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

[Brother MacLaren]

Sure. Particularly when "low-magic" means "fewer NPC spellcasters in the world than the DMG assumes."

Commonplace magic really throws a wrench into any kind of reasoning. No matter what you think is going on, there's always the "or maybe it's magic" explanation. And then there's the fact that I like magic to be rare, special, feared, and feel like magic. Not like technology.
Finally, I like the medieval motif. I know, it's not *really* medieval, but I still want the world to have castles and I still want the heavy cavalry to be a greatly feared fighting force. There are ways you can do this and keep the magic, but it requires some more tweaking (maybe there are more special materials that protect against magic and are used in castle-building or full-plate-forging).

I was in a game once where our 8th-level PCs, using an airship, slaughtered an enemy army. We were just too far out of their reach. I absolutely hated that session, and afterwards wished that I had sabotaged the airship and killed my own party. It was such an outright slaughter of the magic-users versus the mundane that it was really offensive. It says "In this world, you are either magical or you are helpless." And that wasn't the DM's intent, but that's how it came out.

 

[Garmorn]

I don't like D&D ran low magic. While I think d20 is quite capable of ite D&D has to be hack far to much, and it always dificult for me to change my base assumptions on how thinks work.

I do enjoy it in other systems. There are two ways other systems approach it. The first is like Rolemaster where spell casters are not more powerfull then an equal level fighter up to around 30th level and where you can add or drop magic with out actualy making much difference in the abilities of the non spell casting classes. The second are like Harn where magic is just so rare and difficult to use and is not very powerfull until very late in the life of a character.

I would not mind if some one created a d20 based system but every thing from BAB to every spell would have to be reworked.

 

[milotha]

I voted no - no to the low magic portion of the question.

I prefer to play in a standard magic game. I enjoy playing spell casters, and I find that low magic settings are generally so biased against spell casters that you might as well hang up your dice bag and sit at the table with folded hands if you chose to play one.

I think D&D really loses something when you take out the spell caster classes. There are a lot of other systems out there that run a more "low magic" feel, and if I wanted to play in a "low magic" game, I'd play one of those. Part of what appeals to me about D&D is the magic system, and nerfing it detracts from the flavor of the game for me.

I also find that many of the GMs that end up running low magic grim and gritty games have fallen down a slippery slope of denying player abilities so it doesn't ruin their precious plots. In my 25 years of role playing, I find that these are usually bad GMs and that playing under them is no fun. Therefore, I view any campaign that is labelled "grim and gritty low level magic" as a warning bell. Hey, why has the GM chosen to run this type of campaign. Was it really a flavour thing, or are they just a control freak.

Many of these GMs make up for this poor GMing ability with bluster about how macho and better D&D is under a "low magic" system, as if one isn't truly a player until one can play under these settings. As if denying spell casting and healing prevents munchkins and that "normal" levels of magic prevents creative role playing.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I like magic. Although, I played in a Spycraft game run by PirateCat during a game day and that is one of the best games I have ever played in and it was no magic.

But as far as D&D goes, I just see magic as a part of fantasy. I almost always play a spellcaster and coming up with creative uses for my spells is one of my favorite things about the game.

~Sheri

 

[drothgery]

I voted "I have no preference", but I'd say that I don't really like D&D in a low-magic** setting; there are other games (both d20 and otherwise) that handle it better.

** low magic meaning any combination of Rare Magic Items, Rare Spellcasters, and Less Powerful Spellcasters.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I see "rare NPC spellcasters" as an example of a low-magic setting that benefits PC spellcasters. And that's not a problem at all. Frankly, I'd be much happier playing a full-PHB-power wizard in a land where there are only 50 wizards total than playing one in a land in which every large town has a legendary-level caster (11+) and every castle is fortified with gorgon's-blood mortar.
Low-magic settings can make the PCs seem more special. You don't have to nerf PC abilities at all to have a low-magic setting - just reduce the NPC casters. (This would only impact PC abilities by cutting out magic colleges, libraries, and stores, none of which I like as a player anyway)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I voted no - no to the low magic portion of the question.

I prefer to play in a standard magic game. I enjoy playing spell casters, and I find that low magic settings are generally so biased against spell casters that you might as well hang up your dice bag and sit at the table with folded hands if you chose to play one.

Funny. I perceive standard-magic games as "There are so many powerful NPC casters who are so much higher level than you, don't even think you're ever going to matter." The DMG guidelines lead to an insane amount of high-level wizards in the world. Even non-casting foes have equipment to defend against most of your magic (see invisible, nondetection, etc.), so it's simply an arms race. I think standard-magic games are the ones biased against PC casters.

But again, I'm talking about nerfing the amount of magic in the DMG section on demographics, not about changing the abilities of casters in the PHB. My perception is that the demographics in the DMG would alter the world much more than most settings acknowledge, and turn it into something way too much like the modern world.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I didn't vote, because I'm not sure I've played in such games.

I've played in deadly games, ie at least 1 PC dies per session. Don't know if they count as "grim".

I'm playing in a low-magic game right now. Didn't like it at first because I had a Wizard (decided to make a Wizard before I knew how much the world was low-magic) who didn't have access to many spells AND was stuck 2 levels lower than the rest of the party. That character died (Altamont Ravenard in my sig) and was replaced by Zako Villipend, Barb/Rogue who's more in line with the rest of the party (Barb, Pal, Fig, Cleric).

I wouldn't mind Grim & Low-magic, as long as the DM knows how to handle it.

AR

 

[EricNoah]

Like 'em both; and as always the skill of the DM and the amount of thought/preparation that has gone into the core assumptions of the setting, the better either type of game will be.

 

[doghead]

I've played quite a few different systems. Low magic, high magic, no magic. In a fantasy game, all other things being equal, I prefer low magic games with a more grim feel.

Its just a personal taste thing.