Low magic vs. magic as a plot device

[Desdichado]

I've always found that to kind of be a straw man arguement. I mean, I don't find fighting, use of skills, or feats to match up very well with fantasy novels either. Yet, I never hear anyone say, "gee, I've never seen someone in a novel with power attack and great cleave." or "I've never read a novel where the main character took 20 great ax blows to the chest and walked away."

Ahh, kamosa. What would a thread asking a low-magic question be without you coming in to complain about the entire concept?

Actually, I think you'll find that the use of feats is something that is represented quite a bit in novels. Tons of characters have "special" abilities that are kind of their speciality; something they are known for that they can do that most people cannot. Not supernatural abilities, mind you (although sometimes that's the case) but special abilities nonetheless. Now whether or not Power Attack and Great Cleave specifically are feats that are replicated in novels or not is another question, but still, I think you're incorrect in this assessment.

Likewise, I've never heard of a D&D character that takes 20 axe blows to the chest and then walks away. Clearly, if he has enough hit points to walk away, the blows weren't to his chest, were they? HP are sufficiently abstract that if you're having problems like this, it's with the description your DM is giving of the blows, not the system itself.

Besides, plenty of books and movies both have extremely rugged heroes who can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. It's almost a hallmark of action and martial arts movies, for example.

Spells, like feats and skills, are just representations of the spells in fantasy. The system evolved because it was popular and because it could sell more books, IE it's fun. At some level this is a game, and as such, obeys game rules not rules of writing.

That's a fine position, except that the fun is subjective. Also, the system didn't evolve that way because it was popular. I don't believe in a rigorous application of any survival of the fittest doctrine in this industry, especially in regards to how widespread a system is. That has little to do with any qualitative merits of the system itself, and a lot more to do with the timing and business acumen of the parties that published it.

 

[mmadsen]

Yet, I never hear anyone say, [...] "I've never read a novel where the main character took 20 great ax blows to the chest and walked away."

You must be joking, because that is one of the very oldest complaints about D&D's combat system.

Anyway, it's off topic. The question is not do you like low magic, but how do you get that "plot device" magic feel -- without losing game-ability?

 

[WaterRabbit]

It sounds to me like you are using the wrong game system. D&D is designed for high fantasy magical settings. d20 modern seems much better for low magic settings (if you want to stick with d20).

Joshua have you looked at Ron Edward's Sorceror ? It sounds like a better system for modeling the game you are trying to run. You can find whole discussions of it over at The Forge.

I don't use D&D for low magic settings. I have found that other game systems work better at modeling them than D&D. Games like Fantasy Hero and GURPs work because you don't have to redesign the classes to balance against the low magic setting.

I haven't played or run any games using the Tri-Stat system, but I have read through both BESM and Silver Age Sentinels. Although they model Anime and Supers, respectively, they also look like they could be well suited for low-magic/plot driven magical settings.

Don't get me wrong, I like D&D. But I just think there is only so far that you can fold, spindle, and mutilate the system to match your campaign ideas. At a certain point you have a Franken-system which hasn't been play-tested for balance or fun. So unless you have players that like to perpetually alpha and beta test, it seems less work to just use a more sutiable game system.

 

[Dark Jezter]

A lot of folks (myself included) often complain that magic in D&D doesn't feel anything like magic in the fantasy novels we know and love, and which are our inspiration for the game.

However, it may not really be very possible to have magic that works like it does in novels, because magic is often merely a plot device that is either inconsistent, or too poorly detailed to tell if it's consistent or not. How do you replicate that in a game, and even if you could, would you want to? I don't think so, although maybe some disagree.

In fantasy novels, it's easy for the author to keep magic mysterious and abstract because the reader only knows what the author wants them to know. That dosen't work in an RPG because magic needs to have clearly-defined rules that state just what can and can't be done with it. Therefore, magic becomes a rules system, just like combat.

D&D on a whole does not emultate the feel of a fantasy novel, nor should it. While D&D was heavily influenced by the works of Howard, Lieber, and Tolkien during its creation, it's still a game and not a novel. Novels are passive forms of entertainment, games are interactive forms of entertainment. The stories in novels are usually laid out in advance (some authors make the story up as they go along), the stories in D&D campaigns can be changed dramatically by something as small as a failed saving throw or the PCs embarking on a course of action that the DM never anticipated (unless the DM likes to railroad his players).

 

[Rokonin]

I personally like the old Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's magic system.

Magic is more rare, and it is all based on percents. You have to be high-level to cast magic that does anything major. This is all probably just my anti-high-magic prejudice, but I enjoy it.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I've always found that to kind of be a straw man arguement. I mean, I don't find fighting, use of skills, or feats to match up very well with fantasy novels either. Yet, I never hear anyone say, "gee, I've never seen someone in a novel with power attack and great cleave." or "I've never read a novel where the main character took 20 great ax blows to the chest and walked away."

Hmm, I disagree. I think I have seen fantasy movies where a great hero drops several foes with a single swing. That's Great Cleave. And I've certainly read novels where the hero puts all his strength into one mighty blow. That's Power Attack.

But mechanical equivalency isn't the point. It's the feel that matters. A high-level D&D fighter with no magical items could take on a hundred orcs and slay several dozen of them before falling, as Boromir did. A hero can be literally the strongest human alive, as Fezzik was. D&D is generally quite a good game for replicating the feel of action movies and fantasy novels. The combat system makes lots of sense in that light - no lucky blow by a mook is going to bring down a main character such as Conan.

The feel of magic, by contrast, isn't replicated well. This isn't necessarily about high magic or low magic - it's about predictable scientific safe magic versus unpredictable mystical scary magic. Some D&D spells *have* really captured the feel of magic well by being just so weird and unpredictable. The Tome of Magic had some; There/Not There was a good one, as was Sollopsism (the one where you have to deliberately believe an illusion for it to be real for you). Trap the Soul is another (since how you cast it depends on who you're casting it on), and Wish also feels like magic. But Fireball feels like 20th-century weaponry, and not like magic at all.

Some can be rectified with cosmetic changes. Fireball could be replaced by "Ghost of Surtur," a flaming warrior that attacks everything within 20' and then vanishes. Magic missile could be replaced by slightly different versions for each caster: barbed chains bursting out of the caster's chest and raking the flesh of opponents for 1d6 each; ghostly hawks rending foes for d4+1 each; tiny orbs of annihilation striking targets for 1d8 each (Reflex save for half); or actual physical (metal) knives striking for 1d8 each (ranged touch attack). The sameness for the players, the rote repetition of seeing the same spells cast all the time for 20 years, that's one part of the problem.

 

[kamosa]

Hmm, I disagree. I think I have seen fantasy movies where a great hero drops several foes with a single swing. That's Great Cleave. And I've certainly read novels where the hero puts all his strength into one mighty blow. That's Power Attack.

But mechanical equivalency isn't the point. It's the feel that matters. A high-level D&D fighter with no magical items could take on a hundred orcs and slay several dozen of them before falling, as Boromir did. A hero can be literally the strongest human alive, as Fezzik was. D&D is generally quite a good game for replicating the feel of action movies and fantasy novels. The combat system makes lots of sense in that light - no lucky blow by a mook is going to bring down a main character such as Conan.

The feel of magic, by contrast, isn't replicated well. This isn't necessarily about high magic or low magic - it's about predictable scientific safe magic versus unpredictable mystical scary magic. Some D&D spells *have* really captured the feel of magic well by being just so weird and unpredictable. The Tome of Magic had some; There/Not There was a good one, as was Sollopsism (the one where you have to deliberately believe an illusion for it to be real for you). Trap the Soul is another (since how you cast it depends on who you're casting it on), and Wish also feels like magic. But Fireball feels like 20th-century weaponry, and not like magic at all.

Some can be rectified with cosmetic changes. Fireball could be replaced by "Ghost of Surtur," a flaming warrior that attacks everything within 20' and then vanishes. Magic missile could be replaced by slightly different versions for each caster: barbed chains bursting out of the caster's chest and raking the flesh of opponents for 1d6 each; ghostly hawks rending foes for d4+1 each; tiny orbs of annihilation striking targets for 1d8 each (Reflex save for half); or actual physical (metal) knives striking for 1d8 each (ranged touch attack). The sameness for the players, the rote repetition of seeing the same spells cast all the time for 20 years, that's one part of the problem.

Funny I don't see Conan as an example of a D&D fighter with Cleave and Power Attack. I can't ever remember Conan reasoning through the AC of the opponent and deciding to take a +4 on his damage so he could kill the low level mooks much quicker. Nor do I ever remember Conan, tactically taking a 5ft step so he would be in range for a cleave attempt. There are lots of examples of tough fighters in fiction. I just have never seen a D&D fighter in fiction.

I could also pull out a dozen or so examples of high level wizards and high mana worlds that do approximate magic in D&D, if you view it through the right lense.

But that is all besides the point. The point is that saying magic in D&D is screwed up because it doesn't match the fiction, is a silly arguement. There are tons of things that do not match the fiction. I don't find the monsters particularly drawn from fiction, or from their mythlogical roots. I don't find the number of skill points each character gets to be like what I imagine the heroic characters from books having.

Heck, I don't even find characters that raise in level to be particularly mapped to fiction. There are tons of examples of game mechanics that are not like fiction.

Using this as an arguement to pick on magic is just a screen for an underlying bias against magic. That's fine, and to each his own fun, but don't pretend that it is drawn from some high minded place.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Funny I don't see Conan as an example of a D&D fighter with Cleave and Power Attack. I can't ever remember Conan reasoning through the AC of the opponent and deciding to take a +4 on his damage so he could kill the low level mooks much quicker. Nor do I ever remember Conan, tactically taking a 5ft step so he would be in range for a cleave attempt. There are lots of examples of tough fighters in fiction. I just have never seen a D&D fighter in fiction.

You're confusing what the character does (and thinks) with what the player does (and thinks). The character thinks "These foes are lightly armored and don't have shields, so I can swing hard without trying to be precise." The player thinks "I'll power attack for 2 points." Now, I don't play with optimizing mathematics, some players do. The way I play, I can quite clearly envision a fictional character choosing a particular option (charging, attacking from higher ground, fighting defensively) according to the situation. The rules as written enable me to play fighters with a feel that corresponds (in my mind) to the warriors of legend.

I could also pull out a dozen or so examples of high level wizards and high mana worlds that do approximate magic in D&D, if you view it through the right lense.

Perhaps if you are referring to FR fiction or anime or something... my taste runs more towards stories where magic is wondrous and mysterious. Comic books come to mind as one example where what would otherwise be called magic is presented as predictable, reliable, and routine (and often has a pseudo-scientific explanation). Much as I like Superman, that's not what I want in a wizard.

Heck, I don't even find characters that raise in level to be particularly mapped to fiction. There are tons of examples of game mechanics that are not like fiction.

You missed my point. Game mechanics are not directly the issue. The feel of the game is the issue. Game mechanics are only relevant to this discussion to the extent that they impact the feel of the game. As I've said before, I don't like fumble systems that mean an expert swordsman will drop his weapon once every twenty swings - because the feel of the game is altered by that mechanic.

Using this as an arguement to pick on magic is just a screen for an underlying bias against magic. That's fine, and to each his own fun, but don't pretend that it is drawn from some high minded place.

I take serious issue with this. There is very little that is more insulting than telling another person what they think. I do not lie to myself and I do not lie to you - I like magic. I just want to make it feel more magical, more wondrous, more amazing, more mystical. Don't insult me by telling me what I think. I *hate* magic feeling like science or technology. If I want science and technology I'll play d20 Modern.
It's not just magic. I've had DMs who see the various "races" as being like the real-world "races," and that bothers me because it isn't fantastical enough. I'd much rather see goblins be the unfortunate side-effect of a tribe of humans who expelled all malice from their beings. I'd rather hobgoblins be utterly alien, sustaining themselves on the experience of battle rather than on food.

I want to be imaginative, as do many of the posters here. We're trying to discuss how magic can be made wondrous again. I gave several concrete ideas in my previous post. We're not attacking the idea of magic in the game.

Here's one more, for anybody else still reading: alter the ways spells work, tell the players you are making changes, but don't let any players know what specifically the changes are except the players who are playing wizards - and only let them know the changes to the spells they have plus a few more. This only works if the players trust you not to shaft their wizards, but it can be great fun. Much of the "magic" is lost in games because PCs know what to expect. They know the PHB. Your options are to go to other sources for spells and hope your players don't have those books, or make some subtle alterations to the existing spells.
Cosmetic changes are one option. Mechanical changes are another. The same is true for monsters - perhaps what everybody refers to as "trolls" are hulking creatures as in LOTR, with the stats of hill giants. And maybe owlbears regenerate. Maybe the things that look like carrion crawlers have a rusting attack, and maybe giant beetles have displacement.

 

[Pbartender]

Two suggestions... One that I use already, and one that I plan to use on my next campaign.

First, change the description of a spell's effect without changing the actual effect of the spell. For example, here's one I tossed against my players recently... "The shaman dances a little step, and with his final movement slashes his ceremonial dagger through the air. Even though he stands twenty yards away, beneath your untouched armor you can feel the sting of his blade and the dribble of blood down your chest. You take (rolling dice) 9 points of damage." The first thing the players said was, "Wow, that's tough. What kind of a spell bypasses armor and does damage without an attack roll or a saving throw?" The wizard wondered about finding a scroll with this powerful spell to copy into spell book. The spell was simply a Magic Missile... But they didn't realize it at the time, and it certainly had them worried for a bit.

Second, introduce "Proprietary Magic". There is a popular addage amongst stage magicians, "A good magician never reveals his secrets." Apply that to D&D. Magic, especially high-level magic, is powerful stuff. Don't give your secrets away. Any spell you give to someone else could end up in the hands of your enemy. What if only 3 wizards in the world knew the Teleportation spell? What if they won't reveal the secret to the spell? What if they all die without passing on the secret?

 

[mmadsen]

It sounds to me like you are using the wrong game system. D&D is designed for high fantasy magical settings. d20 modern seems much better for low magic settings (if you want to stick with d20).

I don't see how d20 Modern is so fundamentally different from D&D that you can't just integrate in the changes you'd like.

I also don't see why you can't play d20 Call of Cthulhu with Fighters, Rogues, and Experts in a quasi-ancient world.

Games like Fantasy Hero and GURPs work because you don't have to redesign the classes to balance against the low magic setting.

You're right, you don't have to redesign the classes; you have to design them.