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

[Bendris Noulg]

Just because magic exists in a world doesn't mean that the players lack creativity. I find that a good GM can usually inspire a group to be creative regardless of magic level. If the group is failing, maybe the GM should find a way to solve it without blaming the players.

Folks seem to be forgetting the comment I was replying to... Allow me to remind you all:

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

I'm not saying (nor, to my knowledge, has anyone said) that having high magic makes for poorer gaming ability. What I'm saying is that a player that views low magic as having fewer options and forcing predictability is a problem with the player.

1. He fails to realize that a lack of magic often creates more options; i.e., options that weren't viable alongside high magic are now viable due to the reduction or absence of magic.

2. By not having lots of magic before him, the player is incapable of conceiving more than a few options during a scenario or encounter and thus has become predictable due to his own failings.

Blaming these on the GM is simply denying that the player is dependant on magic and is unable to perform without it...

(Insert witty comparison of magic to Viagra here.)

At any rate, I have sat at a table, as a player, in a low magic game, under a brilliant GM, and have had to suffer through the (thankfully temporary) company of a player that constantly complained about the "lack of options" available. Granted, it was a 2E game, but I don't see how options are very limited when you have 30+ races, nearly a dozen classes, and over 100 Kits (and the GM was more than happy to create new Kits for the appropriate concept). They guy was simply whining, and there were five very happy people the day he called to say he was dropping out of the game (and while he never stated so directly, I'm sure the GM was relieved as well).

Which is probably why I respond to posts like the above the way I do; I know what it's like to have someone with that kind of attitude at a gaming table and they are a disruption to the flow and enjoyment of the game.

 

[kamosa]

1. He fails to realize that a lack of magic often creates more options; i.e., options that weren't viable alongside high magic are now viable due to the reduction or absence of magic.

2. By not having lots of magic before him, the player is incapable of conceiving more than a few options during a scenario or encounter and thus has become predictable due to his own failings.

You put this forward a lot in your posts. The idea that low magic creates more options. I guess I don't see that as valid. To me, most of the 'more options" people talk about when they say this are available to the players in both high and low magic. If the GM can only force different tactics and ideas by taking away powers, then that is a GM problem, not a system problem.

I've played standard magic in all my games, and my players know going in that just kicking down the door and lobbing fireballs is about the dumbest thing they can do. They know they must find contacts in the city, use ivestigative powers and in general must be creative both in combat and out. They use skills, creative fast talks, good plans (or sometimes bad plans).

Saying you can't force creative playing because the players use the same tactics is a cop out, no matter which post your responding too.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You put this forward a lot in your posts. The idea that low magic creates more options.

You seem to be mis-reading me. Consider how many times it's been said that a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 is underpowered compared to a Cleric 20 or Wizard 20. In a low magic campaign, however, Cleric 10/Wizard 10 is far more viable. And that's just one of many options that become more playable.

If the GM can only force different tactics and ideas by taking away powers, then that is a GM problem, not a system problem.

A player that can't (or won't) adapt to a different environment isn't a GM or system problem.

I've played standard magic in all my games, and my players know going in that just kicking down the door and lobbing fireballs is about the dumbest thing they can do. They know they must find contacts in the city, use ivestigative powers and in general must be creative both in combat and out. They use skills, creative fast talks, good plans (or sometimes bad plans).

Okay, which do you want: The cookie or the Bozo button?

As I said, no one is indicating that creativity and non-combat solutions are exclusive to low-magic games. Constantly returning to that point is getting annoying because it's false and distracts from the actual conversation.

Or, put it this way: The game is designed to be balanced. The DMG flat-out indicates that balance is "most important" for Kick-In-The-Door style play (DMG, p8). What folks like myself are saying is that Kick-In-The-Door style play is less viable in a LM/GnG style game because the consequences of KitD (high death rate, 20% drain of resources, etc.) aren't as easily cured, recovered from, or even applicable. In a high magic game, one with the rules are used as-written, KitD is viable unless the GM specifically designs encounters to discourage it (as you have); In a low magic game, KitD is akin to suicide just as a matter of fact.

So, please, stop indicating that people are saying what they aren't; It's a short step from there to trolldome.

Saying you can't force creative playing because the players use the same tactics is a cop out, no matter which post your responding too.

Ehr... Who said this? I think you're starting to read more in my posts than I'm actually writing.

Let's look at the example I gave earlier (me player in low magic game)... The individual in this instance rarely had more than two ideas when facing a challenge (charge and run away). While the other four players and myself were discussing the situation, and devising a multitude of possible actions, all this person had to contribute was, "well, if we had [Item A] we could [Action B]" or "if [the GM] let me have the [Item C] I asked for we could [Action D]".

This is not a GM or system problem; It's a player that has absolutely no idea how to play when not given a bunch of magic items and spells to fill the void in his creativity. Blaming that on the GM or the system, or to refer to it as "forcing" anything, is ignoring the actual problem.

 

[Uruush]

i can't really answer the poll because while i enjoy and prefer low-magic games, i hate grim & gritty games. heck, i think core D&D is too grim & gritty.

i prefer low-magic, cinematic, high-action games.

i think a better poll would be to ask about the two characteristics separately, since they by no means always go hand-in-hand.

I just wanted to comment that I agree with this. I didn't vote either, but if I could, I'd say YES, YES, YES to 'low-magic', NO PREFERENCE to 'grim', and NO to 'gritty' where:

Low-magic = something significantly less than what I see as the super-high, irreconcilable to any recognizable fantasy genre, surreal feeling, high-magic of 'core D&D'.

Grim = mood/tone of setting (I like dystopian Cyberpunk as much as 'TOON' depending on what I'm up for at the time).

Gritty = character fatality is high, and character power is low. (I like cinematic, heroic-feeling, high-action, and a high fatality rate can really disrupt the "let use D&D to tell the ongoing story of interesting characters and their heroic deeds in a realistic setting that feels like fantasy genre fiction" that using 'low-magic' is trying to achieve)

People in the other active thread on this topic are making huge assumptions about how these elements combine. While I have no doubt that many DMs that prefer low-magic are running gritty games, but I think its more likely that people running core-D&D are running gritty games where gritty = common character death. To me the whole point of lowering the magic level of core D&D is to create a fiction-simulation-friendly environment with believable recurring characters. Low-magic >< low-power or sadistic DMs that want to take away options from the players. The contrary is true in my experience.

For that matter the definition of 'Low-magic' has elsewhere been argued over whether it refers to power-level or frequency, so I don't think a poll is very helpful here.

 

[StalkingBlue]

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.)

Thank you.
I thought you were doing a brilliant job living on the knife edge last session - fighting on even when down to 0hp with no half-way competent healer in sight was heroic. Glad Jez made it.

 

[StalkingBlue]

I voted Yes - I enjoy playing in S'mon's Borderlands game, which is rare magic and with the tough combat challenges S'mon creates on a regular basis manages grittiness without any change to combat rules.

Like some other posters, I'd have preferred more poll options.

For example, I didn't particularly enjoy playing in a Dark Eye game (German RPG system), which has a fairly low-magic feel to it in the sense that magic is less powerful than in, say, a standard DnD setting. (As others have pointed out, simply making magic rare actually causes it to become more powerful, not less so; but Dark Eye's mages are fairly underpowered.)
And no: I wasn't playing a mage, I played a pure melee type.

 

[Orius]

I'd have to say no. As I stated in said thread, lmgng does not generallty appeal to me.

I might be interested in such a game if it were a d20 variant, and there was a good reason for limiting magic, but not if it was fairly close to standard D&D rules.

It would also depend on the DM. If the DM was doing low magic as a cop-out then, no definitely. But if the DM can run it without shafting the players, then I might be interested. And the DM would probably have to be someone I know is capable of running a good game.

 

[Orius]

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.

Well, also take into account how much money such defenses cost, and how rare the necessary components are. Yes, I know 3.x does gloss over this for the sake of ease, but stuff like gorgon's blood should damn well be rare and expensive. And as for herding gorgons, I'd say it would be better if gorgons were incapable of domestication, to keep the blood nice and rare. Besides, even if you could domesticate them, do you really think they'd let you cut open their necks for the blood without breathing on you? Survival instinct has to count for something.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

People in the other active thread on this topic are making huge assumptions about how these elements combine. While I have no doubt that many DMs that prefer low-magic are running gritty games, but I think its more likely that people running core-D&D are running gritty games where gritty = common character death. To me the whole point of lowering the magic level of core D&D is to create a fiction-simulation-friendly environment with believable recurring characters. Low-magic >< low-power or sadistic DMs that want to take away options from the players. The contrary is true in my experience.

For that matter the definition of 'Low-magic' has elsewhere been argued over whether it refers to power-level or frequency, so I don't think a poll is very helpful here.

I agree with the flexibility of the terms, and the foolishness of assuming the two (or three) factors go together. I voted no, because overall I don't think I'd like the combination of all factors, but I could enjoy some definitions of a low magic game. On that subject, my feeling on a low magic game would be that the power level of magic itself was lower, and magic using classes were thus compensated with more skills etc - the Bard would be a powerful magic user in a low magic campaign I would run, and ranger/paladin type casters would be more common even than that. Or posibly all spell casters would HAVE to be multiclassed with a mundane class, gaining a new wizard level when they qualified for it through research and investing skill points in spellcraft. Calling a campaign low magic but having a standard wizard as one of the characters doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The magic in a LM campaign could also be made slower, more expensive or require skill checks in order to reduce its influence on combat, while still allowing magic users to be seen as having special power. Just saying "npc wizards are rare and magic items are almost unheard of" doesn't make a campaign low magic to me, if you can still play a 6th level sorcerer in the 6th level party... YMMV

Kahuna burger

 

[kamosa]

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,

This seems like a pretty unambigous asault on being creative with magic.

Then elsewhere in another thread you say this.

Granted, this is true. However, it is also one of the issues that some people (myself included) have with high magic games: I, as a GM, must constantly and continuously hunt out the exceptions, the counters, and the trumps. True, as a GM, this is part of the territory, but there comes a time when you put so much of your effort into countering what the high magic rules give to the PCs that it takes away from the reason RPGs exist: Story, setting, and plot.

Sounds like the players were being a bit too creative. Sounds like they were coming up with things that broke your plots and stories.

Then you call me a troll for pointing out that this is a GM problem not a player problem.

So, please, stop indicating that people are saying what they aren't; It's a short step from there to trolldome.

Ehr... Who said this? I think you're starting to read more in my posts than I'm actually writing.

mmmm I guess your right. I guess the real problem isn't that you don't want to deal with affects of high level spells, but refuse to admit that you'd rather play low level. I guess it's that the players are both to creative and to derivative at the same time to be allowed to play magic users.

The point isn't to troll you, but to get you to admit that you don't restrict spells because they destroy creativity. You don't take them away because you it makes for better characters and better players. You take them away because it makes your life easier as a GM. Every thing else is just easily stripped away bluster and pride.

My orginal post stated that IME GM's take away spells because they fear the power it gives the players. I think you've helped me to expose this point.
Thanks