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

[Bendris Noulg]

After reading through several pages on this thread, I realised that the poster were mostly DMs arguing either for or against low magic, grim and gritty campaign settings.

Being on that thread, and being both a GM and player...

I much prefer LM/GnG. Aside from my wife's Oathbound game, I have no desire or intentions to play High Magic again, and probably won't.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

If done right say like Midnight with a legit reasons as to way there is not that many magic items then yes. If not and it’s just the DM choice to say hey there are nothing over a +1 sword in Faerûn then I’m sure I will find it tedious quickly.

Honestly, anything can be fun if you have a great DM and fellow players.

 

[milotha]

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.

Your argument is specious. There are also high level NPC fighters in the world in "low magic grim and gritty" games. They are so many powerful NPC fighters that you don't even think that you're ever going to matter.

In grim and gritty low level magic games, I find that there are almost no spell casters worth speaking of, and those spell casters can have their buts handed to them by even low level fighters. This is why I don't like playing D&D in those settings. I like playing spell casters and nerfing them out isn't for me.

The arms race analogy is not appropriate to gaming. Truthfully speaking, the GM can chose to kill your character at a moments notice whether you are in a high magic, normal magic or low magic game, whether you are in a high level, mid level or low level campaign. Yes, this would make them a bad GM on a power trip in my book.

As players level, the challenges that they face change, and if you want to play at low levels, that's fine with me.

 

[Elf Witch]

I didn't vote because what I like was not offered. I like low magic where magic is not common and it has some mystery attached to it. That there are only a handful of wizards in the world. I played in a game like this as a sorcerer and it was a blast knowing that as time went on my character was one of the most powerful spellcasters in the world.

I hate grim and gritty since I get into character development I do not enjoy playing if there is a big chance of death in every session.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Your argument is specious. There are also high level NPC fighters in the world in "low magic grim and gritty" games. They are so many powerful NPC fighters that you don't even think that you're ever going to matter.

I wouldn't say that. A high-level wizard can alter the shape of a game world *much* more than a high-level fighter. While a 10th-level fighter and a 10th-level wizard are about equally useful in a PC party, a 10th-level NPC wizard can have much more impact on the world for good or evil and present much more of a threat than a 10th-level NPC fighter. If I'm a level 5 fighter, I know that I can steer clear of the big bad warrior, develop a plan and gather some allies, and eventually take him down. If I'm a level 5 wizard, I know that the level 10 wizard will know what I'm up to and can basically kill me any time he wants. But, having said that, perhaps you are right - maybe the problem with the DMG demographics is simply that it postulates too many high-level characters overall.

The arms race analogy is not appropriate to gaming. Truthfully speaking, the GM can chose to kill your character at a moments notice whether you are in a high magic, normal magic or low magic game, whether you are in a high level, mid level or low level campaign. Yes, this would make them a bad GM on a power trip in my book.

No offense, but that isn't what I was talking about. I was discussing the arms race between the PCs and the NPCs, not the players and the DM. What I'm talking about is the DM having his NPCs react plausibly and consistently to a world in which there are as many wizards as the DMG says there are.
Let's say I'm playing a wizard in a low-magic world. I can turn invisible, which gives me a neat ability. But, in a standard-magic world, see invisibility spells should be everywhere, as should be guard dogs and tripwires at every enemy camp, flour on the floor of shops, and every other plausible counter-measure. Every orc tribe will have thought "how can we keep out invisible attackers?" That's just a logical conclusion of having so many wizards and sorcerers around, not rat-bastard DM'ing, but it makes invisibility is a lot less useful. Likewise, in a standard-magic world, if gorgon's blood blocks teleport, then many people would logically keep herds of the beasts and most fortresses would have gorgon's-blood mortar, so teleport is less useful. The usefulness of a PC wizard's tricks is based on how many magical resources the opponents have.

Low-magic or standard-magic doesn't matter per se, only the amount of PC magic relative to what most foes are prepared for. And, again, I'm not talking about nerfing PC abilities.

 

[Nifft]

Game fun-ness is not directly related to how much my character outshines everyone else on the field of battle. There are other forms of entertainment besides ego-stroking.

-- N

 

[Alcareru]

I just like standard DnD, high magic and all. /shrug but then again Im kinda set in my ways.

Dang kids stoday and your loud music..when I was your age....

 

[Brother MacLaren]

In my opinion, a *logical* standard-magic world has magic so commonplace that defenses against magic would be equally commonplace. And therefore, most uses of magic by PCs would be frustrated by various counter-measures. Not fun. That's not rat-bastard DM'ing, that's just NPCs acting halfway intelligent.
The only way to make it fun is for the DM to say that, despite the prevalence of magic, many of your opponents won't be prepared for every trick in your book. Which is what (in my experience) most DMs do. Not every guard on the city watch has a rope tied to a bell 20' away to counteract silenced attackers. Not every throne room is lined with lead. Not every band of gnolls will attack, flee while the buffs wear off, and attack again. So in a world where every village has a wizard, the DM has to have the NPCs act a little stupid in regard to magic.

 

[drothgery]

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.

It's not a problem if you're the one playing the wizard. It's a problem if you're the one playing the fighter, because rare casters probably means rare magic items (unless it's really easy for the few spellcasters to make magic items), and that in turn means that the wizard is going to outshine the fighter, who can't keep up with the wizard without magic weapons and armor. And it's problem if you're the DM, because the wizard is the star, and the fighter is complaining that he thought this was going to be a low-magic game.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

It's not a problem if you're the one playing the wizard. It's a problem if you're the one playing the fighter, because rare casters probably means rare magic items (unless it's really easy for the few spellcasters to make magic items), and that in turn means that the wizard is going to outshine the fighter, who can't keep up with the wizard without magic weapons and armor. And it's problem if you're the DM, because the wizard is the star, and the fighter is complaining that he thought this was going to be a low-magic game.

Good point. Such a game would need to facilitate magic item creation so the wizard can help his party members, or would need non-magical alternatives to keep up (such as adamantine weapons). Or, you could say the world either has had more wizards in the past or has had a few wizards at a time over thousands of years, so the items are still there to be found in dungeons, dragon's hoards, buried treasure, etc. I used to feel the Basic and Expert sets had this feel, though I could be mistaken. I suppose when I said it was no problem I was thinking "it could be a lot of fun for the 7th-level PC wizard to be the highest-level wizard in a barony"