The Difficulties Of Running Low Magic Campaigns

I recently talked with a gamer who's often full of unusual, and sometimes impractical, ideas. He asked me about the difficulties of running a medieval-style low-magic D&D campaign. Lord of the Rings had to come up in the conversation, because it's the most well-known low magic fantasy setting in existence. If you take a functional rather than emotional view of the characters, in First Edition D&D terms Aragorn amounts to a seventh level ranger and Gandalf the Grey to an eighth level cleric with a Ring of Fire, and other characters are similarly low level. (I'll discuss in detail this another time.) Magic and "super-power" is immensely rare in this setting.

View attachment 94991​

It should be easier to run a low magic rather than a high magic campaign because the powers of both characters and opponents are unlikely to get out of hand. But as for recruiting players for such a campaign…that could be difficult in 2018. (Keep in mind, he's a college student and is likely to have players who are college students, not older players.)

The fundamental problem with a low magic campaign is that people have been "trained" to expect high magic by video RPGs and MMOs, and by video games in general, that are often designed to reward rather than challenge players. In other words, the low magic campaign will feel much too "tame", too dull, too slow, too "lame". Yes, it can be just as dangerous as any other campaign, but I suspect most players are not looking for danger any more when they play RPGs, again as encouraged by video games (where you can never lose).

Will players go for a game where there isn't a "loot drop" with every monster, without magic items by the bucket load?

In CRPG/MMOs leveling is what it's all about, the destination (which is maximum level) not the journey. Yet in order to run a low magic campaign you probably have to have low level characters, and that means they can't level up every other session or sooner. How will this sit with people who are accustomed to computer RPGs?

Perhaps it can work if you tell the players before the campaign starts that it's a military style campaign, that the party is like an elite combat unit (Navy SEALs, SAS, and such) trying to accomplish a series of dangerous but vital missions. Or perhaps they're like elite mercenaries doing the same thing. In other words, you can try to train the expectations of the players, but you're up against their experience, which will often include lots of computer RPGs.

My advice to my friend was to make small differences in capability from one level to the next, to let the players level up with some frequency, but to make magic items very rare, as in LOTR. If the players think of themselves as special service troops/elite mercenaries, perhaps that will work.

Improvement of characters is a pillar of RPGs. If they can only rarely improve via magic item collection, they're left with money collection or improved inherent capabilities (stronger, sneakier, better defenders, etc.). An alternative way to run a low-magic campaign might be to let the players begin as extraordinarily capable characters (compared with ordinary people) who don't really change much. They would be like James Bond and other long-running movie and comic book characters (Indiana Jones, Black Widow), and heroes of many novels. If players aren't focused on leveling up, they could actually have adventurous fun!

Another way is to emphasize collection of wealth, where players become merchant magnates or buy into the nobility or become leaders of mercenary armies. The ultimate goal might be to run their own small country.

I should think some readers have tried low-magic medieval-style campaigns. How well did they work out?

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher

 

[Von Ether]

Sure- player complaints! There were many who wanted their spellcasters to be doing magic all the time because- to them- throwing a dart or dagger didn’t seem “wizardy” enough.

I mean, it’s REALLY obvious looking at the earliest versions of the at-will magical attacks (besides the Warlock’s) were only marginally better than using a ranged weapon. And that’s ignoring the resources you needed (Feats, class features, levels) in order to obtain them, in comparison to the weapons that were readily available for mere GP.

Don’t get me wrong- I used some of those for builds. But I only did it when it fit the PC concept. Otherwise...look out for my badass wizard wearing twin bandoliers of throwable stuff...

Well, that and other thrown stuff use other attributes than Intelligence. There also a reason that 5e finesse weapons "carry" a 3e feat that many said was mandatory for Rogues. And why High Strength/Mediocre Dex Fighters who like swords and axes get pouty if they have to use a bow.

Many players want to capitalize on the attribute they invested their concept in.

I'm sort of surprised that someone didn't come up with a masterwork "Wind of Mind" bow that you could buy at the shop and used a wielder's intelligence bonus for ranged attacks. In 3e, you could have just made a new material to do the job.

Either way, it's a bit ironic for some GMs who don't like Primes now. If they had only made up a "Wind of Mind" bow house rule after hearing their players complained about using their +1 or +0 Dex mods to fire bows after using up spell slots.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, that and other thrown stuff use other attributes than Intelligence. There also a reason that 5e finesse weapons "carry" a 3e feat that many said was mandatory for Rogues. And why High Strength/Mediocre Dex Fighters who like swords and axes get pouty if they have to use a bow.

Many players want to capitalize on the attribute they invested their concept in.

I'm sort of surprised that someone didn't come up with a masterwork "Wind of Mind" bow that you could buy at the shop and used a wielder's intelligence bonus for ranged attacks. In 3e, you could have just made a new material to do the job.

Either way, it's a bit ironic for some GMs who don't like Primes now. If they had only made up a "Wind of Mind" bow house rule after hearing their players complained about using their +1 or +0 Dex mods to fire bows after using up spell slots.

Arguably, something like that should have been the core of the Arcane Archer.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Monty Haul campaigns got brought up earlier as examples of earlier edition campaigns that were hardly low magic.

Funny think is, the term "Monty Haul". There are precious few gamers alive today who've actually seen Monty Hall outside of a youtube clip. Ask the majority of gamers out there who Monty Hall is, and they have no idea. Long, long before their time. Yet, as a description of D&D campaigns, it shows up pretty much from day 1. So, the notion of there being any sort of change in how the game is played really ignores history. "Loot Drops" and tons of goodies for the players was part of D&D right from the start.

Computer games didn't start this. They learned this from D&D.

All that aside, we also have the problem of what is actually meant by "low magic". As was mentioned, LotR is hardly low magic. It's got lots of magic items, lots of magical creatures, and well, the Macguffin is a highly magical artifact. The majority of scenes in LotR involves magic of some sort - whether it's the races like Elves and Nazgul, or all the times the Ring is used, or the times that Glamdring or magic glowing orc detection swords pop up.

What does low magic actually mean?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

All that aside, we also have the problem of what is actually meant by "low magic". As was mentioned, LotR is hardly low magic. It's got lots of magic items, lots of magical creatures, and well, the Macguffin is a highly magical artifact. The majority of scenes in LotR involves magic of some sort - whether it's the races like Elves and Nazgul, or all the times the Ring is used, or the times that Glamdring or magic glowing orc detection swords pop up.

What does low magic actually mean?

Low magic in terms of Tolkien meant little or no spellcasting. For the most part, magic was passive or from an ancient time. As best I can remember, the only characters in the books who used any actual magic spells/energy/whatever were the three Wizards. And I do not think Radagast used any in the books, regardless of what he did in the movies.

 

[Jhaelen]

What does low magic actually mean?

That's a good question, and one which I sometimes struggle with myself.
E.g. I always think of Ars Magica's Mythic Europe setting as low-magic. Sure, it's a game which focuses on Magic in all its forms and Magi playing a central role. But despite their ability to cast powerful high-level magic, it's not defining the setting. Magi are rare and bound by strict rules, so everyday life isn't affected by them at all.

I think it's somewhat similar with Middle-Earth. Perhaps 'Sparse Magic' would describe it better?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

All that aside, we also have the problem of what is actually meant by "low magic". As was mentioned, LotR is hardly low magic. It's got lots of magic items, lots of magical creatures, and well, the Macguffin is a highly magical artifact. The majority of scenes in LotR involves magic of some sort - whether it's the races like Elves and Nazgul, or all the times the Ring is used, or the times that Glamdring or magic glowing orc detection swords pop up.

What does low magic actually mean?

Like I said earlier, there are at least 3 flavors of low-magic: rare (but still potentially powerful); weak (regardless of ubiquity); rare + weak. I’m sure with some thought, more could be defined.

 

[Hussar]

Like I said earlier, there are at least 3 flavors of low-magic: rare (but still potentially powerful); weak (regardless of ubiquity); rare + weak. I’m sure with some thought, more could be defined.

I think that's a fairly reasonable starting place. I mean, Conan is a pretty low magic setting, at least it's primarily rare (but potentially powerful). D&D has always struggled with this, simply because, unlike most low(ish) magic settings, you have magic using classes. It's pretty hard to have a low magic campaign when your PC's are about 5th level or higher and half the group (the MU, the cleric and the Fighter/MU) is standing there chucking out spells on a pretty regular basis.

And, of course, while that references magic as in spells, what about fantasy elements? Are undead "magic"? Demons? Orcs? Medusa? Even if we have a purely non-caster group, the setting might still be pretty high magic with fantasy races mingling with mundane races on a regular basis.

 

[Von Ether]

I think one has to focus on what "low magic" means in relation to the PCs and their capabilities. The discussion leans more towards the mechanics (what PCs can do with less magic) than what form magic takes in the setting.

Again, Pendragon is a fairly mythical setting, but powerful magic is something that affects them, not something they can control. In some ways, it's no different than a Conan game where there maybe zero magic in evidence until the last boss fight.

If the players can't use it as a resource, it's a low magic game. Magic items in this case are more like your levels of technology for the game. The GM controls their access. A Modern game is usually low magic, but there's not much practical difference between a flying carpet and a plane - both let the PCs travel long distances quickly and/or can be affected by outside event (sabotage, weather, etc) for complications.

In a lot of low level fantasy games, guns are the only difference stopping the campaign from becoming the Wild West.

 

[MarkB]

Low magic in terms of Tolkien meant little or no spellcasting. For the most part, magic was passive or from an ancient time. As best I can remember, the only characters in the books who used any actual magic spells/energy/whatever were the three Wizards. And I do not think Radagast used any in the books, regardless of what he did in the movies.

There are a lot of examples of Elven 'magic' in the books that the elves themselves don't consider particularly magical, but which clearly is from the viewpoint of everyone else. Elrond summoning the waters of the Bruinen to sweep away the ringwraiths, then using his powers to draw the shard of the morgul blade from Frodo's wound. Galadriel using her Mirror to peer into the past and future. Legolas running lightly across snow that even the tiny hobbits sink into neck-deep.

Then there are things like Aragorn using Athelas herbs to cure people cursed by Ringwraiths. He'd consider it a skill taught to him and a virtue of the herb itself, but it's at least strongly implied that it would have been nowhere near as effective in anyone else's hands.

And when Frodo cries "O Elbereth! Glithoniel!" to drive back a Ringwraith or Shelob, is he merely invoking a name that causes them fear, or is he empowering those words with his own faith in combination with the One Ring and/or the Vial of Galadriel as his holy symbol to Turn the evil forces back?

Basically, there's loads of magic going on in the books, much of which the D&D rules clearly draw inspiration from, but which isn't explicitly called out as "spellcasting".

 

[Celebrim]

Basically, there's loads of magic going on in the books, much of which the D&D rules clearly draw inspiration from, but which isn't explicitly called out as "spellcasting".

I think that's the key issue. Magic is pervasive in Middle Earth, but the idea of magic as it is encapsulated in D&D spellcasting is largely actually superstition in Middle Earth. Magic as it exists in D&D spellcasting largely does not exist, rather, it is how ignorant people imagine magic works. This creates a really big problem when you are trying to kludge classes like Wizard or Cleric into Middle Earth.

It's important to note that most of the most 'magical' seeming beings in Middle Earth either don't understand the word magic or think the word is meaningless and misapplied. In fact, in order to discuss magic in middle earth with any degree of accuracy, we'd probably need to develop a specialized language that dealt with the different categories of things that the ignorant called 'magic'.

Magic in middle earth is never really explained but as best as we can tell it depends on a combination of authority (what your nature gives you the right to do), skill (how you've developed or trained your nature), and lore. Lore seems to fall into two categories, either advanced technology or the knowledge of the true names of things which is probably the name they were given in the song of the Ainur that shaped Middle Earth. Knowledge of those true names seems to be the closest to what we'd recognize in D&D as a spell, and thus Gandalf's assertion that he used to know all the 'spells of opening' combined with the fact the when he performs these 'spells' what he's really doing is just basically saying "open up" in different languages.

It's important to note that not only can people have authority, but they can apparently invest authority into objects. Ultimately 'The One Ring' is just a bunch of Sauron's authority invested into an object, combined with the fact that it also has authority over all the authority the other races invested in the other rings of power (which was Sauron's scam in the first place). Gandalf can do fire magic, largely because he has a ring that the elves invested their authority over fine in. And the elves have authority over fire because there is a sense where they are 'in' the world in the way that humans are not.

The reverse problem with introducing 'spellcasting classes' into Middle Earth is that you are silo'ing off magic as the exclusive domain of some, when in fact most magic doesn't work that way.