The extreme proliferation of magic in D&D

[Altalazar]

A clever aphorism, but a non-sequitur nonetheless.

A clever truth that's not true?

This goes to the point that Wombat made earlier: if you don't play with the default levels of magic built into the assumptions and structure of the game, you're not playing D&D.

That's not entirely correct. You'd not be playing with the default level of magic, but you'd still be playing D&D.

However, the game itself encourages GMs to personalize their campaigns - that it simultaneously makes that challenging to do is one of the weaknesses of D&D, IMHO. This is what the analogy of Star Trek and westerns misses: the technology and firepower with which magic is equated are specific to these "settings," whereas D&D bills itself as a tool for building a variety of settings.

Ah, but no matter what flavor you play, there is definitely magic. After all, why would anyone bother to go into a dungeon if not for magical treasures? And if there's no magic, there are no dragons, either.

There doesn't have to be anything cheesy about a lot of magic. It is just part of the background of it all. Without it, it is just medieval europe, and that was not a pleasant place to be. Either you were a lord playing politics, or you were a serf tied to the land as a virtual slave. There wasn't much of a middle class. But then we aren't playing history or realty. We are playing a fantasy game, and magic is the element that most defines it as fantasy rather than just an alternate medieval Europe. Giant spiders, sentient beasts, flying dragons, NONE of those things exist without magic. I think it is more pschology than anything else. If EVERYONE runs around with a +1 sword, so what? It isn't all that powerful. Unless you are very low level, that extra plus doesn't mean that much, and why should anyone get upset at all that "magic" being around if today people generally don't get upset with the technology that permeates our existence FAR more than magic permeates in D&D in all but the most super-high magic D&D games. (Heck, I'm sitting in a room with four computers in my basement, next to eight phone jacks and a cable modem jack with a total computing power probably exceeding the entire capabilities of the Allies during WWII, and it wasn't like that was a low-tech era).

Really, to me, high magic is more like Hogwarts than a bunch of +1 swords.

I still find it utterly fascinating how there seems to be a "movement" that is repusled by magic in D&D and seems to consider a good campaign to be one where everyone is perpetually first level, with no resources, no magic, and thus is easily penned into rather limited courses of action. Really, what harm would there be in every town guard armed with a +1 Sword (something I've never actually seen in any of the highest magic games I've played in)? In the end, it is just a sword that is very slightly better at hurting things than an ordinary sword and no better at hurting things than a well crafted normal sword. Would it make a difference if you said there were no magic swords, just five levels of masterwork blades, made of progressively rarer materials and rarer-talented blacksmiths? The game world mechanic effect would be identical. As someone already stated, he found a huge difference in a bunch of masterwork blades and +1 blades, even though game-balance wise, they are IDENTICAL.

So I think it is really just all in people's heads - there's nothing wrong with magic or unbalancing about its presence (or absence) per se.

 

[The Shaman]

A clever truth that's not true?

An aphorism is a pithy saying - it's not inherently true.

That's not entirely correct. You'd not be playing with the default level of magic, but you'd still be playing D&D.

I agree - however, as Wombat noted, this has become something of an expectation for many gamers.

Ah, but no matter what flavor you play, there is definitely magic. After all, why would anyone bother to go into a dungeon if not for magical treasures?

Again I agree, but in a game that's meant to capture the feel of magic as something rare and special, running around with magic armor, a magic shield, a magic weapon, a couple of miscellaneous magic items, and a sackful of spells on scrolls has a very different flavor.

I haven't encountered too many GMs who want to ban all magic from their games, including in this thread, only GMs who want to make magic items less common than they are in the core rules' assumptions.

So I think it is really just all in people's heads - there's nothing wrong with magic or unbalancing about its presence (or absence) per se.

I'm sorry, but I disagree - magic can be the most unbalancing element if taken to either extreme.

(And on that note, why is it that so often an argument is carried to its extremes, rather than looking at the way a rule or a game situation occurs in most people's games? I don't recall anyone saying that there should be no magic in this thread, nor do I recall anyone suggesting that magic should be available in unlimited quantities. So often I see the tendency to extremes used to derail a perfectly valid discussion of differences.

Note that I'm not directing this at you specifically, Altalazar - I saw the same thing happening in another thread recently as well, and I find it a bit frustrating.)

 

[VirgilCaine]

There doesn't have to be anything cheesy about a lot of magic. It is just part of the background of it all. Without it, it is just medieval europe, and that was not a pleasant place to be. Either you were a lord playing politics, or you were a serf tied to the land as a virtual slave. There wasn't much of a middle class. But then we aren't playing history or realty. We are playing a fantasy game, and magic is the element that most defines it as fantasy rather than just an alternate medieval Europe. Giant spiders, sentient beasts, flying dragons, NONE of those things exist without magic. I think it is more pschology than anything else. If EVERYONE runs around with a +1 sword, so what? It isn't all that powerful. Unless you are very low level, that extra plus doesn't mean that much, and why should anyone get upset at all that "magic" being around if today people generally don't get upset with the technology that permeates our existence FAR more than magic permeates in D&D in all but the most super-high magic D&D games. (Heck, I'm sitting in a room with four computers in my basement, next to eight phone jacks and a cable modem jack with a total computing power probably exceeding the entire capabilities of the Allies during WWII, and it wasn't like that was a low-tech era).

Really, to me, high magic is more like Hogwarts than a bunch of +1 swords.

I still find it utterly fascinating how there seems to be a "movement" that is repusled by magic in D&D and seems to consider a good campaign to be one where everyone is perpetually first level, with no resources, no magic, and thus is easily penned into rather limited courses of action. Really, what harm would there be in every town guard armed with a +1 Sword (something I've never actually seen in any of the highest magic games I've played in)? In the end, it is just a sword that is very slightly better at hurting things than an ordinary sword and no better at hurting things than a well crafted normal sword. Would it make a difference if you said there were no magic swords, just five levels of masterwork blades, made of progressively rarer materials and rarer-talented blacksmiths? The game world mechanic effect would be identical. As someone already stated, he found a huge difference in a bunch of masterwork blades and +1 blades, even though game-balance wise, they are IDENTICAL.

So I think it is really just all in people's heads - there's nothing wrong with magic or unbalancing about its presence (or absence) per se.

Or you were a landless knight--and you were chasing tournaments and mercenary work because you weren't supposed to hold onto money. Not fun, especially if you aren't very popular, skilled or if you were unlucky.

I'll have to do that in one of my big cities IMC. Have every guard have a +1 weapon. Not that there's a difference between the two in practice, except that they can actually hurt things with DR/magic or +1 DR.

 

[ThirdWizard]

A clever aphorism, but a non-sequitur nonetheless.

Nobody goes, "I want to run a low power roleplaying game, so which RPG should I buy? Hey, I'll get D&D!" unless they don't know anything about D&D. Nobody goes "I want to run a wild west game, so I think I'll pick up the Star Wars RPG!" unless... well... I don't know who would say that.

The point being, you can try to fit a square peg into a round hole, but don't complain when you have to cut the corners off the peg to make it fit. It isn't a non-sequeter. You can play a western in d20 Star Wars if you want. You can play a low magic game in standard D&D. Just don't complain that the system isn't doing what you want it to. Best to go out and find one that does.

 

[Altalazar]

An aphorism is a pithy saying - it's not inherently true.I agree - however, as Wombat noted, this has become something of an expectation for many gamers.Again I agree, but in a game that's meant to capture the feel of magic as something rare and special, running around with magic armor, a magic shield, a magic weapon, a couple of miscellaneous magic items, and a sackful of spells on scrolls has a very different flavor.

True, only one definition of aphorism is a pithy way to express an opinion, but there is another definition, that of a well-expressed truth.

And so perhaps this isn't about the level of magic at all, merely a case of some DMs annoyed when their players expect to find more magic than the DM expects to give. And players annoyed for the same reason. Personally, I don't have a problem with magic, and in a campaign, however much magic I find as a player is fine with me, so long as it is consistent with the world (i.e. I don't end up fighting creatures that are immune to harm because they are more magical than the items we find).

And what you describe doesn't sound very high magic - a handful of magic items and some scrolls. No matter how many items the PCs have, rarity is a global issue, not a party issue. If every peasant has loads of magical equipment, you have a point, but if only the rare handful of heroes in the world do, well, that could still make magic very rare.

I haven't encountered too many GMs who want to ban all magic from their games, including in this thread, only GMs who want to make magic items less common than they are in the core rules' assumptions.I'm sorry, but I disagree - magic can be the most unbalancing element if taken to either extreme.

I think it is a perception issue, which is why I said it is all in people's heads. To some, what you suggest might as well be banishing all magic, because you eliminate 99% of it as compared to what others might consider average magic. To others, what may seem like only a handful of magic items to some is considered cheesy high magic by them (such as your example above of a handful of low power magic items - armor, shield, misc items, and a few scrolls).

(And on that note, why is it that so often an argument is carried to its extremes, rather than looking at the way a rule or a game situation occurs in most people's games? I don't recall anyone saying that there should be no magic in this thread, nor do I recall anyone suggesting that magic should be available in unlimited quantities. So often I see the tendency to extremes used to derail a perfectly valid discussion of differences.

Note that I'm not directing this at you specifically, Altalazar - I saw the same thing happening in another thread recently as well, and I find it a bit frustrating.)

I think it is because of that perception problem. I think the problem is that there is a disconnect between what 'high' and 'low' magic even mean. To the epic-level-with-only-a-+1-rusty-dagger types, what they call 'high' magic might seem only 'average' or even 'low' magic to the 'every-town-guard-has-a-+1-weapon' types. And thus, it seems to each side that there is an extreme quality to the arguments. You can see this at its most basic when the low-magic people call the default D&D 'high' magic and others instead see the default as 'average' magic.

If you want to avoid that, you need to establish common ground, or at least common terminology. Perhaps an explicit chart of the amount of magic at various levels and a label next to each as to just how 'high' the magic is. Then you can use that as the basis for a discussion. Without that, you will be doomed to further frustration.

 

[Altalazar]

Nobody goes, "I want to run a low power roleplaying game, so which RPG should I buy? Hey, I'll get D&D!" unless they don't know anything about D&D. Nobody goes "I want to run a wild west game, so I think I'll pick up the Star Wars RPG!" unless... well... I don't know who would say that.

The point being, you can try to fit a square peg into a round hole, but don't complain when you have to cut the corners off the peg to make it fit. It isn't a non-sequeter. You can play a western in d20 Star Wars if you want. You can play a low magic game in standard D&D. Just don't complain that the system isn't doing what you want it to. Best to go out and find one that does.

A very good point. I'm sure one could do sci-fi stories in the Star Trek universe with no technology whatsoever, just as one could do a western with no guns, but at some point, one would question whether the label really fit - is it science fiction if there is no science or technology? Is it a western if there are no guns? Is it D&D if there is no magic? Now, to be fair, they don't request removal of all magic, but then, would it really be a western if there were only one six-shooter in the whole movie, and it was seldom seen and never fired?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, how much can be changed before you feel the need to call it something different is going to vary from person to person. Take Arcana Evolved, and pretend its just someone's homebrew for a second, not a published book. It has changed the classes around, the spellcasting, etc. If you were a Player in that game, would you consider yourself to be playing D&D or would you consider yourself to be playing something else? Take Iron Heroes instead. It has no magic built in (except for the arcanist). If that was someone's homebrew, would it be D&D?

I don't have an answer for that. I don't know where D&D stops and it becomes... something else. I do know that these things have made D&D to fit a vision. They've taken the peg, and turned it into a circle. In the process, perhaps they've created a wholley new game, or perhaps not.

 

[helium3]

It'd be cool to see a generic supplement (maybe even a WoTC product) that gave rough sliding scales for the CR's of monsters depending on the setting you're running. Maybe even on scales besides just low magic, default magic and high magic. Stuff like, limited healing, limited ability scores, low access to blasting spells and other kinds of stuff. I think that would help a lot of people that wanted to try game systems with different kinds of magic.

 

[VirgilCaine]

The point being, you can try to fit a square peg into a round hole, but don't complain when you have to cut the corners off the peg to make it fit. It isn't a non-sequeter. You can play a western in d20 Star Wars if you want. You can play a low magic game in standard D&D. Just don't complain that the system isn't doing what you want it to. Best to go out and find one that does.

Quoted for truth.

 

[RangerWickett]

I have run high-magic games, and for me the problem wasn't that there was too much magic (the setting was intended to have lots of magic, after all), but rather the amount of book-keeping. The players were in the "Magic items! Must hoard!" mindset, so they'd end up with tons of minor magic items because their enemies also had tons of minor magic items. I didn't like coming up with tons of minor magic items. I mean, like, I know that modern soldiers carry lots of grenades and guns and other gear, and if you killed one you'd loot him too, but in a setting with magic there was too much variety for me to keep track of everything I'd given to the PCs.

So while I like high-magic games (they challenge my thinking, and prevent me from having stale adventures), I don't like the current rules set up for magic items. Trivial things like potions should not be such a pain in the ass to track at high level.

As for low-magic games . . . well, I wrote a book for handling magic to make it seem more like what you see in myths (see my sig), but that's more an aspect of making magic more flavorful and mysterious, not necessarily less prevalent.