Altalazar said:
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).
Actually, my "limited view" is fairly much in-line with the DMG's description of what a DM is and does.
Which is fine, but it seems to be limiting this discussion, as I don't quite think we're effectively communicating with each other.
With all due respect, seeing something "different" from you isn't limiting the discussion (unless, of course, you believe that conceding to your point is the only means of making "progress" within the discussion).
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.
See, we do agree... Mostly. I don't believe the story is outside of the GM's control, only the course of action chosen by the PCs, as it's the GM that determines how the world/environment around the PCs react to the PC's actions and how the world "advances" over the course of time.
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.
See, not everything can be painted with broad strokes from the same brush. You might consider learning from your own exceptions that other exceptions are possible (even if you don't care for those exception personally).
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.
Check it out, dude... This thread basically started as a "why like low magic or GnG" discussion. However, it quickly turned from explaining why we like it to defending our preferences for it.
I personally don't care what other people do in their games. And you don't see me jumping into threads about high magic games spewing a bunch of ignorance and arrogant opinions. However, as you'll see in this thread and many others on the same topic, there's no shortage of folks jumping in to attack others for their preferences in taste and style (hence the repeated and increasing boring drivel about laziness, railroading, and overall poor GMing skills).
Fact is, it has nothing to do with bad experiences with High Magic; When I took the helm as a GM, I started with the magic level as presented in the books and various modules. But with each incarnation of the rules, and especially so with 3E, I've noted that the game has grown increasingly cheesy. There was a time when I could pick up a D&D book, read it, and be inspired to do something with the material on hand. Now, I've got little compulsion to purchase too many products all around (especially WotC products) because of the cheese factor (and there are some publishers I've written off completely because 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).
See, I don't see 3E as "medium" magic, in that the only incarnations of higher magic I can find are the 3E settings that add more magic in (FRCS and now Eberron, which is just more cheese from the looks of it).
As is, though, I'm in the same mind set: If I could get half the people that have presumptions about low magic to get to my table, and to do so with an open mind, I'm sure I'd change a lot of opinions too. Unfortunately, this medium (message board with world-wide access) means that we all really have two choices: believe what someone else is saying about their personal experience even if it doesn't fit our conforting preconceptions, or cling to those preconceptions and ignore the experiences of others.
It's not rocket science to determine which of the two leads to more productive discussions.