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

[Bendris Noulg]

If your plot requires players be absolutely unable to do something or require them to be absolutely unable to figure out something until times designated by the DM, it starts to smell and sound like railroading to me.

It also sounds like most of the adventures I've seen WotC produce.

But seriously, consider just about every movie, novel, comic book, and other adventure-based tale written. Almost every one of them involve twists, turns, unexpected facts, and other items that change the direction of the story. D&D is the only facet of the fantasy genre I know of where people expect to be able to jump through to the end and eliminate the big baddy, and where the right question (commune) removes any sense of ambiguity from the tale in regards to morals, ethics, and best course of action. Sure, these can be "trumped", either through more magic or simple GM's fiat (the "How To" thread has several shining examples of just that), but that just turns back to the one-up-manship problem that high magic eventually escalates to.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Folklore and mythology are also commonly filled with incestuous themes, but you don't see people scrambling to import those in their D&D campaigns.

Well, there is a certain father/daughter thing going on in Vile Darkness. My own setting features a noble family with a 15 year old daughter that has, ehr, gained "control" over the entire family (Erotic Fantasy, Vile Darkness, and Fading Suns' Psionics make an interesting combination).

 

[I'm A Banana]

But seriously, consider just about every movie, novel, comic book, and other adventure-based tale written. Almost every one of them involve twists, turns, unexpected facts, and other items that change the direction of the story. D&D is the only facet of the fantasy genre I know of where people expect to be able to jump through to the end and eliminate the big baddy,

That is because D&D is a game, an interactive exercise in imagination, while movies, novels, comic-books, and other adventure-based written tales are passive enjoyment of art.

D&D was never meant to be a point-A to point-B plot progression (except maybe in the dungeons)...and that's why it's 'different.' Because it's not a story, it's not a movie, it's not a comic book, it's not a written tale that someone is supposed to read. It's a game. And games involve random chance, the threat of winning or loosing, and require the players to think like their characters. Writing any of those things, as someone who has done that, and gotten paid, in a non-D&D sense, does not involve any amount of interaction. You write, they read. That's why D&D is a game, and not an excersie in collaborative fiction. Movies, myths, comic-books, novels, and other adventure tales are passive. D&D is not.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

D&D was never meant to be a point-A to point-B plot progression (except maybe in the dungeons)...and that's why it's 'different.' Because it's not a story, it's not a movie, it's not a comic book, it's not a written tale that someone is supposed to read. It's a game. And games involve random chance, the threat of winning or loosing, and require the players to think like their characters. Writing any of those things, as someone who has done that, and gotten paid, in a non-D&D sense, does not involve any amount of interaction. You write, they read. That's why D&D is a game, and not an excersie in collaborative fiction. Movies, myths, comic-books, novels, and other adventure tales are passive. D&D is not.

Which would be why I play d20 Fantasy games and not D&D... D&D is too limited in scope.

See, the only difference between an RPG and a written tale is in the main characters. In a written tale, the author has complete authoritative control over everything. In an RPG, the GM has complete authoritative control over everything except the main characters. Yes, this makes the creative process of the tale different than a one-author novel, but that doesn't make it any less a tale. Just look at the Story Hours; these are game sessions transcribed into written form after play has occured, being examples of exactly what I'm talking about here, and many of them have exactly the same kind of features I've indicated and that you are calling irrelevant to game play.

Really, the only difference I see between high and low is how the ends are achieved. In a low magic game, it's through the rarity, unavailability, and unsurity of magic. In a high magic game, it's through trumps, one-up-manship, and fiat. I mean, as a player, I'd rather work harder to gain something later that will almost always function, than to have something practically given to me early that can be trumped over half the time in an escalating arms race with the GM. As a GM, I'd rather reduce character power over-all in order to focus on story, plot, and setting, rather than being forced by high magic rules to waste my time calculating which trumps have to be put in place to keep the PCs powers in check for a given adventure or scenario, allowing my players to focus on role-play and adventure goals instead of trying to one-up me.

 

[WizarDru]

Yes, this makes the creative process of the tale different than a one-author novel, but that doesn't make it any less a tale. Just look at the Story Hours; these are game sessions transcribed into written form after play has occured, being examples of exactly what I'm talking about here, and many of them have exactly the same kind of features I've indicated and that you are calling irrelevant to game play.

So you're using the Story Hours to defend the idea of D&D needing to emulate myth? Reading things like Wulf's, Destan's, Piratecat's or my story hour should make it abundantly clear that those story hours DO NOT make good stories in the traditional sense, per se. Note how Destan's and Wulf's story hour ends, or the sometimes extremely transparent outside metagame elements in my or Piratecat's story hour. In a traditional story or myth, such elements as "character X got lost in a time flux accident and no one bats an eye about their friend of the last decade disappearing" or "character Y drops out and we get no closure about their personal story arc" just wouldn't fly, whereas they are accepted within the Story Hour format. The same way that an unchronicled character, such as Stone Bear, Agar, Shorty or Bolo can show up and become an instant main character with little or no introduction in the greater story, and becomes virtually instantly accepted in the fold with no real character development.

Further, based on what I've seen PC, Destan and Sepulchrave comment on in their respective threads and from personal experience with my own hour, I know that what you're reading is the EDITED version of events. You get the S. Morgenstern "Good Parts" version, ala the Princess Bride. That isn't to say that the story hours aren't based on excellent games...just that the excellent writers involved in some of these story hours are as much a part of their success as the actual game they chronicle.

Now, as to your feelings about the differences in high and low magic, I'll just agree to disagree. I find my players tire of repetition, and that your experiences and theirs differs, sometimes a little, sometimes a great deal.

 

[Altalazar]

Well, we've got yet another insinuation that low magic equates to bad GMing, but I'll ignore that little gem of bigotry and address the relevant issue...

In my experience as a player, I've seen high magic used by GMs to railroad and screw PCs so often that I started GMing to provide my friends with a game that didn't include any of that nonsense, which inevitably led me down the road to low magic, and, I must say, I'm still a gamer because of it.

None of my players feel that their choices are limited or that they are railroaded in any regard. Indeed, what they see is options within a viable campaign world that they prefer over the other games available to them (most of which are "core" games). Sure, they aren't the same options as one would have in a high magic game, but options are there and choices are theirs to make.

Anyone that's experienced the opposite didn't experience a low magic game, they experienced a bad GM, and bad GMs are not unique to any form or flavor of magic.

I was specifically referring to the complaints made by SOME (not all) who run low magic due to a desire not to have their plots "foiled" by player powers. I meant no bigotry. In fact, one could even argue that railroading, when done right, can lead to a good campaign, but I digress.

It is simply a basic truth that the less power the PCs have, the easier it is to limit their choices as a DM when setting up a campaign. DMs, as absolute powers within their worlds, can railroad the PCs equally well with high or low magic - that is actually completely irrelevant. A world with NO magic could have a DM still just arbitrarily have an army of 1000 warriors surround and capture the PCs and there isn't much they can do about it. So the notion that high magic == more DM railroading is a non-sequitor.

 

[Altalazar]

It also sounds like most of the adventures I've seen WotC produce.

But seriously, consider just about every movie, novel, comic book, and other adventure-based tale written. Almost every one of them involve twists, turns, unexpected facts, and other items that change the direction of the story. D&D is the only facet of the fantasy genre I know of where people expect to be able to jump through to the end and eliminate the big baddy, and where the right question (commune) removes any sense of ambiguity from the tale in regards to morals, ethics, and best course of action. Sure, these can be "trumped", either through more magic or simple GM's fiat (the "How To" thread has several shining examples of just that), but that just turns back to the one-up-manship problem that high magic eventually escalates to.

I thought WotC didn't make modules...

And there is nothing preventing twists and turns within a plot - but in gaming, one should always be prepared to accept that sometimes the players will anticipate the unlikliest of twists, and other times they will completely miss the most obvious twist of all. Now, it may be that much of D&D is stuck in the rut of formulaic adventures with a BBEG encounter at the end, but that is really a separate issue from high or low magic.

 

[Altalazar]

Which would be why I play d20 Fantasy games and not D&D... D&D is too limited in scope.

See, the only difference between an RPG and a written tale is in the main characters. In a written tale, the author has complete authoritative control over everything. In an RPG, the GM has complete authoritative control over everything except the main characters. Yes, this makes the creative process of the tale different than a one-author novel, but that doesn't make it any less a tale. Just look at the Story Hours; these are game sessions transcribed into written form after play has occured, being examples of exactly what I'm talking about here, and many of them have exactly the same kind of features I've indicated and that you are calling irrelevant to game play.

Really, the only difference I see between high and low is how the ends are achieved. In a low magic game, it's through the rarity, unavailability, and unsurity of magic. In a high magic game, it's through trumps, one-up-manship, and fiat. I mean, as a player, I'd rather work harder to gain something later that will almost always function, than to have something practically given to me early that can be trumped over half the time in an escalating arms race with the GM. As a GM, I'd rather reduce character power over-all in order to focus on story, plot, and setting, rather than being forced by high magic rules to waste my time calculating which trumps have to be put in place to keep the PCs powers in check for a given adventure or scenario, allowing my players to focus on role-play and adventure goals instead of trying to one-up me.

I think you have a somewhat limited view of just what high magic is and can be. You also seem to have very specific ideas about what gaming means overall (from the comments on gaming analogized as writing a story). Which is fine, but it seems to be limiting this discussion, as I don't quite think we're effectively communicating with each other. As I think someone else has said, D&D is not storymaking - it is really as open ended as real life, in many ways. The "Stars" of the game are the players and they are utterly free of any DM control. So where the "story" goes is really ultimately outside of DM control as well. There is nothing stopping the whole group from just abandoning the DM's plot completely and starting one of their own, if they are so inclined. And as for what high magic means, it is not just some sort of escalating arms race. I've played high level adventures where there was a lot of magic available where there really wasn't terribly much actual magical activity going on. A few spells here and there, but mostly your typical NPC interactions and exploration and dealing with problems.

My guess is that you've had some bad experiences with some poorly run games that happened to be high magic and that is coloring your perceptions of it. If I could, I'd love to run a "high" (really medium magic - standard core D&D) magic game that you could play in just to give you the chance to experience a fresh perspective on the matter. Heck, I'd love to play in general right now. (No time of late).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It is simply a basic truth that the less power the PCs have, the easier it is to limit their choices as a DM when setting up a campaign.

Easier, yes, but there are fewer limitations in actual practice. In a low-magic game, while your imagination is certainly constrained by the campaign "reality," you are far less likely to come up with an idea that has been specifically trumped by the DM. (Far less likely to hear, "That doesn't work..." or "You can't do that..." or "For some reason, magic is different here...")

The amount of front-end work required of the DM to curb, curtail, limit, head-off, and otherwise railroad the PCs is far more often a feature of a high-magic game than a low-magic game.

The examples of "high magic play" put forward in this thread and the other are stark proof of that.


Wulf

 

[Altalazar]

Easier, yes, but there are fewer limitations in actual practice. In a low-magic game, while your imagination is certainly constrained by the campaign "reality," you are far less likely to come up with an idea that has been specifically trumped by the DM. (Far less likely to hear, "That doesn't work..." or "You can't do that..." or "For some reason, magic is different here...")

The amount of front-end work required of the DM to curb, curtail, limit, head-off, and otherwise railroad the PCs is far more often a feature of a high-magic game than a low-magic game.

The examples of "high magic play" put forward in this thread and the other are stark proof of that.


Wulf

I've never had to deal with that in running or playing high magic, with the odd exception of anti-magic zones, which can be interesting in their own right. Spells just work, and the DM takes into account that they are there and what happens, appropriately, when they are used.

Why does the DM need to curb ANYTHING upfront in such a manner? The only reason I can think of is perhaps an attempt to play a higher level game as if it were still a low-level game by negating all of the higher level magic. But then, if you do that, might as well just start over at first level.

You can't design an adventure around a wilderness trek when you know your party can just teleport to their destination. If the DM just says "teleport seems to fail" then that is just playing a low level adventure with high level characters. It is like playing a Star Trek role playing game as cadets at Starfleet academy - up through them making Captain and commanding ships and fleets, and then complaining that your "hapless cadet" type adventures require too much "nerfing" of abilities - like saying the Captain's fleets are all powerless, the crews abandoned them, and they are all now back together like the academy, with no ships, no crews, nothing that their ranks and experience had given them - and saying that shows that games with the "higher level" ships Captains don't work because they require too much railroading to force them back into playing like they were all hapless cadets again.