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

[Nightfall]

I enjoy campaigns where I can kick ass. If that means I'm always going fighter/warmain, I'm good with that. In any event fighting stuff is fine. Killing evil is my business and business is good.

Nifft,

That may be so, but why do you think we still enjoy games like FPS and fighting games? Cause it's all about the bloodshed. It's connecting with our primal selves. That's what I enjoy.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Actually, this is a "half-empty" view of things. See it from the side of how the GM would counter this...

In a standard campaign, the Fighter would gain a simple sword, than masterwork, +1, +1/holy, +2/holy, +3/holy, +3/holy/vorpal, etc. etc. etc., the weapon climbing in relation to the Fighter's level.

In the scenario you describe, what would likely happen (if there was a PC spellcaster) is that the Fighter would go from simple, to masterwork, than additional masterworks (per HoHF: Dwarves, Arms & Armor, Mercenaries, and other sources), and then around 10th Level reclaiming a mighty weapon of valor, a +5/Holy/Vorpal weapon and keeping it for the remainder of his career.

And that's just one example from an infinity of possibilities.

The problem you illustrate as being a feature of LM games with a spellcaster PC isn't a feature of LM games; It's bad game mastering.

 

[Nightfall]

Not to mention having access to strange materials such as starmetal and starmilk say from When the Sky Falls, makes for a way to overcome rare magical weapons with strangely forged weapons from metals not of this world.

 

[Liolel]

I voted no. I play D&D to escape from reality at least thats one of the reasons. I can see myself enjoying certain low magic campaigns (those that aim to make magic unique, not take it away almost all together) but I just can't see myself liking the grim and gritty style of play. This is all from what I've heard other people say not my own experince for I've never played in games with those attributes so I would give those games at least a chance.

 

[randomling]

I voted yes. Of all the games I'm playing in, the one I find most exciting is the low-level (currently 3rd) Midnight game. That feeling of "living on a knife edge" is great - you're always worried your character's about to die!

(Yep. I enjoy that.)

 

[Silver Moon]

I'll put in another vote in favor of low magic. We're currently playing out a western campaign (a D&D/Boot Hill hybrid) which is a very low magic world. At the recent "O.K. Corral" module the druid/bard changed the outcomes of two major gunfights just by using a pair of cantrips and one first level spell.

 

[Humanophile]

Given the choice between high or low magic, I prefer low, but that's because low-magic games restrict the "magic as a cheap DM plot device" that I've seen too much of. I also like how lower magic, lower power games if done right emphasize how heroic the player characters are, but that requires a group that's willing to not abuse their power, and unfortunately that's far less common than it should be.

Again, Grim&Gritty only wins my "applause" because the other extreme is no risk. And no risk is quite frankly no fun. (Yes, sometimes campaigns where you're at no physical risk are enjoyable. Those have to have something else at risk for characters to work at, and you have to keep ego-tripping players out who turn around and insert their characters into all sorts of derring-do.) I like to feel risk, because otherwise my achievements feel hollow. And while I do like some kind of OH ****! mechanic to cover me in trying times (a'la splatpoint systems), I prefer to attribute my winning to my wits and my character, not a coddling DM and/or my items.

But both of these positions are more "extreme A is better than extreme B". a "no magic, gutter trash" is only more fun than a "no risk superheros" game, and both of those can be fun to try on for a spell. Naturally, the ideal is somewhere in between.

 

[doghead]

When it comes down to it, its all pretty close. I'm not really sure what I was expecting the results to be, but I was somewhat surprised at how even it is.

Roughly 36% 36% and 28% currently.

 

[tonym]

I voted no to low-magic.

Low-magic indicates that the DM wants his or her Players to have fewer options and to behave more predictably.

BLEECCCHHH!



Tony M

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Low-magic indicates that the DM wants his or her Players to have fewer options and to behave more predictably.

Y'know, I read this accusation a lot, and I have to ask: Is this really the GM forcing players to be predictable?

It seems to me that it's more related to the player; without all the magic options, they can't come up with anything imaginative, and thus try to blame to GM for their own lacking of creativity. This only adds weight to the assertion that magic is a crutch for many players; remove the crutch and they can't walk.