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.

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.


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
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
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).

And yet Game of Thrones is a raging success, so I have to question your assumption a bit. But then again I might not be the right person to ask - I occasionally have to bite my tongue to not openly mock high magic games, particularly when they are reminiscent of World of Warcraft, which I find just corny, tacky, terrible.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vanveen

Explorer
Tolkien is a potentially misleading comparison, as the Silmarillion and other early works are full of magic. LOTR represents a world in which much of that magic is gone or slowly leaking out.

The real fun of a low-magic campaign has to come from Wonder/Discovery, which is the players discovering and/or being surprised by the world and its history. For most DMs, especially younger ones, this can be difficult. It takes time and practice, and honestly if your source for this sort of thing is anime or computer games, it's going to be awful. Those are not deep or thoughtful enough, and if you think they are, you need to read more. Tolkien works because Middle-Earth is so firmly based in literature: the Kalevala, the Nibelungenlied, Gawain and the Green Knight, the Lay of Maldon. Or you could go the George RR Martin route or the Robert E Howard route, relying on the interaction of colorful NPCs and political groups to provide that complexity. This is one of the reasons I prefer older editions or OSR over things like Pathfinder. In systems like Pathfinder, the foundational structure of the game is about loot, whether it's magical or the Flying Tornado of Two Swords That's Awesome And I Beat My Brother's Character With It feat.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Yes but it needed a whole new book to do it

It would not be hard to replicate most of it with 5E just by restricting the playable classes to barbarian, fighter, rogue, and various multiclasses. The more scholarly and leader roles would be hanging open I think one might need to do a bit of work to make a non-caster bard and a scholar of some type, but I don't think that would be too difficult and it's quite possible to do a fair bit just by judicious multiclassing. For a leader-ish rogue type, take the Mastermind archetype, while a leaderish warrior can be done with the Battlemaster. Some useful feat selections, such as Inspiring Leader, also help. These would lead to a "no magic PCs" but ones that felt pretty heroic.

If you want to allow for some low end magic, allow the more caster archetypes such as the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster and the Paladin and Ranger.

One huge thing that probably should be done is to make Long Rests more difficult.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Cut spell casters out of PC roles completely. Concentrate on balancing classes against each other and then tailor the campaign to their capabilities.

We’re loving AiME and it really isn’t converted much. The spell casting variant classes scholar and warden are very poor and have been ignored.

I played a warden briefly and there's a scholar in the AIME side campaign I run. I think there are some rough aspects to their design that are carryovers from 5E, but they've both been effective and useful and wouldn't need a huge amount of smoothing out. My warden character was missed when I took over the campaign.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Eh. I get what you're saying, but I still wouldn't consider that to be low-magic. If magic isn't powerful, but it's very common, then that all balances out and it's still average-magic over all. The last three editions of D&D have all been absurdly high-magic settings.

I think one needs to separate out the game effect from the description. If the At Will "Wizard's Darts" was more described as being particularly keen accuracy it wouldn't be too bad. The Wizard would simply be a better shot than one would ordinarily expect given his physicals.

IMO things like fireball, magical walls, teleport, flight, magical light, and so on are the real feel busters. By contrast, divination, ritual conjuration (especially with potentially dire consequences), enchantment of various sorts, buffs and debuffs, and maybe some limited illusions can fit in nicely.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Looking at a different novel series- Harry Turtledove’s Darkness saga that reskinned the events of WWII as a fantasy world’s war- you see a different kind of world that I personally consider a kind of low-magic setting- the rare but powerful kind. There is seemingly lots of magic, but little of it is flashy. You won’t se any flying wizards; Tim the Enchanter is right out.

For instance, there are strange beasts we would not deem out of place in a Monster Manual, but few, if any, are above an animal’s level of intelligence, and none speak or use magic. Even the dragons ridden in war are large and powerful, fire-breathing beasts...and nothing more.

Learning magic itself is not easy. Spellbooks are uncommon, and are often inaccurate, making the practice fraught with disappointment (from spells that don’t work) and danger (from magical backfires). Many people can do minor magics a la D&D’s Mending spell if they can learn them. There are magical means of mass production for some goods, but the items created thusly are cheap and low quality. There are minor necromantic rituals that let soldiers on the battlefield recharge their “Sticks” (essentially, firearm analogs that are minor magical force-projectile staves) with the life forces of the fallen. But that’s about the sum total of common magic.

Serious magic requires arduous study, and takes a lot of time. As a result, most magic seen in the series is in the form of objects: the aforementioned Sticks of various sizes; the “Eggs” (bombs) dropped from on high by dragons and their riders, flung from catapults, or used like landmines; “Crystals” (radio/videophones) and “Rest Crates” (stasis freezers) are the most common . There is a gigantic iceberg-like ship similar to the real-world Project Habakkuk. There are no fast and easy “combat” spells.

Flashier spells do exist, but they are time consuming, and often require the cooperation of several mages. IOW, they are not the purview of the adventuring mage (not that any really exist in the series). There is an analog for the atomic bomb, for instance, but the spell requires so much time and cooperation, it is done in secret, far behind the front lines. The Nazi final solution is likewise altered into a necromantic ritual that powers something akin to nerve gas, again as rituals performed by groups of hidden casters. This makes the use of either both rare and disruptable.

And in one case, the intervention of some seemingly divine but unseen protective force completely foils the attempted spell.
 

Psikerlord#

Explorer
It would not be hard to replicate most of it with 5E just by restricting the playable classes to barbarian, fighter, rogue, and various multiclasses. The more scholarly and leader roles would be hanging open I think one might need to do a bit of work to make a non-caster bard and a scholar of some type, but I don't think that would be too difficult and it's quite possible to do a fair bit just by judicious multiclassing. For a leader-ish rogue type, take the Mastermind archetype, while a leaderish warrior can be done with the Battlemaster. Some useful feat selections, such as Inspiring Leader, also help. These would lead to a "no magic PCs" but ones that felt pretty heroic.

If you want to allow for some low end magic, allow the more caster archetypes such as the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster and the Paladin and Ranger.

One huge thing that probably should be done is to make Long Rests more difficult.

Just use the week long variant?
 


Doug McCrae

Legend
Lord of the Rings fools us into thinking it's low magic compared to D&D because it's mostly a lot less flashy. Gandalf is the only one who's all PEW PEW LAZERZ with his fire and lightning. Galadriel, Saruman and Sauron probably think he's vulgar.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Does the Game of Thrones RPG do this? From the books and show you'd assume it would.

In a sense.

In another sense, Game of Thrones could be seen as a case in point for why low magic doesn't really work in an RPG.

Anyone with a dragon is a world power. If low magic means rare magic, it just guarantees that anyone with magic can faceroll the ones that don't.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top