Rambling about the nature of campaigns and magic

[The Shaman]

The original post gives two categories that just sound like a grouchy players view of this third category.

A somewhat harsh assessment, but an accurate one, IMHO.

My hackles do tend to rise a bit when someone suggests that GMs who run "low" or rare magic campaigns do so because the GMs are "too lazy" or "not creative/smart/tough/whatever enough" to run the game as presented. IMHO D&D has become its own fantasy genre, and not eveyone wants to play in that world. That's neither lazy nor dull - it's just a matter of personal preference.

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.

*quickly jots down 'ethereal mummies' on master monster list*

 

[SALADIN THE JUST]

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.

I 'll have to throw in my lot with Galethorn...while i like what D&D has to offer in general I have issues with how magic is so liberally used...that is not a criticism of the d&d system in general...but the flavour perhaps...i am now looking at crafting a homebrew setting that has the presence of magic but its availability and presence has been significantly pulled back so that it still retain the mystery and mystique that it ought to...i would be delighted if there are fellow DMs who are reading this who could provide me with suggestions and things that they have tried and tested that will help in engineering such a setting...

 

[The Shaman]

I would be delighted if there are fellow DMs who are reading this who could provide me with suggestions and things that they have tried and tested that will help in engineering such a setting...

One idea that I picked up on another board but haven't tried yet is eliminating evocation spells - no more wizard-as-heavy-weapons-platoon. Puts the magic emphasis on summoning, divination, and abjuration. I'm giving this idea a serious look.

 

[boredgremlin]

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.

I fixed the magic item problem by going back to the AD&D rule. Creating a permanent magic item permanently drains a point of constitution. There is no way to get this back. No restoration no wish, nothing. Applying that halfway realistically means there are much fewer magic items in the world and most of them are for spellcasters. Who wants to permanently give up a piece of your soul so someone else can have a sword? Wouldnt that mage much rather have a cloak or rod that he can use himself?

 

[gizmo33]

A somewhat harsh assessment

I had a bad experience when the first Unearthed Arcana came out. The new rules really messed with my campaign culture and I had to go back and axe the new classes. I got grief from one of my players that sounded just like the first post. To be fair, RangerWickett probably made some good points about how a DM should assess things before making changes. He just came across as a player giving DM advice on how to let him have more magic.

quickly jots down 'ethereal mummies' on master monster list*

Are you sure that you don't want to get permission from your players first? There are perfectly good monsters already in the MM that you probably should be using so you don't get accused of being a bad DM

For handling troublesome players, the 1st edition DMG suggests a list of things, one of which is "...the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes by surprise, naturally)" The mechanics of how this was supposed to work are a mystery to me. Why mummy? Why ethereal? I guess I finally have a question for the Gygax thread.

 

[frankthedm]

I change things because i do not run a game for comic book superheroes in Ren-fair atire.

I change things because magic should be respected and feared, not just pumped into every peice of equipment a person carries.

I change things so not every creature can be overcome by hitting really hard with a greatsword.

 

[Gothmog]

I tend to tone down magic in my games for several reasons. RangerWickett, you're right in that I want both consistency and an easily run game. I don't want to spend hours layering magical protections on my NPCs in a never-ending magical arms race to prevent insta-kills. I'd much rather spend that time on world development and writing my adventures, making well-developed NPCs, and thinking of situations for my PCs to shine. And as far as consistency, I like my game worlds to not to too fantastic- so the medieval society and mindset works for me. I do tend to run more dark fantasy, rare magic campaigns though- which mirror myths more than fantasy literature and movies.

So in order to keep a rare, powerful magic tone in my world, I need to tone down the magic rules. I use casting rolls for spells, and have gotten rid of evocations, travel spells, and spells over 6th level are ritual spells that take hours or days to complete. In compensation, spellcasters get more leniency (anybody can spontaneous cast, although memorized spells are more potent), more skill points, and more feats. I also ramped up monsters to make them more fearsome (DR and SR added to many beasties)- because lets face it, they are supposed to be MONSTERS not cannon fodder! We've played with these rules in their current incarnation for years, and the players are happy with them. They have gotten rid of a lot of the "video gamey" feel that D&D 3.x has acquired, and allows us to focus on the less miraculous things in the game. They might not work for every group, but for us they enhance our enjoyment of the game, and we have a lot more fun with them than D&D as presented in the core books.

 

[nopantsyet]

I vary the level of magic, but mostly within a world rather than as a function of the world. That is, it is a question of scarcity rather than existence. Each culture views magic in its own unique way. Some cultures are built more around or are more accepting of magic than others. And among those cultures that use magic, each does so in their own way and to their own different degree. Particular spells, types of spells or schools of magic are more prevalent in some places, reflecting the culture of magic in that region. And there are exceptions to every rule, in varying quantities. High-powered magic items are generally scarce, in the same way that multi-million dollar penthouses are scarce. It is a limited subset of any populace that can afford them.

Different groups value different aspects of the game differently, and whether one is using the "best" system for a particular milieu may not be a top priority for every group. But I don't think you have to understand anything more than what your particular group wants out of the game and Rule 0.

 

[Mokona]

In my games I want Arthur C. Clarke's statement to be false...ie I want technology to be different than magic. Or to state it more appropriately I want magic to be different than science.

Everyone can use technology and science. I want magic to be magical, mystical, and mysterious. That air of mystery for magic is created by making it less prevalent. Less prominent magic makes for a low magic game so that is what I run. Magic feels more like magic and less like a reliable tool (given the game mechanics we have for D&D) when it is used less often.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Galethorn perfectly summed up my views on this.