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

[Erebus]

I prefer "low fantasy" since in the games I've played there is usually more emphasis on story and roleplaying rather than the cool abilities and/or items a character possesses. I don't see "low fantasy" as hopeless or depressing, but I think that it usually holds a sense of realism I can't find in a typical high magic D&D game. Of course, that could just be the majority of the people I've played with in the past didn't see D&D as a game in which to roleplay but rather rollplay. I'm not saying either one is inherently better, I just happen to prefer the former.

 

[Psion]

I prefer "low fantasy" since in the games I've played there is usually more emphasis on story and roleplaying rather than the cool abilities and/or items a character possesses.

See, that's the exact opposite of my impression. I have a harder time worrying about an ongoing plot if I am not motivated by the plot, but by getting dinner.

Of course this is, admittedly, the extreme end, but it is the sort of experience I have had.

 

[Krieg]

What I have absolutely no interest in is hopeless games. If the BBEG can't ever be defeated, if everything the PCs do eventually turns to dust and ashes, and no force for good can ever triumph, then I'll be moving on to a different campaign.

Ah, but if it is handled right you'll never know that in the end the struggle is for naught.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

3) I've noticed that many of the GMs who are discussing wanting to play a "low magic grim and gritty" setting also stress a high degree of "realism" in their games. Many state that their are inconsistencies and way too oneupmanship associated with high/normal magic and they would rather do with out these problems. That there are too many world shaking consequences that they can't deal with. That's fine. I can completely understand it.

I've said things like this. I fully admit that magic produces many world shaking consquences that I can't deal with. I would also say that it produces many world shaking consequences that NO game designer or DM can deal with. While most DMs and designers (myself included) can manage to deal with a great many of the inconsistencies associated with trying to correlate a given magic level with our established setting appearance, and a great many of the logical impacts of having certain spells, I don't think there is a single one that gets it all. So "can't" is appropriate, but the question is the "too many" part of your last sentence.

Can I accept some level of inconsistencies between the stated level of magic and the way the world looks? Can I be happy with having only some of the economic impacts quantified? Sure. Everyone can. The exact level depends on the feel of the campaign, the types of adventures I'll be running, and the game's expected duration. If the DM likes my idea to play a rogue who builds a merchant empire, then the DM had better have seriously thought about how magic affects trade in his world (fabrication, transportation, negotiation, supply and demand).

B) Those types of players that have a higher level of suspending their disbelief. As is true when one goes to the movies. You can ignore minor unimportant plot holes and still have a good time. It doesn't matter that there are all these ramifications of spells. Some sort of explanation is fine.- "normal or high magic"

See, here's the difference: I can go to a movie and suspend disbelief much easier than if I'm watching a TV series. I watch Highlander or Buffy for several seasons, and eventually I wonder how the outside world reacts to the events of the series. If the writers act like the outside world doesn't ask questions about the repeated headless bodies or monsters walking around, it starts to grate. For a movie, that's not a problem in the least.

Likewise, I can more easily accept "DMG-level magic but the world looks kinda medieval" in a short campaign. Or in one where "the outside world" is mostly a place to rest between adventures.

 

[the Jester]

The D&D world scales because the GM scales it. If they didn't they would be a bad GM.

I respectfully disagree.

My campaign world doesn't scale. I think I'm a good dm.

A few examples:

There's an island called Blendorag, where a place called the Stinking Pit exists. This is known to be home to a pit fiend. If a low-level party, knowing this, chooses to go to Blendorag, should the pit fiend suddenly become a hobgoblin?

The party in my game ranges from 18th-22nd level at this point. One of the pcs (whose player seems to have dropped out for now) just got 'written out' of the main story because of an orcish insurrection that required his attention. Not 20th level orcs, just orcs (with giant allies, but still).

The commoner on the street is prolly 1st level. The toughest warrior in a small village is often 2nd level, sometimes even 1st. Just because you're 20th level doesn't mean the DC on your Knowledge (nobility and royalty) check to recognize the Baron of Var's flag is 35, it's prolly the same DC 15-20 that it was at 1st level.

The difference- the reason that higher-level pcs have higher-level encounters- is that they seek them out. At 1st level, the young cleric says, "Bile Mountain? Are you crazy?? That place is supposedly run by a beholder!" At 20th level, he says, "Hey, let's go wipe out a mountain full of beholders!" You go to the Stinking Pit when you're 20th level, not when you're 1st level.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The difference- the reason that higher-level pcs have higher-level encounters- is that they seek them out. At 1st level, the young cleric says, "Bile Mountain? Are you crazy?? That place is supposedly run by a beholder!" At 20th level, he says, "Hey, let's go wipe out a mountain full of beholders!" You go to the Stinking Pit when you're 20th level, not when you're 1st level.

I think being higher level lso changes the nature of an encounter to make it more challanging. For instance, your party is traveling between towns when you encounter a slaver caravan. You don't like slavery, so...

When you are first level, you get away from the guards who come upon you while chasing a runaway. Or maybe you don't and later have to stage your own escape.

When you are fifth level, you see the runaway and guards before they get to you, ambush the guards and get a free follower.

When you are tenth level, you rescue the runaway then proceed to ambush the entire caravan, free all of the slaves and send a stern warning home with the surviving guards.

When you are 20th level, you take over the caravan, take it into its home base in disguise and wipe out or rehabilitate as needed the entire slaver consortium as a warmup to changing the nature of the country you are now in.

The encounter has not strictly scaled - the nature of the caravan and the first hint the party has of them is the same. But the power level of the party changes the encounter.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Erebus]

See, that's the exact opposite of my impression. I have a harder time worrying about an ongoing plot if I am not motivated by the plot, but by getting dinner.

Of course this is, admittedly, the extreme end, but it is the sort of experience I have had.

No, I agree. Things like that should be superfluous to the plot unless the setting itself dictates such a necessity (i.e. Dark Sun) and I'm not very keen on games that focus primarily on "surviving" to the exclusion of all else. I think there has to be some consequence to the actions of the heroes, some point to it all.

Granted, "high fantasy" and "low fantasy" can both meet this need, but it seems to me the decisions, actions, and outcomes in "low fantasy" tend to carry more weight since they often require more personal investment on the part of PCs. Is it really self-sacrifice if you're going to be raised the next day? It seems like death is more or less a minor inconvenience in a lot of the standard D&D games I've played in. One of my characters in a Dragonlance game had to die 3 times before I finally decided he wanted to stay dead since the party cleric could easily bring him back to life with but a night's rest.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sheesh, I can't believe I missed this thread.

I prefer to play low-magic, mainly because the focus on magic items is annoying. I'm not too interested in overly nerfing magic, however, although nerfing a few spells like invisibility would be great.

This is why I prefer D20 Modern - even if the DM isn't willing to directly convert the fighter, ranger or druid classes it's still quite flavorful for DnD.

(PS I know mastercraft bonuses can get insane, but as far as my GM knows they can only reach +1, and I hope he never learns different.)

 

[Berandor]

I prefer low-magic, mostly because I find many things possible with D&D magic to be too good, nerfing other classes in the process.

However, I mostly want to address the idea of a scaling world. I agree that the world doesn't scale with the players (at least not fully), even though most encounters will be scaled to their level.
What I don't agree with is the notion of "player stupidity" when they choose to confront a threat that is obviously more powerful than they are, leading to their certain doom. As a DM, I think it's too easy to shrug and get the 9th-level spells out when the 3rd-level party arrives.
You can impose barriers impossible for them to bypass at low levels, play up the menace, have the powerful monster/NPC toy with the group and dismiss them, have them be lucky, etc. Have the wizard's tower surrounded by an aura of despair that turns away everyone below 5HD. You can make a great encounter out of it, with the pit fiend laughing at the measly players who wouldn't be able to hurt it if they suprised it in its sleep.
Some of my NPCs style themselves to be greater than they are. I've even had a Wiz1 calling himself Archmage just because he could. These NPCs might get their come-uppance, or they might succesfully bluff their way through society. I wouldn't want my players to believe all these claims blindly just because if they chose not to, they'd be dead in a minute.
Indeed, while I wouldn't go so far as to call it bad DMing, I'd definitely call it inflexible.

 

[S'mon]

Berandor, I somewhat agree. If the PCs are 1st level nobodies, the CR20 BBEG is no more likely to personally attack them than he is to attack any other group of 1st-level nobodies. If they seek him out, more likely they'll run into one of his EL4-6 guard patrols before they meet him, and they'll have a chance to escape.
Or, in worse case scenario where they meet a flying red dragon, _and_ the red dragon is actually hunting rather than just flying by on the way to somewhere else. The dragon isn't likely to just incinerate them, that'd destroy its meal. It'll swoop down and try to catch itself some dinner. Most likely, if the PCs immediately scatter and flee, most will survive. If they have horses, the dragon will probably go for those and maybe _all_ the PCs will survive. Of course if the PCs actually attack the dragon (passing any Fear saves), they will die, but the encounter was not inherently unsurvivable.