Low magic vs. magic as a plot device

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Description changing seems a good way to go... The flaming warrior is a particularly good for fireball - going to steal that.

Although, IMO, a bit of care is needed - the magic missile example above where the players didn't realise what they were being attacked with. What if that spell killed a PC who didn't know that his Shield spell should stop it? Easy for a DM to miss! Tricky.

Also, what do you do in the case of a counterspell or high 'what's that?' spellcraft check?

I quite agree that the familiarity of many core spells does take away the magic feel... I've recently been running Arcana Unearthed, complete with the alternate magic system. My group and I have found this makes many things new and unfamiliar... although it works in a similar(ish) way to the core stuff. In fact, it's slightly frustrating as I've caught myself wanting to use certain 'plot device' spells (e.g. Geas) and they're no longer there.


As far as plot device magic goes - I've (over?)used human sacrifice and demonic pacts as material components for plot magic. Stops the players dabbling with it! It's separate stuff from regular magic IMC. It's lazy, cliched and after reading this thread I think I need to pick up CoC and Unearthed Arcana...

 

[Desdichado]

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).

d20 Modern uses essentially the same magic system as D&D. However, there are plenty of d20 alternatives in print.

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.

Heard of it, but not likely to use it. Other than the magic assumptions of D&D, I actually don't have a problem with d20. In fact, I quite like it.

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.

That's funny. You have to design the "class" from scratch, though. And besides, you don't have to redesign anything in d20 either if you own enough d20 material, like I do.

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.

I must not have been very clear. I'm absolutely not looking for a new system. I'm mentioning some simple solutions that I've done in d20 that work really well for me. Note: I'm also not looking for magic to be a plot device in my games. I'm looking for magic to feel more like fantasy novel magic without falling into the trap of merely being a plot device.

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.

Pshah! Such Franken-systems are no less playtested than plenty of other systems in print. I like the Franken-system. It's not really as hard to create as all that.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

, please come back. We promise not to abuse you.

 

[mafisto]

Low magic

Fun how low magic conversation invariably devolve into a conversation about high vs. low magic. I really don't see the point - different campaigns support different systems.

My campaign is extremely low magic, and currently uses a handicapped version of Arcana Unearthed's magic. PCs currently can become 'awakened', which has profound and sometimes devastating effects on the character. The awakening is analogous to a lifelong acid trip, which allows the character to see the ethereal aspects of life (e.g. auras) and influence this second world in minor ways. It operates as if the user has the Psion feat. The price? All 'spells' being used apply a point of subdual damage per level of the spell. And this is in a system using the Grim-n-Gritty hit point rules (average players will have 10 HPs), so this is a severe limitation.

So, why do this? I don't hate magic. I play in a high magic campaign, replete with meteor swarms and magic missiles and summonings. I like it. But my campaign is a world where the supernatural exists to the far extreme of society's peripheral vision; it's there, but most people believe in it as a superstition. In much of the world, access to magic is simply dead and the vast majority of people will go their whole lives without (knowingly) seeing a supernatural act.

Now, all of my players have been in out-of-the-box D&D games. They know how to count magic missiles and figure out an enemy's level. They know how spell effects map to spell casting levels. And knowing this, magic automatically becomes another mechanical abstraction. They may roleplay it out ("Aw, gollee, look 'et them purty colors!"), but the player is doing the math once the damage dice hit the table. This is precisely what I don't want. I want them to fear and respect magic because they don't understand it, not because they've figured out their opponent's CR.

I run a low magic campaign not because I dislike magic or magic effects in my campaign - I run it because I love magic. I want that sense of awe in my campaign. I want my players (and their PCs) to tread lightly when they think someone can use the mojo, and I want the PCs that are willing to sacrifice their own health to become awakened to have a real sense of pride in their abilities.

In short, it's not about bias against magic, it's about my irrational bias for magic that has me running an ultra-low magic campaign.

 

[Gothmog]

I run a low magic campaign not because I dislike magic or magic effects in my campaign - I run it because I love magic. I want that sense of awe in my campaign. I want my players (and their PCs) to tread lightly when they think someone can use the mojo, and I want the PCs that are willing to sacrifice their own health to become awakened to have a real sense of pride in their abilities.

In short, it's not about bias against magic, it's about my irrational bias for magic that has me running an ultra-low magic campaign.

Very well stated. I think this is why most of us low-magic lovers enjoy low magic games- because they are MORE magical, and better capture a sense of wonder, awe, and even fear than high magic games where magic is simply a tool.

 

[Desdichado]

double post

 

[Desdichado]

Very well stated. I think this is why most of us low-magic lovers enjoy low magic games- because they are MORE magical, and better capture a sense of wonder, awe, and even fear than high magic games where magic is simply a tool.

Indeed. Well-stated indeed, Goth and others.

sigh I was hoping to have this discussion without having to resort to off-topic defences against my preference for a different style of magic than the default D&D. Not only do I find the argument that combat is unlike genre fiction as much as magic unconvincing, but I really wonder why it seems that someone always has to take it personally that I advocate a different magic system than D&Ds, which I rather cordially and politely dislike, but have no problem with if others like it.

The real question isn't should one use an alternate magic system, it's how do you simultaneously prevent magic from becoming little more than a plot device and keep magic from becoming simply a toolbox for your players?

 

[mmadsen]

The real question isn't should one use an alternate magic system, it's how do you simultaneously prevent magic from becoming little more than a plot device and keep magic from becoming simply a toolbox for your players?

Agreed. How do you devise rules for magic -- both game rules and "rules" within the setting -- that lead to wizards in the game acting like wizards in a novel.

A few thoughts:

• Magic shouldn't be free.
• Magic shouldn't be perfectly safe and perfectly reliable.
• Magic should tempt the user to bite off more than he can chew.

D&D magic is effectively free, perfectly safe and reliable, and not "tempting" in any meaningful sense, since you simply can't cast a spell until you can cast it flawlessly.

 

[kamosa]

Agreed. How do you devise rules for magic -- both game rules and "rules" within the setting -- that lead to wizards in the game acting like wizards in a novel.

A few thoughts:

• Magic shouldn't be free.
• Magic shouldn't be perfectly safe and perfectly reliable.
• Magic should tempt the user to bite off more than he can chew.

D&D magic is effectively free, perfectly safe and reliable, and not "tempting" in any meaningful sense, since you simply can't cast a spell until you can cast it flawlessly.

HMMMM, I remember Gandolf many times not getting off his spell because it wasn't reliable.

Your bias is that you either haven't read the fiction that the magic system is based on or you just chose to ignore it.

Read Jack Vance's stuff, read Nine Princes of Amber, read some of the Julian May stuff. Heck, read some of the Covenant stuff by Donaldson. In those worlds everyday magic seems to be pretty safe. It's the high level powerful stuff where it gets dangerous.

As for the tempting stuff, that can be added with flavor and role playing onto the current system.

 

[mmadsen]

HMMMM, I remember Gandolf many times not getting off his spell because it wasn't reliable.

Gandalf only casts a handful of spells in the entire Hobbit-Lord of the Rings saga -- a few flaming pine cones, some light, a failed attempt to hold the portal vs. the Balrog, a beam of light vs. the Nazgul -- and he clearly only casts spells when he really, really has to. He is the good, wise Wizard, the Wizard who only uses spells he can control, and only when absolutely necessary.

Your bias is that you either haven't read the fiction that the magic system is based on or you just chose to ignore it.

Ah, because you have no bias at all.

Perhaps you misunderstand my use of should. If we want wizards in the game acting like wizards in a novel -- that is, not casting spells willy-nilly -- then magic shouldn't be free, reliable, etc.

Read Jack Vance's stuff, read Nine Princes of Amber, read some of the Julian May stuff. Heck, read some of the Covenant stuff by Donaldson. In those worlds everyday magic seems to be pretty safe. It's the high level powerful stuff where it gets dangerous.

In Vance's Dying Earth stories, great wizards can cast minor spells safely, but not-so-great wizards, like Cugel, can easily mess up a spell -- with dire consequences.

In D&D, "high level powerful stuff" doesn't "get dangerous"; you can't try it until you're able to cast it flawlessly.

As for the tempting stuff, that can be added with flavor and role playing onto the current system.

How?