This is because knowing that you have a power gamer means you know as a DM that there is at least one player at the table who can help pull the parties bacon out of the fire when they get in over thier heads. What it does mean is that in my experience, the majority of bad roleplayers are also ego driven power gamers.

 

[gizmo33]

I think fantasies involving personal power are an integral part of the appeal of the literature (including film and television) that underlies D&D.

Of course you do. But how does that turn into a universal truth? If folks really recognized themselves in what your saying, why wouldn't they just say so?

Not to mention that in D&D, the rise from destitute to demigod is inevitable, given a long enough time frame (which is usually 1 year of play time, BTW).

I think "inevitable" is an extreme overstatement. Unless your some kind of vampire, there are groups out there for which you don't have the life-span to reach demi-god status. This group I played with in college was much more caught up in the story and I don't think we gained a level all semester. It wasn't my cup of tea, but the other players had a lot of fun. Also, some DMs just stop the campaign once it reaches a certain level.

Or I'd simply believe that the players of low magic/grim-and gritty games were exercising their tastes for power-fantasy of a slightly different flavor. Put another way, beer and whiskey are both still booze.

I don't think this says something fundemental about beverages - more about the person consuming them. There's a lot of difference in beer vs. whisky unless all you're looking for is alchohol.

It's locking horns, humiliating rivals, practicing for war, the whole nine yards. My enlightened view of games must come from all the chess I played as a youth... pitiless as the sun, that game is.

The game is just a board and some carved tokens. The only evil that you'll find there is what you bring.

At least under RPG's the framework isn't zero-sum. We're supposed to take turns indulging in our power-displays.

I'll remember this the next time I'm at a loss for words when trying to explain the concept of an RPG to someone.

That was a joke, son...

I'd never let my kids read this thread.

My point was that even Frodo wasn't a normal guy. He was exceptionally humble. Fantasy is rarely, if ever, about truly unexceptional people... which is another way of saying its almost always a kind of power-fantasy, even when it's pretending otherwise.

It's like I always say, typing is about mastering the keyboard. It's about dominating these little letters, beating them to my will. It's about showing other people how smart I am until they beg me to stop. Anyone who doesn't experience that thrill of power and victory when they type is just deluding themselves.

 

[dpetroc]

For my money on a low magic campaign, I'd say Conan OGL or D20 Call of Cthulhu. Keeping corruption and insanity makes magic unpalatable to any but um...well...the corrupt or insane.

 

[der_kluge]

Linking off the above mentioned Wiki link, I think when people talk about Low Magic, they are probably really referring to Low Fantasy instead.