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

[Ghostknight]

Well, I missed this thread till now but here goes -

I prefer standard magic settings. As a DM I can easily control how much magic is used or how it is used. In the game I a starting off here (see my sig) by definition magic is going need to be fairly prevelant (with devils running the show players are going to have their work cut out for them).

But at the same time characters are going to have to tone down on their usage of magic - flying around or teleporting all over the place is going to attract attention - not something really desirable when the locals are all part of a LE hierarchy with an archd -devil at the top (yep, right there in the world with them). So high magic, but controlled usage.

In terms of scaling - I expect players to have the good sense to hide and cut and run when necessary. Otherwise they are going to be badly mauled (hey - rabbits with fiendish taint may not be quite the same as the one from the Holy Grail but they are not the same as the ones in the pet store down the road either!)

 

[gideonn]

low magic

Since I am actually playing in a low magic campaign, first time ever, one that was billed as such has turned out to be one, I think I can reply.

To date, with the PCs at levels 2-3, there is one magic weapon, a dagger! some arcane scrolls, and that is about it. The PCs are 3 rogues, 1 fighter, 1 cleric.

And, I am enjoying it more than those with more magic for a number of reasons.

First, there has yet to be the greed fight over who gets what, mainly cause there is so little to get.

Second, we are always on edge because we have no mighty magic to enforce our will. We have to role play, conive, convince, make deals, do tasks, in order to get anywhere.

Third, what began as a motley crew of solo PCs has bonded like none i have ever been part of, because if we do not, we will not last long. And ,no I do not think we are being 'played' here. This is a reasonable way that things could work out. Those movies which portray thieves, with separate agendas, somehow managing to work together, are reflective of this particular group.

Fourth, from the player behind the PC angle, we are not friends, just guys who get together with this DM every couple of weeks to play this game. I think the tension created by low magic has bonded us better than the normal game would have.

OK, now i know that half, if not more, of the fun of role playing is the magic, cool, fantastical stuff. and if all my games were like this, well i might not be so happy. But this one is definitely different and more fun than most.

jj

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

I'm sick of low magic campaigns

One of our group's DMs went low-magic (without telling us), and soon after we hit 10th level and didn't even have enough money to cast Stoneskin, the group stopped playing D&D, so now I don't get a chance to play any more.

 

[danzig138]

One of our group's DMs went low-magic (without telling us)

So the game went low magic in the middle of it? That's wrong. As much as I love my LM games, I would never switch one in the middle, let alone without telling the players first.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Agreed. GMs like that give Low Magic a bad name.

(Go figure.)

 

[FireLance]

Hi all, thanks for the responses so far.

I guess the most compelling argument I've seen so far for preferring to play in a low-magic (though not necessarily g&g) setting is the difficulty of imagining all the implications of a world where magic is common.

I also begin to see what the essential difference between those that prefer low-magic and those that prefer high-magic might be.

i like highly-cinematic action, and that pretty much requires super-competent (high-level) PCs. however, i want them to be powerful due to intrinsic qualities like high ability scores, skills, feats, and extraordinary class abilities and not because of what i see as extrinsic qualities: magic -- whether spells or magic items.

I see magic as being intrinsic to a character, as much part of a character as high ability scores, skills, feats and extraordinary class abilities. To me, a spellcaster's ability to use magic is as integral to his character definition as a fighter's ability to fight or a rogue's ability to use skills. To me, what a character can do is more important than how he does it - the barbarian's ability to rage once per day and gain a bonus to hit and damage from higher Strength is no different from the ability to cast Divine Favor and gain a luck bonus to hit and damage, or the ability to Inspire Courage and gain a morale bonus to hit and damage.

In the same vein, the personality of a character (who he is) is more important than what he can do. What a character can do is defined by his ability scores, skills, feats, class abilities (including spellcasting) and his equipment. The real test of a character is whether anything remains after you take all of these things away. If you take away his Green Lantern ring, Hal Jordan is still an interesting character. If you take away Batman's equipment, or Superman's powers, they still have admirable qualities. Courage, determination, hope, compassion, self-sacrifice, honor, etc. ought to define a character more than his +5 longsword, or his ability to Track, or his Whirlwind Attack feat.

I guess a high-magic setting with prevalent powerful magic items does create one more factor to overshadow a character's personality, but the danger is only reduced, not eliminated by a low-magic campagin.

 

[Orius]

So which is better? I'd wager that most LM/GnG folks prefer the older method, and for several reasons.

1. More Flavorful. Creation of a magic item allowed for non-mechanical quantifiers that involved story/setting elements rather than GP/EXP expenditures.

2. Balance Factor. The GM was free to determine what an item's effect would be on the campaign and determine if obtaining the required components was difficult, easy, or even impossible, based on the needs of the setting and to keep spellcasters in check with everyone else.

3. Plot Hooks. Rather than just paying out cash as assuming access to a library and laboratory, these items needed to be acquired through game play. Finding components often involved searching/questing for it. Books of lore that introduced the methodologies of creating spells and items were easily a part of a treasure hoard. Laboratories and libraries required a location (tower, guild hall, celler, etc.) in which to be placed.

So, if anything, the streamlining of magic item creation in 3E is another example of the less flavorful environment produced by the High Magic rules as written. I have no problem with being able to make items earlier; I have a problem with the lack of control that comes from the "assumptions" (assumed Wizard research between levels that permits the picking of "any" two spells, assumed access to library/laboratory, Sorcerers that don't need either of these to gain their powers, assumed access to rare and unusual ingrediants, etc.). It's why changes are necessary to produce a different gaming environment, especially one that's LM, since just saying the world is Low Magic while leaving all the rules unchanged is simply asking for over-powered PCs to wreak havoc unchecked because the rules let them.

I will agree that the new rules have a distinct lack of flavor. Certainly I would prefer to have my players hunt down materials to create wondrous items rather than just shell out the gp and scratch the XPs off their sheets. I do have the advantages of having a fairly extensive 2e library, that includes the old rules for item creation which I can use as a guideline, plus lots and lots of old monster stats, specifically the Ecology sections in the 2e writeups which say what uses different monster parts can be put to (Monster Hunter's Association, anyone? ).

But I think you need to take into account why the lack of flavor exists in the first place: to make things easier for the less-experienced DM. The 2e rules were sort of vague on magic item creation in the DMG, which really didn't help the novice DM. So I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But I think you need to take into account why the lack of flavor exists in the first place: to make things easier for the less-experienced DM. The 2e rules were sort of vague on magic item creation in the DMG, which really didn't help the novice DM. So I don't really have a problem with it.

Oh, I agree that this is more helpful to the new GM (and new players overall). However, this also hits the crux of the problem dead-on. D&D, by default, is intended to provide simplicity. The rules are clearly defined. Character power vs Challenge risk vs Rewards and Gains. Having them clearly defined for the benefit of new players is a great advantage of d20 over the previous editions.

However, for experienced players, another issue arises: You either like the results of the default conditions or you don't. If you like it, the new rules are perfect both in presentation and balance. If, however, you don't, then changing it is very much a necessity, which is why I view D&D as an specific example of d20 in action rather being a model of how d20 is supposed to be: It assumes specific base classes and specific magic rules and specific level-to-wealth ratios. Changing the classes, the magic rules, and the level-to-wealth ratios creates a distinctly different environment. In this manner, a new environment is born from the system that will have a specific flavor, tone, and feel without having to use one-up-manship or GM's fiat (via divine interference or other methods) during game play to occomplish. Or, to put it simply, to establish a rules set that supports the environment rather than manipulating the "default" rules set at the table and hoping it turns out right.

Where the Item Creation Rules fail, in my opinion, isn't that the rules went from vague suggestions to crystal clarity, but rather went from difficult and rare to easy and common. Making them somewhat easier wouldn't have phased me so much, but the difference has a real "baby with the bathwater" feel to it.

As for special components for magic items, it is in the DMG as a variant, although I do suggest anyone interested in that element should dig up the old 2E material related to it (particularly an entire chapter in Spells & Magic that is just excellent). The DMG variant is but a minimum description, and the ideas presented in the older material flesh-out the variant nicely and easily snaps into the current Item Creation System (i.e. reduces the potential rate of item creation without actually changing the rules regarding creation).

 

[Altalazar]

To comment on magic item creation with "exotic" components -
I prefer that to XP, actually. I've always used that as an optional substitute for XP - players much prefer to use "power" items than their hard-earned XP, though actually in 3E hardly any items have been made while I was running. Pretty much only scrolls and maybe a few potions.

I prefer the "exotic" components for two reasons - one, I think XP use for making things is just cheesy, and two, it is just much more interesting to do it that way. I suppose one side benefit is that it limits what items can be created and requires questing or adventuring to get them.

For instance, one could imagine understanding why Super-Deluxe flaming swords are so rare and expensive if you find out they require the heart of an ancient red dragon to make. (To use an extreme example, probably too extreme). And if you did make one, well, the story of the slaying of the dragon would be an interesting part of the background on the blade.

 

[Orius]

However, for experienced players, another issue arises: You either like the results of the default conditions or you don't. If you like it, the new rules are perfect both in presentation and balance.

Oh, I like 3.x D&D, but I don't think it's completely perfect. I simply prefer it's flexibility to the arbitrary rigidness of earlier rules.

If, however, you don't, then changing it is very much a necessity, which is why I view D&D as an specific example of d20 in action rather being a model of how d20 is supposed to be: It assumes specific base classes and specific magic rules and specific level-to-wealth ratios. Changing the classes, the magic rules, and the level-to-wealth ratios creates a distinctly different environment. In this manner, a new environment is born from the system that will have a specific flavor, tone, and feel without having to use one-up-manship or GM's fiat (via divine interference or other methods) during game play to occomplish. Or, to put it simply, to establish a rules set that supports the environment rather than manipulating the "default" rules set at the table and hoping it turns out right.

I have no argument there.

Where the Item Creation Rules fail, in my opinion, isn't that the rules went from vague suggestions to crystal clarity, but rather went from difficult and rare to easy and common. Making them somewhat easier wouldn't have phased me so much, but the difference has a real "baby with the bathwater" feel to it.

Oh, I agree. The rules in 2e were vague, and sometimes contradictory. However, I do think that it's a little too easy in 3e. The only real difference in our views is the degree to which we agree; it would seem that I have a preference for a higher level of magic in my campaign. No big deal, for me, I'm more interested in running fun game than creating a campaign that has a literary or mythic feel.

As for special components for magic items, it is in the DMG as a variant, although I do suggest anyone interested in that element should dig up the old 2E material related to it (particularly an entire chapter in Spells & Magic that is just excellent). The DMG variant is but a minimum description, and the ideas presented in the older material flesh-out the variant nicely and easily snaps into the current Item Creation System (i.e. reduces the potential rate of item creation without actually changing the rules regarding creation).

Yeah, I did mention Spells & Magic in one of these threads a couple of days ago. It took the vague and arbitrary DMG rules and added some workable and reasonable guideline for the DM to work with. IIRC, High Level Campaigns had similar guidelines. I don 't remember exactly how much the two books had in common, but I tHink the guidelines were compatible.