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

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

8th level cleric? Dude, Gandalf was a fifth-level magic user.

It was in Dragon so you know it's true.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the wizard with a crossbow is exactly what I was getting at. If a wizard can still contribute to combat in a meaningful way, by firing that crossbow, then you can have as much combat as you want and the wizard won't ruin the low-magic tone by casting spells non-stop. If a wizard is not contributing with that crossbow, because they're probably going to miss and a successful hit deals trivial damage anyway, then you're stuck with the design dilemma of raising the magic level so they can always cast spells or turning that character into a bystander for half of the encounters.

This is a very good point. The late 5E onwards addition of things like "at will" magic blasts was done primarily to allow caster type characters to have something to do in between casting their limited number of Vancian spells. Even crossbow wizard was not a thing in 1E and 2E, though dagger or dart throwing wizard was not. Still they weren't that good at hitting, though overall attacks weren't that differentiated at the time. Still, the popularity of multiclass casters should indicate the issues that single classed wizards faced.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

8th level cleric? Dude, Gandalf was a fifth-level magic user. It was in Dragon so you know it's true.

That was a fantastic bit of satire.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but the wizard with a crossbow is exactly what I was getting at. If a wizard can still contribute to combat in a meaningful way, by firing that crossbow, then you can have as much combat as you want and the wizard won't ruin the low-magic tone by casting spells non-stop.

If a wizard is not contributing with that crossbow, because they're probably going to miss and a successful hit deals trivial damage anyway, then you're stuck with the design dilemma of raising the magic level so they can always cast spells or turning that character into a bystander for half of the encounters.

Whether or not they deal significant damage or even hit, I still view the attempt as meaningful contribution. Ditto the use of grenade like projectiles (which, depending on the caster and his projectile choices, may be even more effective). Part of that is because 1) nobody hits all the time and 2) by conserving spells until they’re needed, they get a lot more mileage out of their resources.

Now, that’s in standard D&D mid/high level magic campaigns.

But in a low-magic setting- depending on the particular type of low magic we’re discussing- that caster may have even fewer magical resources, and therefore must rely more on non-magical actions. That’s why I used the restrictions I did in low-magic D&D games (mentioned upthread): the half casters are already built with those other resources as part of their classes; the leveling restrictions ensured that the PCs would have more HP and better accuracy in combat.

And, as always, there are build decisions that will have significant long-lasting effects on the efficacy of a given caster. If you’re taking a lot of spells that require ranged attack rolls, like rays, you’re going to be better with ranged weapons than the typical caster. If I build a character like that, I try to make sure they have access to LOTS of ranged weapons. A single class dip to expand weapon proficiencies coupled with a Quiver of Ehlonna filled to the brim makes for a magic-slinger who can at least make enemies reconsider the pros and cons of closing the distance as he flings spears and javelins.

Or remember the Knowledge Devotion Feat?

Knowledge Devotion: One Knowledge skill of your choice is a class skills (KS:Religion) regardless of the class you are advancing. Whenever you fight a creature, you can make a Knowledge check based on its type, provided that you have at least one rank in the appropriate Knowledge skill, gaining an insight bonus on Att/Dam rolls against that creature type for the remainder of the combat.
Arcana: constructs, dragons, magical beasts
Dungeoneering: aberrations, oozes
Local: humanoids
Nature: animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin
Religion: undead
The Planes: outsiders, elementals

Either dipping into skill monkey classes or just using the amount of bonus skill points due to casters’ general penchant for above average intelligence turns this into a nice boost to attack & damage.

Similarly the Reserve Feats and Alternative Class (or Race) features that granted additional/at-will minor magical options have an outsized effect in low-magic campaigns. (Once the PC is of sufficient level to gain their benefit, of course.)

 

[EthanSental]

Here here for the class of 89!! Similar edition play for me as well. Sounds like a fun campaign and passing it along to the next generation too!

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Whether or not they deal significant damage or even hit, I still view the attempt as meaningful contribution. Ditto the use of grenade like projectiles (which, depending on the caster and his projectile choices, may be even more effective). Part of that is because 1) nobody hits all the time and 2) by conserving spells until they’re needed, they get a lot more mileage out of their resources.

But in a low-magic setting- depending on the particular type of low magic we’re discussing- that caster may have even fewer magical resources, and therefore must rely more on non-magical actions. That’s why I used the restrictions I did in low-magic D&D games (mentioned upthread): the half casters are already built with those other resources as part of their classes; the leveling restrictions ensured that the PCs would have more HP and better accuracy in combat.

One problem is the fact that D&D, especially 1E and 2E, had very limited ways for such characters to contribute meaningfully because of how niche protected D&D is. Rattling away on a crossbow that misses most of the time isn't that fun for many players. Their defenses were poor, too, so they couldn't take much of a beating either. Grenades---the ever popular flaming oil---and pets like wardogs were the low level single class wizard in those games. Small wonder many people played multiclass wizards.

In games that simulate genres that don't have casters being strong on the battlefield, such as swords and sorcery, you will often see them picking up some combat abilities. In modern D&D, as you say, half casters. In 2E, bards fit the bill.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Part of the “meaningful” equation is situational...as in, dependent on target selection and weapon of choice. If you’re aiming your crossbow at the Death Knight, no, you’re probably not being helpful.

OTOH, if you fire at its cadre of low-level undead squires using 2-hand swords, you might wind up saving the front-line fighters a handful of potentially seriously damaging hits.

Strategically casting a Grease spell before lobbing a firebomb may mean you don’t even have to get close to your target.

 

[Fandabidozi]

‘...as encouraged by video games (where you can never lose).’
I must be doing all kinds of things wrong

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Part of the “meaningful” equation is situational...as in, dependent on target selection and weapon of choice. If you’re aiming your crossbow at the Death Knight, no, you’re probably not being helpful.OTOH, if you fire at its cadre of low-level undead squires using 2-hand swords, you might wind up saving the front-line fighters a handful of potentially seriously damaging hits.

Certainly the case that this is situational, although I do think that the DM often needed to make sure that there were such targets around. I guess my point is that there was a reason the magical at will dink got invented.

Strategically casting a Grease spell before lobbing a firebomb may mean you don’t even have to get close to your target.

Yes, this is old skool wizardry at its best. The wizard really had to wait for their opportunity. The problem I think was that having so limited a resource either meant the DM had to hand out a lot of magical gear, making a low magic game obviously beside the point, or do some very careful encounter design.

That said, I played in a pretty low magic game more than once. In one 2E game the PCs were a fighter, a bard (custom class modeled on the original Bard's Tale bard, not the book 2E bard), a paladin, and a thief. We often had an NPC or henchman of some sort but that was the core group of PCs. I had intended to play a wizard but he got killed in the first session and ended up playing the bard instead. I really enjoyed that game. There were some notable challenges due to our lack of area effect attacks and general paucity of magical healing; the bard and paladin had some interesting quasi-magical powers that were much more subtle than would have been typical, though. We socially engineered our way out of more than one encounter by playing "let's you and him fight" and of course used things like flaming oil. Again, that was highly dependent on the group of players and DM, all of whom were very experienced.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I guess my point is that there was a reason the magical at will dink got invented.

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...