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

[malladin]

What eventually became DarkLore started out as a standard, high magic, D&D game. When we developed the new dark magic feel rules that we put into DarkLore I had the players change their charactrers to the new system. I think the resounding opinion was that DarkLore had less constraints on their creativity than a standard D&D character. With free multiclassing, pick-your-own class freatures and the chance to purchase tailored magic items that grow with the character proved a winner. Even Matt, and he's a real power gamer!


Cheerio,

Ben

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So you're using the Story Hours to defend the idea of D&D needing to emulate myth?

First, I don't think D&D needs to emulate myth, only that it should allow it as a viable option (that it doesn't is testiment to it's shortcomings as a system). What I am saying is that many of the story hours contain the plot twists, surprise discoveries, and time-based events that Altazaar indicates are not part of a D&D game.

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.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I certainly don't have any intention of making folks that don't like Low Magic to "convert" or anything of that nature. What I would like to see is less occurances of know-nothings shooting off vague insults by virtue of refering to Low Magic as the result of laziness, railroading, and poor GMing.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I thought WotC didn't make modules...

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Speaker in Dreams, Sunless Citadel, and a few other titles I don't remember. Modules may not be part of their business model now, but given how awful some of the modules they made were, that's probably a good thing.

 

[Altalazar]

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Speaker in Dreams, Sunless Citadel, and a few other titles I don't remember. Modules may not be part of their business model now, but given how awful some of the modules they made were, that's probably a good thing.

Sunless Citadel and Speaker In Dreams - I liked both of those. I also liked the Return module. In fact, I must say, I generally liked all of them. Which ones do you think were "awful" and why do you think so?

 

[WizarDru]

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I certainly don't have any intention of making folks that don't like Low Magic to "convert" or anything of that nature. What I would like to see is less occurances of know-nothings shooting off vague insults by virtue of refering to Low Magic as the result of laziness, railroading, and poor GMing.

And just to make sure we're clear on the fact, I never said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it. I LIKE low magic and high magic. They are equally different and enjoyable for different reasons, the same way that I can enjoy Ronin, Commando and the Pirates of the Carribean.

D&D requires a good DM, regardless of what the house-rules or campaign-specific style happens to be. There's only one wrong way to play D&D...and that's when people don't have fun. Anything else is irrelevant.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

DMs, as absolute powers within their worlds, can railroad the PCs equally well with high or low magic - that is actually completely irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. When it's insinuated that Low Magic = Railroading GM, the implication is that railroading is mostly a Low Magic thing and that Low Magic is used primarily to railroad. Therefore, that the GM actually has more tools to railroad PCs in a high magic world and a low magic world is not irrelevant. And, again, if the players feel their options have been limited by a lack of magic, rather than seeing different options that are viable because of it, it's a limitation of the players.

Now, as for the GM "arbitrarily" making a decision, well, I don't see a lacking of that in High Magic games (a few of the posts in the "How To" thread make extensive use of it, in fact).

And who's to say that PCs in a low magic game can't get away from a 1000-man army? I mean, if you adhere to the false belief that low magic = low level, than yeah, a 1000 man army is a bit skewed (and if a means of escape isn't provided by the GM within the scenario design, it's poor design). But a party of 15th level PCs, even in a low magic world, should have little trouble with a 1000 man army (and if one of the PCs is a spellcaster, that 1000 man army might end up retreating before actual melee combat begins just from a simple illusion that makes the army think that it's about to get smacked down).

But this again relates to preconceptions about low magic; Folks have their idea of what low magic is and given this prejudicial view more weight than the actual in-game experiences of other gamers posting in this thread. You are more comfortable with your misconception than you are with the truth of the matter being posted by others, and you'd rather spread your limited views as facts to others that don't know for themselves (possibly preventing them from discovering that you are wrong).

Where I come from, that's called bigotry.

 

[WizarDru]

Sunless Citadel and Speaker In Dreams - I liked both of those. I also liked the Return module. In fact, I must say, I generally liked all of them. Which ones do you think were "awful" and why do you think so?

Actually, several modules have been announced for Eberron, so WotC is still in the module business...but only to support a larger goal.

As for Bad modules...I'd say The Standing Stone and Bastion of Broken Souls were the worst and most egregious examples of poor module design (particluary in regards to this thread, where they highlight the 'cheat the players to enforce the plot' that we've been arguing about). Deep Horizon and Lord of the Iron Fortress weren't bad, but not particularly good, either.

Return is an excellent module, for the first half of the book. Then it just becomes a slog. If the latter half was a good as Hommlett and the Moathouse and the first parts of the mines, it would be a great module. But at some point, it just becomes a Bataan death march.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

And just to make sure we're clear on the fact, I never said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it. I LIKE low magic and high magic. They are equally different and enjoyable for different reasons, the same way that I can enjoy Ronin, Commando and the Pirates of the Carribean.

D&D requires a good DM, regardless of what the house-rules or campaign-specific style happens to be. There's only one wrong way to play D&D...and that's when people don't have fun. Anything else is irrelevant.

Agreed!

As for the "never said that", you are right. But that's also half the problem with these sorts of threads. Allow me to clarify: Some posters come in, tossing out presumptions about poor GMing involving laziness, railroading, and other negative connotations (sp?). Eventually, these individuals make the discussion heated. It then makes it difficult for those like me (the targets of the attitude) to discuss the matter with those that don't have an attitude but have a similar stance to those that did.

It's also frustrating when it appears that the accusations (laziness, railroading) have tapered off but then return. It kinda generates that feeling of, "My gawds, we gotta deal with this again? I thought we cleared this crap up 5 pages ago..."

Know what I mean?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

As for Bad modules...I'd say The Standing Stone and Bastion of Broken Souls were the worst and most egregious examples of poor module design (particluary in regards to this thread, where they highlight the 'cheat the players to enforce the plot' that we've been arguing about). Deep Horizon and Lord of the Iron Fortress weren't bad, but not particularly good, either.

Return is an excellent module, for the first half of the book. Then it just becomes a slog. If the latter half was a good as Hommlett and the Moathouse and the first parts of the mines, it would be a great module. But at some point, it just becomes a Bataan death march.

My views of the modules is a little different from WizarDru's here, but he sums it up well enough that I don't think I need to expand on it.