What is "grim and gritty" and "low magic" anyway?

[Enkhidu]

Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:

I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).

Anyway, when we made the switch to 3e (which we did because we felt that the basic mechanics were simply superior), I found myself in sort of unfamiliar territory - by default level advancement was at lightspeed in comparison to what I was used to, and characters just didn't feel "finished" at 10 level, and the default for the seemed to assume that a PC wasn't ready for retirement into NPC-dom until 20th (or, when the ELH came out, beyond). So, instead of seeing teleportation and raising the dead as the signposts for the end of the game, those spells served as signs that the characters were finally getting ready to come into their own. As an example - our current campaign is following a metastory arc that will likely end up with the PCs at about 18th level by the time we're said and done(we're currently an average of 10th/11). When we ran a 2e campaign that was similar in scope to this one, we ended up wrapping the whole thing up as 9th level characters (who qualified for 10th after the session).

Basically, what was once a campaign pinnacle has just become another mile marker. And I believe that as a result, we've become desensatized to magic - its no longer wondrous for us, and simply becomes another tool (and an ubiquitous one at that, considering the slew of magic that high level adventurers are expected to have). So when I say that I like lower magic campaigns, for me its simply an attempt recapture that wonder.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My campaign is a little odd because we've moved through all the stages. Wulf joined it when the average PC level was 17th; since we're deep in world-spanning plots and many PCs have 9th lvl spells, it certainly doesn't qualify as gritty. That being said, the PCs have worked their way up over 12 years of real time, so we've gone through long periods of low magic adventures as well. I wince a little when I see the things that Wulf loves in a grim campaign, because my own game is so different than that.

Well, you have to look at some of the things that I have done with Stone Bear to compensate.

1) I have a boatload of skill ranks in Knowledge (arcana). When the opportunity arises to engage in a bit of thinky-doo in the magical "arms race," I feel a little more justified bringing my player knowledge to the table. And you'll note, I get the chance to do that probably 2 or 3 times a session. So, hey! I have a skill that remains useful at high level.

2) I am deliberately self-limiting in terms of power. Stone Bear's highest spell level is 4th (one per day). His highest attribute bonus is +3 (Dex), +4 counting his Str enhancer. His stats are 14, 16, 14, 12, 14, 12. He has sworn an oath against magic weapons, can wear only light armor, and considers it taboo to loot the dead.

3) Stone Bear does not control powerful forces, he puts himself at the mercy of powerful forces.

So basically, I enforce low-magic on myself.

In my experience, though, having a higher level/higher magic game does not exclude complex and engaging plots.

As for whether or not you can have engaging plots with high magic, what I said before was that it can't be done without DM fiat-- the DM has to "trump" the rules of high magic with "higher magic" that is outside the abilities of the PCs.

In your last big "plot," after all, there was no divination, no teleportation/etherealness/astral, and to some degree even ressurrection was affected-- I think, I don't know that we ever experienced a death during the crisis with Imbindarla (with one notable exception, and unfortunately I missed the session that explained why it wasn't immediately corrected with a true ressurrection).

So, basically, your campaign is kinda an example with regards to my high points, my "big three" spells.

I am having a good time, however-- don't be concerned! I don't think I've said in this thread that I am only capable of having a good time in a low magic game, I have merely taken the position of defending it, because I understand it.

I have a how-to book on writing that states, in relation to the vulnerability of protagonists, something to the effect of "it is easier to write a good Batman story than a good Superman story".

That is an awesome analogy, Snoweel. Superman eventually reached the point where DC was forced to reign in the "power creep" that had affected the character, because the threats to Superman were no longer compelling reading. He could do, and overcome, anything.


Wulf

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I have actually never heard the phrase "grim & gritty" (why is it that that phrase makes me think more of a rodeo than an RPG?).

To me a low magic campaign would be one where magic was just not a big focus. The PCs and majority of NPCs would rely on cunning and physical ability, not magic. Or a game where magic wouldn't make sense, like say something set in modern times, like SpyCraft, where PCs rely on modern weapons to get by.

In a fantasy game, I like playing a spellcaster, because, lets face it, it's something that you could not do in real life (not that I will ever be a Bond girl in real life...but hey...). I am not opposed to playing non magic games that are not fantasy related though. Just in a traditional fantasy setting, I like magic.

Of course, too much magic might be silly. Like if everyone was high magic and the entire population of the world could solve all their problems with spells and potions.

Just my 2 cents.

~Sheri

 

[Tom Cashel]

The magic is rare and the combat is gritty--sand getting rubbed in the wounds and whatnot.

 

[Belegbeth]

Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:

I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).

[...]

Basically, what was once a campaign pinnacle has just become another mile marker. And I believe that as a result, we've become desensatized to magic - its no longer wondrous for us, and simply becomes another tool (and an ubiquitous one at that, considering the slew of magic that high level adventurers are expected to have). So when I say that I like lower magic campaigns, for me its simply an attempt recapture that wonder.

Excellent point!

This is part of the reason why I prefer "low magic" or "rare magic" campaigns as well -- it just feels more like original D&D.

Another reason, mentioned many times in earlier posts, is that most great fantasy novels have a "low magic" or "rare magic" character (Tolkien, Leiber, etc.).

And another reason, also mentioned many times, is that it is easier to promote a sense of drama and excitement in low magic, grim and gritty games. This is *not* to say that it is impossible in standard DnD. It is just that low magic lends itself more readily to this kind of game. Where magic is rare and mysterious, and not an obvious solution to most problems, characters have to struggle more, and find creative solutions to problems.

This thread makes for great procrastination reading!

 

[kamosa]

Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:

I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).

Anyway, when we made the switch to 3e (which we did because we felt that the basic mechanics were simply superior), I found myself in sort of unfamiliar territory - by default level advancement was at lightspeed in comparison to what I was used to, and characters just didn't feel "finished" at 10 level, and the default for the seemed to assume that a PC wasn't ready for retirement into NPC-dom until 20th (or, when the ELH came out, beyond). So, instead of seeing teleportation and raising the dead as the signposts for the end of the game, those spells served as signs that the characters were finally getting ready to come into their own. As an example - our current campaign is following a metastory arc that will likely end up with the PCs at about 18th level by the time we're said and done(we're currently an average of 10th/11). When we ran a 2e campaign that was similar in scope to this one, we ended up wrapping the whole thing up as 9th level characters (who qualified for 10th after the session).

Basically, what was once a campaign pinnacle has just become another mile marker. And I believe that as a result, we've become desensatized to magic - its no longer wondrous for us, and simply becomes another tool (and an ubiquitous one at that, considering the slew of magic that high level adventurers are expected to have). So when I say that I like lower magic campaigns, for me its simply an attempt recapture that wonder.

I would call this lower level, not lower magic. It's fine to have a campaign that stops at 10th level, but that doesn't make it low magic. It sounds like you play standard D&D and just prefer to restart the campaign when it gets to a certain level. Cool.

 

[Snoweel]

I'm inclined to agree with you. I, myself, have toyed with the idea of slooooowing level advancement and capping the pinnacle of sentient achievement at 10th level.

However, there are some spells and effects of higher than 5th level that I want in my game.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Ok.

All these creative and flavourful and interesting and blatantly arbitrary explanations aside, what exactly is stopping this nation-of-limitations from being overrun by it's not-similarly-limited neighbours?

More house rules?

What stopped Japan - which chose to avoid the use of firearms in warfare - from being overrun by European nations in the 1700's? Distance, among other factors.

Keep in mind, GodKingJay's post had a campaign world where NPC characters of over 9th level were quite rare (so teleporting entire armies is not an issue). And the various continents were far apart. PCs have the financial resources for long-distance travel and may get to encounter the various cultures, but normally the various cultures won't directly interact much (except through traders). Or, one other possibility that I listed was the magic-restraining nations having no such taboo regarding magic use against outsiders. Or maybe the wizards are only forbidden to use magic against mundane opponents.

In terms of a single wizard or a small band teleporting into the magic-restraining lands and trying to take over - maybe that's where the PCs come in. Or maybe the "restrained" wizards band together to eliminate this threat without bringing armies into the equation. Or maybe the continent's god of magic - the same one who forces mages to take the vow - also plays havoc with the magic of outsider wizards who haven't taken the vow.

Yes, my examples are "arbitrary" in the sense that they involve the DM making up something to make his game work the way he wants it to, but what isn't? If you want your setting to look a certain way and have internal consistency, you *have* to make some "arbitrary" determinations. Every setting has them. The key is making them flavorful and creative (which I am glad you think I have done) and providing a sound basis for game world consistency. Also, the barriers I suggested? They don't have to be real. Maybe casting fireball *doesn't* bring Surtur closer to the Prime, but the greatest sages are mostly in agreement on the fact that it does. History is full of people believing stuff that isn't true and reacting accordingly.

 

[Nightfall]

Hey, now... If Hong hasn't been banned yet, then I've certainly got plenty of play room left.

Right-o Ben.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I mean, it's a known fact that when it comes to violence (the only display of power that is entirely objective), it is those who are prepared to go the furthest to achieve their goals that are ultimately victorious.

A nation that voluntarily cripples itself in a military sense is merely placing itself at the mercy of other nations with less compunctions as to the use of force.

I don't quite see how this is crippling. The nation doesn't create magical arms and armor. Ok, that's fine. What about scrying? In war, knowledge is power, and if you are observing your enemies plans and actions, you can easily prepare and counter them. Or perhaps many of the wizards are simply abjurers, and this nation has the best magical defenses anywhere in the world. Good luck penetrating their wards.

Nations adapt to compensate for their own weaknesses. Perhaps the country was dominated for 200 years, and recently liberated. So it's still learning to adapt. So what? That just makes it more interesting, to me at least.

No offence, but at worst it's a stupid idea. At best it is nothing less than a transparent case of DM fiat.

None taken. Maybe it's an idea you don't care for, but that does not make it stupid by any means. When a DM takes the time and effort to create a unique and interesting campaign world, I am intrigued. It may not be the type of world I want to play in, but that doesn't make it stupid. I'm not really sure how that's DM Fiat; It's world-building. If you don't like the kind of game a DM runs, then just find other people to play with. It's not that hard.

The point I was trying to make was that in a campaign world that is large and diverse, you can run a number of different kinds of games. If you want a high-technology, high-magic, utopian-type society, then start a group of players in the first country I mentioned. If you want a roman/medieval, low-tech, low-magic game, run it in the second country I mentioned. As was said, high level PCs can go wherever they want.

As a DM and a player, I find a multi-faceted campaign world much more intriguing than a world that is "high magic" or "grim-n-gritty." People have already been saying this already, I was just trying to lend some ideas as to how one might create a world with both those facets, along with others.

You could implement some of the rules already mentioned, modify spell lists, and create other houserules to get the kind of overall feel you want. But that doesn't mean you can't have some diversity and verisimilitude.

But if I'm in a world that is always "dark, smelly, dirty, where everyone sacrifices 12 virgins to the blood god, considers baby arms a delicacy, and plays dodgeball with puppies," then my interest in that game will rapidly plummet.

 

[rounser]

I'd wager there is no plot, no situation, no moral quandary faced by a hero in any classic tale that cannot be solved by a 20th level cleric or wizard in six spells or less.

I think you're forgetting that even with high level casters, spells tend to bounce off of things, and that there are usually countermeasures in place (e.g. they're expecting you to scry). A lot of that power begins to pale when you factor in the opposition.

 

[National Acrobat]

Low Magic to me...

As a Dm, low magic to me is simply that folks have to find magic items while adventuring, they can't purchase them. That's about it for my definition.

 

[el-remmen]

You know, I recently started reading Sepulchrave's "Wyre" story hour and as much as I have been enjoying it, it really seems to highlight the things I like and don't like about high level play at the same time.

For example, I love the scying and counter-scrying to try to get the jump on your enemies and vice-versa, and all the earth-shattering theological consequences of the PCs' actions, etc. . .

I also love all the speculation on theological and planar and societal issues and forces that goes on and the moral quandries (though I do not think these are limited to high level play, I just like how they are developed in this particular SH).

What I don't like is how much the combats are basically who gets off the most powerful spells first. At the risk if posting spoilers in teh combat I read last night, one side kept summoning balors so the "good guys" brought in a Solar and that Solar brought in another and then wham wham wham the fight was over - but really the PCs were not doing much, it was their summoned celestials of great power that were doing everything (in fact the "main" character was sitting drooling on the ground feebleminded), and while I have no doubt the game would be fun to play in from the former aspect, I think I would find such fights boring and like my character was guest-star in his own story.

 

[Orius]

Y'know, I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down:

I guess you could say I cusp on (but don't quite qualify for) old fart status - began playing in '81 - and have found that I miss "name level." In 1e and (to a lesser extent) 2e, I always found that by the time we hit levels 9 to 11, we were just about at character retirement. The world had been saved, the PCs had land and vassals to deal with, what have you - time to break out new characters (maybe even followers of the old ones, or possibly younger relatives).

Anyway, when we made the switch to 3e (which we did because we felt that the basic mechanics were simply superior), I found myself in sort of unfamiliar territory - by default level advancement was at lightspeed in comparison to what I was used to, and characters just didn't feel "finished" at 10 level, and the default for the seemed to assume that a PC wasn't ready for retirement into NPC-dom until 20th (or, when the ELH came out, beyond). So, instead of seeing teleportation and raising the dead as the signposts for the end of the game, those spells served as signs that the characters were finally getting ready to come into their own. As an example - our current campaign is following a metastory arc that will likely end up with the PCs at about 18th level by the time we're said and done(we're currently an average of 10th/11). When we ran a 2e campaign that was similar in scope to this one, we ended up wrapping the whole thing up as 9th level characters (who qualified for 10th after the session).

Perhaps, but I'd disagree with this argument for two reason:

First, I think a preference for lmgng has as little to do with age as DMing ability. Just as not all people who prefer lmgng are imcompetant, I don't think it follows that not all of them are jaded, bitter 30-something or older players looking to recapture a classic D&D feel.

Second, it tends to impy (at least to me) that high magic high fantasy appeals to only young players, and I think that's almost akin to munchkin arguments made about similarly aged players.

Also, I think PCs who gain abilities like raise dead and teleport should be given chances to use them. It's not as much fun if the campaign ends after you've gotten maybe 2 uses of great abilities.

I do agree that 3e advancement is hard for someone of the 2e or earlier experience to get used to. It can seem too fast for long time D&D players. But I remember someone saying that people also don't have the time to play long campaigns that stretch out over 3 or 4 years of real time either, and that makes a valid counter-argument.

And the impression I've got from discussions about the ELH is that some epic stuff gets ridiculous in terms of power. In my games, 20th level is about the pinnacle of power reached only by the most powerful characters. I can handle the PCs going to as high as maybe 30th level, but past that it seems things break down. I would view stuff with like 60-80 levels or more to be totally overpowered in terms of how I set up my campaigns.

 

[Belegbeth]

What settings?

What published settings are good examples of "low magic" and/or "grim and gritty"?

Midnight has been mentioned. Why is Midnight a good example of this style? (I don't own it myself.) What others are there?

And what is done in these settings to maintain "game balance"?

(This latter question is asked to address a common concern expressed by those critical of "low magic" games.)

 

[Enkhidu]

Perhaps, but I'd disagree with this argument for two reason:

First, I think a preference for lmgng has as little to do with age as DMing ability. Just as not all people who prefer lmgng are imcompetant, I don't think it follows that not all of them are jaded, bitter 30-something or older players looking to recapture a classic D&D feel.

Second, it tends to impy (at least to me) that high magic high fantasy appeals to only young players, and I think that's almost akin to munchkin arguments made about similarly aged players.

Also, I think PCs who gain abilities like raise dead and teleport should be given chances to use them. It's not as much fun if the campaign ends after you've gotten maybe 2 uses of great abilities.

I do agree that 3e advancement is hard for someone of the 2e or earlier experience to get used to. It can seem too fast for long time D&D players. But I remember someone saying that people also don't have the time to play long campaigns that stretch out over 3 or 4 years of real time either, and that makes a valid counter-argument.

And the impression I've got from discussions about the ELH is that some epic stuff gets ridiculous in terms of power. In my games, 20th level is about the pinnacle of power reached only by the most powerful characters. I can handle the PCs going to as high as maybe 30th level, but past that it seems things break down. I would view stuff with like 60-80 levels or more to be totally overpowered in terms of how I set up my campaigns.

OK. I'm going to take a moment away from being both jaded and bitter to say a few things - 1) I wasn't making an arguement but was instead in effect asking for information (my words were "I'd be interested to see how the "gamer age" of people who enjoy lower magic versus the "gamer age" of the higher magic crowd would break down" and I said as much because my belief is that I am not alone in my experiences), 2) my statements were anecdotal in nature (as in I never said that this is true for everyone but is instead what is true in my direct experience). And now on with more meaty comments:

Really, all of this comes down to a matter of taste. I've been called a "simulationist" by others on the boards, and I think that my simulationist bent is responsible for my predeliction toward lower magic as both DM and player. And a magic level lower than the default for 3e D&D better allows me to create the kinds of characters and scenarios that I enjoy (and my "ultimate campaign world" shares more with Hyboria or Lankhmar than with Melnibone). This isn't necessarily better or worse than someone who enjoys higher magic campaigns, just different. And that's OK. Its more about the fit than the style.

 

[heimdall]

What published settings are good examples of "low magic" and/or "grim and gritty"?

I believe Ravenloft would be considered Low Magic. Call of Cthulhu D20 (and Chaosium's version as well) would be considered grim and gritty.

My definitions when I use those terms to describe my homebrew world:

Low Magic - The average person rarely, if ever comes into contact with magic. Even the village priest may be pious, but not necessarily blessed with the ability to heal.

This makes PCs the true heroes or villians of the world, along with their primary antagonists. Magic is viewed with a bit of distrust, so there are social implications, of course. Magical items are therefore rarer among the common stuff ("Look, honey, a new broom of sweeping for your birthday!") and tend more towards the items that can be used for conflict and war (the stuff an average party wants anyway). Yes, this does put the PCs at a higher point than the average two-bit warlord. But it also puts the main antagonists on a similar level. Which means to the average populace, they are held in awe, good or bad.

Grim and Gritty - You could die at any time. Therefore, be smart about your decisions. Unlike some worlds where priests with the ability to hit you with a true res are a dime a dozen, you had best expect to pay a ton IF you can find such a guy or gal. The same rules apply to the antagonists. They're intelligent. Should the odds turn against them, they'll cut and run in a heartbeat. None of this, "Didn't we kill this guy last month and he's back again?!?"

However, the standard brutish orcs, ogres, and the like will still march on in their barbaric ways using meat-wave tactics to overrun civilization. Therefore, you had best have a plan when dealing with 'em because charging in without one will get you killed and rolling a new character.

 

[Uruush]

What published settings are good examples of "low magic" and/or "grim and gritty"?

Midnight has been mentioned. Why is Midnight a good example of this style? (I don't own it myself.) What others are there?

And what is done in these settings to maintain "game balance"?

(This latter question is asked to address a common concern expressed by those critical of "low magic" games.)

I can offer my take on Midnight. Midnight is just bandwidth on an infinite spectrum of magic power, magic rarity, grimness, and grit, and it's wide enough to allow it to be played quite a ways up and down the spectrum.

To shoehorn it into a "grim and gritty low magic" shoe would be simplistic, and a disservice to the depth and richness of the setting.

Its main mage class, the Channeler,has higher hp and BAB than a standard Sorcerer or Wizard. The spell system is basically a fatigue point system. At any given level, Channelers probably know fewer spell than most Sorc or Wizards in other settings, but they might know more after a time (further spells can be learned from teachers, tomes, etc. using exp to gain mastery)
Spells are divided into schools; beginning channelers know a couple schools, and can gain more with level progression or feats. Some of the "problematic spells" that some DMs describe as causing problems with fantasy genre emulation are only available to higher level mages than standard (spells like Fly, Teleport, Magic Missle, Fireball, Summon Monster, etc) by picking appropriate feats Moreover, any class can learn spell casting by taking the appropriate feats. Many non-human races have some innate magical talent - cantrips and such.

I think the game balance is actually much better than core D&D. The Channeler is probably more powerful at lower levels, about the same at mid-levels, and less powerful at high-levels Ever play a 18th level Fighter in a standard D&D game and feel like you were just along for the ride while the spell casting classes moved worlds and slew armies? Ever play a 1st level wizard in a standard D&D game and quail at your frailty relative to the party barbarian? Midnight changes some balance in a lot of ways, but to start from the position that core D&D gets balance right, is a poor assumption in my view. (See the plethora of house rules in almost every D&D campaign for evidence of this)

Magic items are rare. Hell, even things like swords and chainmail are rare in terms of their availability to PCs because they are forbidden to PC races. The dark god Izrador reigns over the world of Ayrth. Unless you are a chosen minion of the Shadow, weapons are generally illegal.

Some gritty-ness is present from the general rarity of healing. There are no PC Clerics, only NPC "Legates," priests of the order of Shadow. Legates are, among other things, tasked with hunting down users of magic - Izrador is drawing all magic on Ayrth to himself and does not approve those that use it aside from his dispensation.

Things are grim. The PCs are heroes that have a lot of hills to climb in front of them, something like rebels in the Star Wars universe at the height of Imperial power, or Cyberpunk 2020 characters in a corporate dystopian future. Others have described the setting as "Middle Earth had Sauron won," and that is pretty apt in terms of the feel - both the grimness and the relative rarity of magic, as in Tolkein. The settings main hook, I think, is that the heroes have so much to overcome, some would call their situation hopeless - and yet they must try. That they strive against the Shadow and seek to free the world (or some small part of it) from the grip of Izrador, against such odds, sets them in the mold of Nietzschean supermen.

The races and classes of Midnight are generally more powerful than those of core D&D, in part to compensate for their difficult situation and for a scarcity of magic items. PCs have "Heroic Path" abilities that grant them power along a given theme/character type: Philosopher, Ironborn, Dragonblooded, etc.

Another twist - Covenant magic items that gain in power as a character progresses in level. No piles of +1 Rings of Resistance and + 1 swords in a character's wake, filling the marketplace and creating a distinctly non-genre environment.

There's a lot more too it, but I've got to go make dinner. Here's a nice link for those interested in a much better description:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/mnland.html

When I ran across it, I thought, "This is it. The d20 setting I am interested in running." YMMV.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're not paying very good attention to the thread as a whole, and that's a shame.

I regret calling out specific problem spells as you've seized on that as my only gripe. That's not the case. I'd go through the entire list of spells and magic items if I had the time or inclination to instruct you.

And I'd give you how they really are not all that abusive in the context of the game or the story. As an aside, claiming that I "haven't paid attention" or that you need to "instruct" me is pretty insulting. Just because I like more magic in my games than you does not mean I'm any 'worse' at this glorified game of make-believe than you.

I don't have a problem with high magic as a DM-- I have a problem with it as a player. It is not that I have had plots foiled, it is that I have, as a player, seen them foiled, helped to foil them, with high level magic.

Potayto, potahto, it's the same problem, just from the other side of the screen.

The longer you play in a game, the higher level you ascend, the more magic becomes a crutch and a cure-all. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a simple fact of the CORE DESIGN of D&D-- characters are expected to use magic in order to be heroic and achieve their goals.

Heroic and achieving goals != crutch and cure all. I'm aruging that magic IS NOT a crutch and a cure all, and that you calling it such is just like people calling lm/gng games bags of unfun run by power-mad DM's.

And as others have already pointed out, that is simply inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth, that experience that we hope to capture or emulate.

#1, the above is simply not true. The level and type of magic in D&D is NOT inconsistent with the bulk of heroic myth.
#2, not everyone wants to emulate or capture that experience. Some of us want to play a game.

Those of us who enjoy playing characters of wits, skill, and resourcefulness-- the qualities ascribed to classic heroes-- are given short shrift in a game where magic is a cure-all.

But that's the mistake, right there. In the campaigns I have run or been a part of, the vast majority have been default D&D, where your perception of magic as a cure all is just blatantly misguided. Magic is a tool; it's no more a cure-all than a sword, axe, or stick of dynamite. And just like those tools, they don't replace character's capabilities, but become extensions of the character's abilities. And thus, a character of wits, skills, and resourcefulness does not get the short shrift in the slightest, because that is as useful to a guy with a nuclear weapon as it is to a guy with a pointy stick as it is to a guy who can cast commune as it is to a guy who makes auguries with entrails as it is to someone who can wish the most powerful entitiy in the world simply out of existence. Characters of wits, skills, and resourcefulness all have a chance to shine, no matter what a spell can do, because magic has always had significant limitations. Even if you can scry-buff-teleport, that only lets you (maybe) beat up your enemies, it does not solve the problem any more than spying on them as a rogue and then stabbing them in their sleep does.

While King Arthur had Excalibur, and Frodo had the One Ring and Sting, these items didn't define the character or his abilities as absolutely as items and magic do in D&D. This is a notion that peculiar to D&D, and nowhere else in fantasy fiction or myth.

Why do I care about fiction or myth? Why does being present in some book suddenly make the game a deeper, better experience? Why is a literature-inspired setting better?

It's not. If you'd like to play a campaign that mirrors that, be my guest, but don't tell me that because I have a spell or three that I can't include situations of dramatic tension as found in those. I don't want to make-believe Lord of the Rings. I want to play a game. That game can have fear, the unknown, darkness, a deep history, character risk, permanent death, sacrifice, long journeys, and deep emotional investment in the characters just as well as Lord of the Rings. I can't use the specific situations, of course, but I *can* use other situations that have stirred the same emotions. So what if Arthur wasn't defined by Excalibur? I'm playing a game, not penning a national epic. And within that game, with all it's trappings on magic items, I can *still* make one sword thrown by a watery tart seem special and significant to the character. And who are you to tell me I can't?

The low magic/GnG crowd seeks to downplay the role of magic in the game so that the characters can shine.

The characters can shine even in a campaign with the role of magic UPplayed. Shining characters are not an exclusive of the lm/gng crowd.

While its possible to have wit, skill, and resourcefulness be defining character traits in a standard D&D game, those qualities often take a back seat to acquiring more potent abilities and magical solutions IME. The scry/buff/teleport or greater invis/fly/fireball phenomena of dealing with high-level threats in D&D is proof of this, and is something NEVER found in fiction or legend. This isn't relying on the resourcefulness of characters, but instead it is the "optimal" way of dealing with high level threats according to the core rules.

Wouldn't a resourceful character in D&D make use of the tools available to them? Most notably things like spell combinations? Isn't the job of wit and creativity to overcome the threats such a being faces? If you have a problem with magic being the tools of that wit, that's remarkably different then there being a problem with the magic to begin with.

...if the DM wants to make sure the game focuses on the characters rather than a magical arms race.

It's also not the only way, nor even potentially the best way.

It was more in reference to a fear of dark unknown places- the kind of thing that makes you look around the dimmed gaming room wondering what might happen if you go down the dark hallway to the bathroom. I have played in three adventures that evoked this kind of dread and unease in the players, and all three were low magic games.

That doesn't mean that a normal or high magic game doesn't have this element, though. It doesn't mean that low magic games are any better at acheiving that effect than high magic.

In my experience, this kind of engrossing factor is hard to achieve in a high magic game, because the characters are more like superheroes than normal people, and its hard to evoke fear/dread in empowered people. There is a reason horror games don't have superpowered characters, and why more "mundane" games (where players play characters more like their real-life selves) typically evoke a greater emotional response or attachment in players. I'm not saying its impossible in a high magic game, just much harder (and believe me, I have tried).

I've made players *weep* with emotion, using a VERY high magic world where they were regularly using effects like Scry to uncover the mysteries, regularly using teleport to go across the world, and regularly using save-or-die effects to dispatch the bad guys. The magic level has ZERO effect on how dramatic or emotional the game is -- that power lays exclusively with the DM and the players. Either that, or I am unknowingly a very exceptional DM. I tend to think the former, myself.

only because you have to keep the game engaging and fun when often there are no clear resolutions to and feelings of accomplishment in morally gray and "gritty" sitautions, and much like "real life" every action has a number of bad consequences along with the intended good ones.

There's no reason high magic has to disregard the accomplishment in a morally gray or gritty situation, or has to have only good conseqeunces.

As for whether or not you can have engaging plots with high magic, what I said before was that it can't be done without DM fiat-- the DM has to "trump" the rules of high magic with "higher magic" that is outside the abilities of the PCs.

Whatever a DM does falls into the field of things that are "outside of the abilities of PC's." PC's only decide their own actions. Everything else is the DM's purview. I don't know how making sure enemies know how to use magic just as well as the PC's is any more "trumping" than making sure monsters present a reasonable challenge or the adventure caters to all the characters. The entire bloody night is entirely DM fiat....how is adversaries with spellcasting capability any different?

I have merely taken the position of defending it, because I understand it.

I'm not attacking lm/gng campaigns, so much. They're perfectly reasonable, and there is a market for them, and they have their place. I just don't think 'their place' is in telling normal DM's that their campaigns can't have grand emotional elements or the core ideas of plot and conflict simply because of a few spells. Which it really did seem like when things like

"high magic" means that players do not have to think. They will have a magic item or spell to solve every problem-- even death!-- and if they don't, they can just nip down to the corner and buy one. Skills are meaningless, as there is a spell that can do anything you can do better, easier, or quicker.

There is no fear of the unknown (divination).

There is no moral uncertainty (commune).

There are no arduous journeys (teleporation).

There is no heroic sacrifice (raise dead).

A high magic game removes obstacles from the players' path-- those very same obstacles that have traditionally defined a good story.

were typed. So really, I'm defending normal D&D, because lm/gng is different, but it's not any holistically better. It works for a different feel, but it's not a 'better' feel, and having normal magic does NOT yeild an easy solution to every problem, nor does it destroy the emotional investment in the game. It's the DM's that do that, not the level of magic. Normal or high magic doesn't have to be a simple game of killing things and taking their loot, any more than low magic has to be a game of killing all the impotent PC's.

 

[heimdall]

So really, I'm defending normal D&D, because lm/gng is different, but it's not any holistically better. It works for a different feel, but it's not a 'better' feel, and having normal magic does NOT yeild an easy solution to every problem, nor does it destroy the emotional investment in the game. It's the DM's that do that, not the level of magic. Normal or high magic doesn't have to be a simple game of killing things and taking their loot, any more than low magic has to be a game of killing all the impotent PC's.

I'm a DM who prefers a low magic game. I've explained what that means in my campaigns in an earlier post. Maybe it's because I like to roleplay the awe of the villagers when the evil wizard PC whips out lightning bolt to make his point and subject the village to his will. But I also run a lot of high magic games because my players prefer those kinds of settings. Look, in Forgotten Realms Silverymoon has a mythal, a magical shield protecting the city. In my homebrew setting, nothing like a mythal exists. Do I like the mythal over Silverymoon? Yup. It adds a different element. It requires different solutions than a low magic game without such a concept does. But that doesn't change the emotion. It doesn't cause the players to think any less. It doesn't subtract from the enjoyment.

I would say in general LM games I've been a player in had less margin for error because dead tended to be dead. But you know, that's a very general statement. And it has more to do with the DMs who I've played under who ran either low magic or high magic settings, so it's not so much the amount of magic itself but the guy/gal running the show. Low magic versus high magic... they're different genres of gaming. Neither is necessarily better than the other. It's the complete experience.