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

[kamosa]

See, that's why I find the full consequences of a high-magic world just impossible to really wrap my brain around. I can come up with a few hundred examples like that one of what the effect would be and how it would impact economics and culture, but only a few hundred. There are so many impacts that I'd be missing. Like, with 3.0 polymorph (er, one of their many versions), I figured that the evil hobgoblin empire would have polymorphed as many of their warriors as possible into stone giants. But since I wanted their forces to be hobgoblins, not a stone giants with hobgoblin HP, I had to think of some reason why they wouldn't have done that. Hard to do, when the stone giant option is so effective.

That said, while my preference for trying to design or play in an internally consistent world is rarer-than-normal magic, I can also say "Let's just not worry about it" and play in an admittedly inconsistent world in which magic is common and yet the world still looks vaguely medievalish and in which most people are still farmers.

That's cool. I guess in my mind there are so many inconsistancies in fantasy that spending time or effort to try to get rid of all of them is a exorcise in futility. When I think of "hobgoblin" like situations, where there is an obvious munchkin tactic, I guess I try to look at how a society would react to those tactics. Would the warriors allow themselves to be changed into another species? Would the new stone giants form a revolt against the weaker king? For that matter, would the families of those hoboblin warriors rise up against a leader that was destroying their community in that fashion?

My last campaign was a merchant campaign. The characters worked for a powerful trading house as a special forces unit that "solved" corporate problems. One of the key issues brought up was teleport and how this would effect trade. IE, with teleport, would you even have ships and caravans and the like. At that time, in the real world, the dock workers on the west coast were engauged in a slow down to protest technology that they percieved would threaten their job. So, taking a cue from this, I ruled that the key ports had passed bans on teleportation of goods into a cities as a protective measure for their dock workers. Sure, there was smuggling, but most of the powerful houses went along with the ban because they wanted to be on the up and up with these towns.

Cheesy? yes. arbitrary? yes. But it added a lot of flavor to the game, didn't nerf the spell and dealt with a lot of the consistancy issues on this and other similar problems. Players understood that the mundains of the world were fearful of magic and didn't want to be overrun by a few nerds with wands. I always hinted that these rules had been put in place with some violence that the powerful had lost. Real french revolution stuff.

When you mentioned the Gorgon bleeding example, I had in my head a wonderfully evil encounter where the party is trying to knock out a gorgon without hurting it, then transporting it to some secure location, then trying to explain to the authorities what happened when it accidently breathed on the shop keeper.

One man's headache is another man's adventure idea.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

...Worlds where ships soar through the air, towers pierce the clouds, cities float on water or in the air...

Actually, these things can be in a low magic setting.

If it's rare magic, than these things have most likely been built by the few individuals that are capable of such magic.

If it's a weak magic campaign, than these things have been created by a deity or are relics left behind by ancient empires that wielded powerful magics no longer within the scope of mortal abilities.

The difference between these and high magic settings would be frequency and impact; In a high magic setting, demographics (as the DMG presents them) would indicate that quite a few people are capable of producing these effects and thus their occurance is more common (perhaps not "everyday" common, but common enough to not be a big surprise or shock). In a low magic setting, their occurance are often unique or unique-within-a-finite-number, with their inclusion often being a turning point or major event within a campaign.

Here is a set of (possible) examples in the difference regarding air ships...

Weak Magic: One or two hidden away within the treasure hoard of a dragon or within the ruins of a fallen city. The PCs may find one and even learn to use it, but creation of a new one is beyond their capabilities.

Rare Magic: A dozen or so, most owned by individual owners, with the secret of their creation carefully guarded by those that know it. The PCs may find one, learn to use it, and possibly even create their own.

High Magic: Fleets of air ships, trans-continental guilds maintain trade and commerce, laws and royal mandates designate "no fly zones" and tax air ships and travel in the same manner that real-world automobiles and air travel is, etc. Purchasing one is entirely possible, or one can be made with the same ratio of investment as any other magic item.

 

[Desdichado]

I prefer LM/GnG as a player, as a GM and as a reader. I simply prefer it all around.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

That's cool. I guess in my mind there are so many inconsistancies in fantasy that spending time or effort to try to get rid of all of them is a exorcise in futility. When I think of "hobgoblin" like situations, where there is an obvious munchkin tactic, I guess I try to look at how a society would react to those tactics. Would the warriors allow themselves to be changed into another species? Would the new stone giants form a revolt against the weaker king? For that matter, would the families of those hoboblin warriors rise up against a leader that was destroying their community in that fashion?

Right. You have to use role-playing based constraints, because mechanically a given option may be the most advantageous thing to do. And doing the most advantageous thing is "munchkin-y", but it is also "Economics 101." Someone in the world is going to be doing it, and you need some of your bad guys to be acting "optimally." If none of the role-playing constraints are plausible given how you've defined a species (e.g., "Hobgoblins don't have families, they spring out of the ground at goblin size from the blood of dead hobgoblin warriors"), you may have to use a mechanical constraint.

One man's headache is another man's adventure idea.

Yeah, I was thinking that as I was typing it up. Capturing nasty beasties alive can be a fun adventure (once had some innovative PCs toss a Potion of Dimunition down a Tyrannosaur's throat)

 

[d4]

We don't really have a system for scaling these types of encounters and many GM's don't want to scale these encounters. So, they cripple the ability of the casters to advance in MR levels. That is why I say that those GM's want to still play at low levels, but won't admit it.

low magic levels, yes. not low-level characters as the game describes them in reference to their other abilities.

so all you've really said is that low magic GMs prefer to play at low magic levels. i don't see any here who are afraid to admit that.

what we don't assume, though you seem to be here, is that high-level adventuring must be accompanied by high magic.

They want to scale the other two types of play, use of skills and the CR of the monsters, but they don't want to deal with the increase of the parties ability to challenge MR.

yep. but that still doesn't equate to preferring low-level gaming, as i mentioned in a previous post.

 

[kamosa]

low magic levels, yes. not low-level characters as the game describes them in reference to their other abilities.

so all you've really said is that low magic GMs prefer to play at low magic levels. i don't see any here who are afraid to admit that.

what we don't assume, though you seem to be here, is that high-level adventuring must be accompanied by high magic.


yep. but that still doesn't equate to preferring low-level gaming, as i mentioned in a previous post.

Besides BAB, feats and skills what abilities are you refering to? If the relative success rates stay the same for melee combat and skill challenges, what has changed by advancing levels?

 

[kamosa]

Right. You have to use role-playing based constraints, because mechanically a given option may be the most advantageous thing to do. And doing the most advantageous thing is "munchkin-y", but it is also "Economics 101." Someone in the world is going to be doing it, and you need some of your bad guys to be acting "optimally." If none of the role-playing constraints are plausible given how you've defined a species (e.g., "Hobgoblins don't have families, they spring out of the ground at goblin size from the blood of dead hobgoblin warriors"), you may have to use a mechanical constraint.

True, but the most munchkin-y thing to do isn't always the most advantageous thing to do. Sometimes strength makes you an enemy and you get taken out. From an evolutionary standpoint, if you compete for resources with a dominate species, your likely to get rubbed out by that species.

While I have great respect for the stone giants of the campaign world, they pale in comparison to the power of a massed of army, or an entire temple orders power. If a relatively benign hobgoblin clan started showing up as giants, you can bet they would be opposed and gone after by powerful establishments like paladin orders or mages guilds. If they stay small, those powerful organization use their resources else where and the clan survives.

Sort of a nail that sticks up gets hammered theory of how the world works.

Role playing gimic, sure. I got no problem admitting that. But I think as a broad rule it makes those situations seem like exceptions and not the rule of a world. When they arise they feel like they need to get dealt with, not ignored because they are status quo.

 

[d4]

Besides BAB, feats and skills what abilities are you refering to? If the relative success rates stay the same for melee combat and skill challenges, what has changed by advancing levels?

i'm not really sure what you mean by "relative success rate."

at 1st level, the fighter is scared about meeting that orc with a greataxe. at 20th level -- even with no magic items -- the fighter can slaughter an entire orc raiding party or go toe-to-toe with a powerful giant alone. a 1st-level (human) fighter has 3 feats -- three things he can do that most other people can't. at 20th level, he has many, many more feats (and more powerful ones), greatly increasing his power and making him head-and-shoulders above the people around him. there's a definite change in what he is capable of accomplishing.

similarly at 1st level, the rogue might have difficulty sneaking past that eagle-eyed sentry. at 20th level -- even without magic items -- the rogue can sneak into the heavily-defended castle to assassinate the evil warlord and get back out again without anyone knowing he was even there.

at 1st level, the party is saving the little farming village from some marauding goblins. at 20th level, the party is leading the kingdom's army into battle against the forces of the evil empire.

i don't know; i see a definite shift from low to high levels -- even without increasing the party's magic capabilities. things definitely change over the course of the campaign -- the PCs improve and the challenges become increasingly greater. you don't need magic to accomplish that.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

You know, this reminds me of recently, in one of the threads for my own low to moderate magic game (see sig) I posted a recap of some of the variosu plot elements, and one of the players commented of one of the tasks before them that they never had the resources to accomplish (find someone and get back what he has allegedly taken), but something about that bugged me.

Because while they may not have scrying magics, or the abiltiy to fly around or teleport to get places quickly, there is nothing stopping them from creating (for example) a network of friends, informants and spies in the villages they visit to seek out word of this person and if he has passed through, and where he might be going or who he talked to or was with, etc. . .

Now I am not saying they had to do this (they have plenty of other quests to follow and I am not a DM to ever make the PCs do anything and my players know well-enough by now that one way to assuredly raise my ire is to do something because they think I want them to), but it irked me for him to say they did not have the resources.

Maybe I am too influenced by watching I, Claudius, but the way to get thing accomplished is often by interacting with the setting on an interpersonal level, and not a purely gee-whiz using Commune (or similar spells) as the setting's equivalent of Google.

Now in my case, I think what the player was really referring to was feeling overwhelmed by all the things the party had to deal with has become involved in, which forces them to make choices about what to prioritize - But that is part of the game you have to figure out, while I think when you have easy access to all kinds of spells and magic things become more linear as "side-concerns" can be cleared up rather quickly with a spell or item or two.

 

[kamosa]

i'm not really sure what you mean by "relative success rate."

at 1st level, the fighter is scared about meeting that orc with a greataxe. at 20th level -- even with no magic items -- the fighter can slaughter an entire orc raiding party or go toe-to-toe with a powerful giant alone. a 1st-level (human) fighter has 3 feats -- three things he can do that most other people can't. at 20th level, he has many, many more feats (and more powerful ones), greatly increasing his power and making him head-and-shoulders above the people around him. there's a definite change in what he is capable of accomplishing.

similarly at 1st level, the rogue might have difficulty sneaking past that eagle-eyed sentry. at 20th level -- even without magic items -- the rogue can sneak into the heavily-defended castle to assassinate the evil warlord and get back out again without anyone knowing he was even there.

at 1st level, the party is saving the little farming village from some marauding goblins. at 20th level, the party is leading the kingdom's army into battle against the forces of the evil empire.

i don't know; i see a definite shift from low to high levels -- even without increasing the party's magic capabilities. things definitely change over the course of the campaign -- the PCs improve and the challenges become increasingly greater. you don't need magic to accomplish that.

I guess by relative I mean at first level it takes a couple rounds on average for a character to take out an orc, and the PC has a very good chance of dying. At 10th level the same fighter is now fighting giants, but the combat still takes a few rounds and the player still has a very good chance of dying.

Only the opponent really changes. The mechanic and the out comes are almost identical.

So you face DC 15 sentries when you are 1st level, and on a 10 or better they don't hear you. At 10th level you have DC 25 sentries. On a 10 or better you sneak by them. No game difference, only a roleplaying difference in our mind.

Again, the mechanic doesn't change, just the opponent. That's what I mean by relatively doesn't change.