Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lakesidefantasy" data-source="post: 8085381" data-attributes="member: 6682043">Recently I suggested to a group of young players in their teens that the wizard in their party may just be one of a handful in the world, or maybe even--the only one. They were confused, then bemused, then dismissive.Such a setting, with but a single magic-user*, would be low magic**. But, from the players' point of view it's not that different. Particularly when they start flying around, teleporting, tossing fireballs, and generally bending reality like a pretzel--it's downright high magic.So for me low versus high magic has less to do with the player's experience at the table and more to do with the expectations of the setting. For instance, in a setting with only a handful of magic-users, you mightn't expect to find healing potions for sale.But to your point Urriak, it seems that high versus low magic can be two different things: expectations of the setting versus player experience at the table. I'm not certain which one we're talking about; however, I believe setting expectations has more impact on player experience than the other way around. Eberron, for instance, would almost certainly force a high magic experience on the players. On the other hand, a party of high level warlocks and wizards would be less likely to force a setting to be considered high magic***. Either way, it's a high magic experience for the players.It would seem a low magic experience for the players would need both a low magic setting and a lack of magic users among the players. (I think this is what Seramus just said above.)*No Druids, sorcerers, warlocks, liches, clerics, devastators, etc, etc.**Unless of course that single magic-user himself is ubiquitous and always meddling in people's affairs.***Eureka!</blockquote>

Verification