[Poll] As A *Player*, Do You Enjoy Low-Magic/Grim&Gritty Campaigns?

[Bendris Noulg]

Maybe I am too influenced by watching I, Claudius, but...

Nah, dude, can't be done. Anything featuring Patrick Stewart with a full head of hair is worth being influenced by.

 

[Humanophile]

I guess by relative I mean at first level it takes a couple rounds on average for a character to take out an orc, and the PC has a very good chance of dying. At 10th level the same fighter is now fighting giants, but the combat still takes a few rounds and the player still has a very good chance of dying...

I've heard this arguement before. And the response comes in two parts.

First, at low levels the chance of a total disaster happening in combat are pretty high. (See: crits with just about anything at first level.) As you get up to higher levels, the risks of being taken down by one bad roll diminish, largely due to larger hit point "cushions". So the tenth level character against the giants is a little less at the mercy of the dice, and I'm pretty sure that everyone's against "one roll, you're dead, no defense" stuff.

But more importantly, even if the numbers and odds were all the same, there's the obvious legendary quality associated. A first level character probably has better than even odds of beating up a goblin, sneaking past a bored low-ranking guard, or swimming across a river. A twentieth level character can do all that and more without a second thought, plus beating up dragons, sneaking past hypercaffinated top-of-the-line ninjas, and swimming across oceans. And great stories are rarely "he rolled 15+ five times in a row!!!", they're more about, y'know, beating armies, great escapes, and other acts that are a high level character's meat and drink, even if the mechanics are effectively the same and only the "skin" is different.

 

[hong]

i'm not really sure what you mean by "relative success rate."

at 1st level, the fighter is scared about meeting that orc with a greataxe. at 20th level -- even with no magic items -- the fighter can slaughter an entire orc raiding party or go toe-to-toe with a powerful giant alone. a 1st-level (human) fighter has 3 feats -- three things he can do that most other people can't. at 20th level, he has many, many more feats (and more powerful ones), greatly increasing his power and making him head-and-shoulders above the people around him. there's a definite change in what he is capable of accomplishing.

similarly at 1st level, the rogue might have difficulty sneaking past that eagle-eyed sentry. at 20th level -- even without magic items -- the rogue can sneak into the heavily-defended castle to assassinate the evil warlord and get back out again without anyone knowing he was even there.

at 1st level, the party is saving the little farming village from some marauding goblins. at 20th level, the party is leading the kingdom's army into battle against the forces of the evil empire.

i don't know; i see a definite shift from low to high levels -- even without increasing the party's magic capabilities. things definitely change over the course of the campaign -- the PCs improve and the challenges become increasingly greater. you don't need magic to accomplish that.

And all of the things you mention can be done by 10th level or even 5th level characters. It doesn't require a +20 BAB to be a general of an army -- heck, some generals could even be 1st level, and got there because they're the king's nephew or something. It doesn't require 23 ranks in Hide and Move Silently to sneak into a castle, if everyone there has 4 or 5 ranks -- which they would, if a campaign's implicit power level was reduced. A giant might be a problem if you're a tank fighter (melee brutes typically have lots of HD for their CR) but if you have the advantage of range, you don't need 20 levels for that either.

A 20th level character, by the book, can do more than whack giants. He can fly, teleport, see or go invisible, and do all sorts of other funky things that are literally beyond the ability of lower-level characters. It's the ability to do these things, just as much as the numbers, that defines high level play. If you take out these abilities, then you're just left with bigger numbers, and as you say yourself, what's the point? After a while, there's not much more to gain.

Being able to wade through 100 orcs isn't really that much more interesting, in real life terms, than wading through 20 orcs or 50 orcs. You can believe me on this; I've run battles featuring 50 orcs, and the spectacle you might hope to achieve quickly becomes forgotten in the tediousness of it all. It's easier to run it all in purely descriptive terms ("you fight your way through the horde of warriors, taking a few hits but slaying them by the dozens..."), and for this, you don't really need stats and levels.

Saying you need 20 levels to represent a hypercompetent character is absurd. The only reason I can see that people want to go to 20 levels, is because that's the historical ceiling in D&D. This is like saying that because GURPS lets you play 500-point characters, you must therefore have a 500-point character to be that good. A game's power ceiling is dependent far more on genre than on any inherent game-mechanical features.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Only the opponent really changes. The mechanic and the out comes are almost identical.

So you face DC 15 sentries when you are 1st level, and on a 10 or better they don't hear you. At 10th level you have DC 25 sentries. On a 10 or better you sneak by them. No game difference, only a roleplaying difference in our mind.

You'll note that one of the things that the grim crowd has been championing all along is verisimilitude.

Tell me-- WHY would the sentries suddenly jump from DC10 to DC25? Does the game world somehow react to the fact that the PCs have gone up in level? I'm not sure why you think it is a given that the sentries are tougher just because the PCs are tougher.

It is a question of versimilitude in the game.

In a low magic game, the PCs get past the sentry because they can sneak like the wind. The sentry is still +1 to Spot, and he's probably taking 10, too. The high level, low magic PC gets past because he's invested ranks in sneaking.

The difference is that a high level character-- such as our heroic PC-- is a rarity. There just aren't a whole lot of 10th level warriors looking for work as a sentry, nor are there a lot of evil warlords who exclusively hire 10th level sentries as proof against would-be heroes. There aren't that many 10th level characters around, period, which makes the PCs all the more special and heroic because of it.

Wulf

 

[hong]

But more importantly, even if the numbers and odds were all the same, there's the obvious legendary quality associated. A first level character probably has better than even odds of beating up a goblin, sneaking past a bored low-ranking guard, or swimming across a river. A twentieth level character can do all that and more without a second thought, plus beating up dragons, sneaking past hypercaffinated top-of-the-line ninjas, and swimming across oceans.

Define the CR of a dragon.

Define the level of a hypercaffeinated ninja.

None of the things you mention are inherently dependent on the character being any particular level. The only thing that they have in common is that they're beyond the ability of mortal men, which is a vague statement indeed in terms of game mechanics.

 

[hong]

You'll note that one of the things that the grim crowd has been championing all along is verisimilitude.

Tell me-- WHY would the sentries suddenly jump from DC10 to DC25? Does the game world somehow react to the fact that the PCs have gone up in level? I'm not sure why you think it is a given that the sentries are tougher just because the PCs are tougher.

It is a question of versimilitude in the game.

In a low magic game, the PCs get past the sentry because they can sneak like the wind. The sentry is still +1 to Spot, and he's probably taking 10, too. The high level, low magic PC gets past because he's invested ranks in sneaking.

The difference is that a high level character-- such as our heroic PC-- is a rarity. There just aren't a whole lot of 10th level warriors looking for work as a sentry, nor are there a lot of evil warlords who exclusively hire 10th level sentries as proof against would-be heroes. There aren't that many 10th level characters around, period, which makes the PCs all the more special and heroic because of it.

EXACTLY. And hence, you can achieve everything desired within 10 levels of advancement.

 

[Snoweel]

Tell me-- WHY would the sentries suddenly jump from DC10 to DC25? Does the game world somehow react to the fact that the PCs have gone up in level?

W3rd.

The world does not level with the PCs.

EXACTLY. And hence, you can achieve everything desired within 10 levels of advancement.

It all depends on how capable you want your heroes to be.

Given the same demographic distribution of NPCs (with the average Joe being 1st level), the 20th level character with 23 ranks in (insert skill here) or a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5 is far superior to the 10th level character with 13 ranks or +10/+5 BAB.

Even given a world where 20th level characters don't exist (and thus, 10th level characters represent the pinnacle of capability), the most capable characters are still not as proficient when compared to the average NPC as a 20th level character would be.

So it's clearly not "just a matter of scale".

It is for this reason that when I decided I wanted to tone magic down IMC, I chose not to go the easy route of halving advancement and capping non-Epic play at 10th level.

Because there's so much more to 'low magic' than merely low power.

the spectacle you might hope to achieve quickly becomes forgotten in the tediousness of it all.

"tedium"

 

[hong]

It all depends on how capable you want your heroes to be.

Given the same demographic distribution of NPCs (with the average Joe being 1st level), the 20th level character with 23 ranks in (insert skill here) or a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5 is far superior to the 10th level character with 13 ranks or +10/+5 BAB.

If you're changing things like the frequency of magic items, powerful spellcasters, weird, funky monsters, etc, then clearly you're not very interested in going by the book. Therefore, whatever demographic distribution is given in the book should not be of great interest to you (especially the bits that say every middling-sized village has at least one cleric or adept). Therefore, you're free to choose whatever demographic distribution you like, and in particular, there should be no reason to feel especially attached to a 20th level ceiling, save for historical or psychological reasons.

Even given a world where 20th level characters don't exist (and thus, 10th level characters represent the pinnacle of capability), the most capable characters are still not as proficient when compared to the average NPC as a 20th level character would be.

but what relevance does this have to the game? It's like saying that laser rifles are better at zapping people than longbows.

Sure, Joe Munchkin's campaign down the road may have 40th level guys fighting balors (I may have mentioned this before). However, what Joe Munchkin does is completely separate to what happens in your game.

So it's clearly not "just a matter of scale".

It is a matter of scale, WITHIN a given campaign. I fail to see how comparisons BETWEEN campaigns are that interesting.

 

[Snoweel]

If you're changing things like the frequency of magic items, powerful spellcasters, weird, funky monsters, etc, then clearly you're not very interested in going by the book. Therefore, whatever demographic distribution is given in the book should not be of great interest to you (especially the bits that say every middling-sized village has at least one cleric or adept).

You're completely (and, I suspect, deliberately) missing the point.

YUO are the one saying we should change the by-the-book demographics by halving the levels of everybody to accomodate 10th-as-pinnacle power levels.

ME = saying that it is impossible to halve the 1st level mook inherent in both by-the-book demographics AND the just-stop-at-10th-level-for-chrissakes demographics that YUO yourself are suggesting.

Got you over a barrel? I think so...

It is a matter of scale, WITHIN a given campaign. I fail to see how comparisons BETWEEN campaigns are that interesting.

iirc, you're a maths man. How about a formula?

20th level PC in 20th-as-max-level-campaign = 10th level PC in 10th-as-max-level-campaign

No problems so far...

20th level NPC in 20th-as-max-level-campaign = 10th level NPC in 10th-as-max-level-campaign

Still looking good...

10th level NPC in 20th-as-max-level-campaign = 5th level NPC in 10th-as-max-level-campaign

Makes sense...

5th level NPC in 20th-as-max-level-campaign = Umm... let's say 2nd, maybe 3rd level NPC in 10th-as-max-level-campaign

Ooooohhhh, starting to break down, Mr 'Psychological reasons'...

1st level NPC in 20th-as-max-level-campaign = 1st level NPC in 10th-as-max-level-campaign

BUT WAIT!!!! A 1st level mook is now effectively TWICE AS POWERFUL (being only one-tenth the power of the highest level character in the world, as opposed to one-twentieth in a 20-level campaign).

See, the arbitrary empowering of the common man in order to reduce magic levels in a setting just doesn't sit right with me, hong.

Maybe I need to see a shrink?

 

[hong]

You're completely (and, I suspect, deliberately) missing the point.

YUO are the one saying we should change the by-the-book demographics by halving the levels of everybody to accomodate 10th-as-pinnacle power levels.

ME = saying that it is impossible to halve the 1st level mook inherent in both by-the-book demographics AND the just-stop-at-10th-level-for-chrissakes demographics that YUO yourself are suggesting.

See other thread on difference between 1st and 10th level.

Got you over a barrel? I think so...

...

Maybe I need to see a shrink?

Snowie, snowie, snowie.