Rambling about the nature of campaigns and magic

[RangerWickett]

Why do some DMs feel a need to change magic's power level?

These DMs generally fall into two groups -- those who want easily-run games, and those who want a consistent world.

For the first group, high level magic messes with their plots because they think in Hollywood action movie terms, and just aren't ready to deal with the party taking out a villain in one blow. This is in part a problem of the system, but a well-practiced DM knows ways to layer a villain with defenses. Logically, in a world where one spell can kill you, smart villains would definitely hire someone to toss on a contingent spell immunity or spell turning.

The second group of DMs don't think a world can work with high-magic. Well, take a look at Star Trek. Oftentimes, Star Trek - especially the Next Generation - addressed the challenges of dealing with technology, and magic is really just high technology (ask Arthur C. Clarke if you don't believe me). [[As an aside, old school Star Trek focused on political and ethical issues a lot because that's what people were worried about at the time. Next Gen Star Trek focused a lot more on showing the perfect society that had been achieved by technology, and then pointing out how dangerous that tech was. DS9 was about the end of the world, and Voyager was just about kicking ass.]]

Anyway, DMs need to understand what their problem is with magic before they go and start changing things. I am in no way saying that changing things is bad; it's just that work is a lot more efficient when you understand the basis of what you're doing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You missed category three: DMs who just want a different feel for a given campaign.

Most of the time, I run a campaign with (close to) the book-levels of magic and items.

Sometimes, though, I want to run a world where magic is rare and potent (or just rare). It's not for the sake of consistency, or for plot; I just feel that different amounts of magic fit the feel of the campaign better.

This does not, of course, invalidate your final point. In fact, I stand by it; people should, indeed, attempt to understand what they're changing before they change it. I'm simply pointing out that you missed what is, IME, no less common a motivation for said changes than the ones you mentioned.

(And Voyager wasn't about kicking ass. It was just ass. )

 

[Galethorn]

I'm the kind of GM who doesn't like the particular type of setting that 'consistency with the rules' tends to produce. Personally, I just don't like it when it only makes sense that every city worth its salt has Zone of Truth cast during important trials, or when every smart king is wearing Glamoured Deathward Mithral Full Plate of Heavy Fortification at all times, or when a foe's ability to fly or summon demons or teleport inside is an important factor to consider in fortress design.

It's just...not what I want. It takes things too far away from the sort of fantasy I'm really after:

Good guys with swords/spears/bows fighting bad guys with swords/spears/bows (and sometimes evil sorcerers and terrifying monsters), while traveling through dark forests, chasing thieves through sprawling cities, exploring ancient ruins, and sneaking into castles.

To put it simply, I want Epic Medieval Fantasy...
Epic: world-shaking events, true heroes and villains, warfare, etc.
Medieval: castles, armor, swords, bows, knights, peasants, kings, guilds, etc.
Fantasy: a 'made up' setting; magic to some extent; fate and destiny; poetic justice, etc.

Anyway, the point is, I want a setting that's only one or two steps away from a 'realistic' medieval one. If you try to keep the setting consistent with the rules of D&D, the level of magic produces something too...divergent...for my liking. In the same way, I don't like ninjas, or dinosaurs, or robots, or trains, or modern cultural phenomenons in my settings.

All of that said, I long ago gave up on trying to 'normalize' D&D, and switched over to Grim Tales...I came to the conclusion that there's no point in trying to make D&D something it's not, when there are so many better systems for that sort of stuff. Oh, and I'm perfectly happy playing in a 'standard' D&D setting...it's just having to change my setting in a way I don't like to make sense in the context of the rules that I don't like.

 

[fusangite]

I agree with the two responses so far. I'm in much the same boat only more so. For me, rules, story and world cannot be separated. I would like games to produce a wide variety of stories; therefore...

 

[Hodgie]

I'll have to back the other posters. High magic games require that everyone with power/money be decked out in magic items. I enjoy games where someone riding a griffon is still fantastic, not only because of the griffon but because they are flying.

Of course, all that said, I do like low magic because it is easier and more consistent. I like battles to be trading blows to see which combatant reaches 0 first, not trying to dispel protections or see who rolls a 1 on their save or die first. I know that a 'seasoned DM' can still make this viable, but hoping that they fail their save isn't as exciting as hoping that you get a crit.

 

[S'mon]

I'm with Galethorn, except that I still want to be playing D&D rather than Grim Tales. My gameworld has a particular feel - roughly, "earthy low fantasy high powered swords & sorcery" - and I'll mess with magic and other factors to get that feel. I don't see it as far from traditional D&D norms in most respects. It's a lot like 1e AD&D Greyhawk in terms of magic level. IMO 3e D&D is the departure. In particular I dislike Monte's "Design your world to fit the magic level presented in the rules" advice in the DMG. I'd rather change the magic level (which he does mention as an optional approach).

 

[DrNilesCrane]

You missed category three: DMs who just want a different feel for a given campaign.

Most of the time, I run a campaign with (close to) the book-levels of magic and items.

Sometimes, though, I want to run a world where magic is rare and potent (or just rare). It's not for the sake of consistency, or for plot; I just feel that different amounts of magic fit the feel of the campaign better.

This does not, of course, invalidate your final point. In fact, I stand by it; people should, indeed, attempt to understand what they're changing before they change it. I'm simply pointing out that you missed what is, IME, no less common a motivation for said changes than the ones you mentioned.

(And Voyager wasn't about kicking ass. It was just ass. )

Ditto - couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Ditto - couldn't have said it better myself.

I agree.

 

[Kaji]

Mousferatu must be a prophet!

I agree.

I'll third the agreement with his most excellent post.

I'm also becoming disenchanted with the way all the access to magic/magic items turn it into a production economy. I'm throwing out almost all "common" magic items in my new campaign, like a +1 sword. My theory is if someone is going to go to the trouble of actually creating a magic sword, it's gonna do a whole lot more than be "+1". I'm thinking at least minor special abilites, or talking, telepathy, or interesting illusion effects with maybe no real power, but scoring huge on style.

 

[gizmo33]

You missed category three: DMs who just want a different feel for a given campaign.

Not only is this the third category - IMO this is the ONLY category. The original post gives two categories that just sound like a grouchy players view of this third category. The fact is that DMs are entitled to Hollywood action if that's what they want. I think it's understandable if a player wants to play in a game with a certain level of power or magic. But that's not the DMs problem.

Also, the Star Trek example in the original post is EXACTLY the reason why DMs MUST change the rules to suit their design. The wise lesson that the Star Trek NextGen creators have to teach here is that DMs should understand the effect that the magic rules (ie. technology) is going to have on their campaign culture. Once you understand that, you have two choices: change the rules, or change your campaign. Guess what I do?

In the words of Man-o-war: "Nobody tells a man how to play, it just ain't that way."

Sincerely,
Gizmo the Grouchy DM.

If some player IMC tells me I need to "understand what my problem is with characters inventing machine guns" before I prevent it, I've got some ethereal mummies waiting for him.