why the attraction to "low magic"?

Dogbrain said:
What magic items did Odysseus run around with all the time.

The Argonauts, including Hercules, IIRC. Who needs a magic shield when you have a demigod and your own personal army? Granted, most of them leave or die over the course of the Odyssey, but then Odysseus is higher level by then.

Actually, now that I think about it, that's Jason, not Odysseus. But the argument still holds. Also, Odysseus was stronger than most men. The scene in his hall after he strings his bow and fires through the ten axes shows that he is a cut above most men. Much like Achillies, above.

So, perhaps that's a solution for some people. Have a "hero" template, something which increases the character's power up front and as they go up in level. Their added capabilities make up for, mechaincally, the assumptions in the system. Which, I believe, is just what the Midnight setting does.

Baron Opal
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've always had a problem with the generic term "high magic", because there are just too many things that affect the level of magic in a fantasy setting.

There's the power of magic -- if Gandalf is one of the most powerful spellcasters in your universe, magic is far less powerful than a universe where Pug of Stardock is. It doesn't seem like most people object to the existence of powerful, world-altering magic in their games; 3rd-Age Middle Earth is a decidedly low-magic setting on this axis.

There's the commonality of magic -- how likely is it that a given person is a spellcaster? Are even minor spellcasters rare, like they are in the world of Glenn Cook's Black Company, or can almost anyone manage a few basic spells, like they can in Steven Brust's Dragaera at the time of the Vlad Taltos books. Standard D&D demographics say that less than 1% of the population are spellcasters -- and most of that less than 1% are adepts, which doesn't seem excessively high or low by the standards of modern fantasy.

There's the versatility of magic - Elmister, working within the confines of D&D magic, can accomplish almost anything; Melanie Rawn's sunrunners are excellent with communication, illusion, and fire, but don't have much else to go on. This is one area where D&D is definitely at a "higher" level than most fantasy; it's hard to think of something that couldn't be done with a spell, given a sufficiently powerful caster.

There's the distribution of magic power -- in Jordan's Wheel of Time there's everyone from the barely magic-capable Morgase Trakand to the heights of the Forsaken and a handful of others, with a cluster at the lower-midrange; the wizards of Terry Pratchett's Discworld don't seem to have much variation in power among themselves. Standard D&D demographics say there are half as many second level wizards as first level, half as many third as second, etc, which implies a pretty steep, but climbable slope.

And then there's the commonality of magic items, which is the thing that most people complain about when they say that D&D is too much of a high-magic game. And the high availability of magic items in standard D&D are almost unique. But I really think it's there for a good reason; D&D is a game, not a novel. If you've decided that powerful magic exists and is easily accessable by PC magic-users, then you either accept that PC magic-users dominate the game (Ars Magica), make quasi-magical abilities common (Earthdawn), or make magic items very common (Dungeons & Dragons). I think D&D's choice (to balance the wizard's spells with the fighter's magic sword and armor) is probably the best one for a quasi-medieval fantasy game.
 

Kamikaze Midget said:
Yes, but if your player game to you and said "I want to be the child of a god, and here's my 40 strength and 30 Con, because I'm the child of a god, and I can beat the snot out of a river and never get hit" it'd be acceptable?

There were plenty of non god related greek heroes (or if there was a god he was a few generations back) and in other mythologys heroes didn't have crap loads of gear. I don't know much except greek heroes but I think Gilgamesh wasn't related to any gods (though he himself posseses near god like power).

In any case magic wan't common place in any mythological type setting (heck I have a hard time thinking of any magic users other than Circe in greek myths).
 

Baron Opal said:
Actually, now that I think about it, that's Jason, not Odysseus. But the argument still holds.

No, because Odysseus's hapless companions were a bunch of poor schmucks who all got killed.

Also, Odysseus was stronger than most men. The scene in his hall after he strings his bow and fires through the ten axes shows that he is a cut above most men. Much like Achillies, above.

So he has a ST of 17 or so and he's a skilled archer. That would be enough.

So, perhaps that's a solution for some people. Have a "hero" template

That's called "being high level".
 

I think there's emulating sword and sorcery, and then there's emulating myth. For whatever reason that's been lumped together in this discussion, but really -- Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser was nothing like Achilles or Oddyseus. Personally, I prefer something more along the lines of the former than the latter.

Interestingly enough, in my session tonight, we talked a bit about this thread, and how my melange of low magic house rules is working. I think, perhaps to the surprise of my players, who are all also DMs at times, that the rules are working out very well, and they're all having tons of fun. At least they say they are, and I'm very happy (with the exception of a few tweaks here and there) with the performance of my crazy house rules. The idea that low magic can't be fun, or doesn't work in the confines of d20, or something like that, quite simply is not jiving with our experience.
 

I always run "low magic" campaigns because of the consequences on society that magic of any real abundance will have. My take on this in my current campaign is attached.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar
 

Attachments


Joshua Dyal said:
The idea that low magic can't be fun, or doesn't work in the confines of d20, or something like that, quite simply is not jiving with our experience.
I wouldn't argue with that. I would argue that radically reducing the availability of magic items (and changing nothing else) doesn't work well at mid to high levels in unmodified D&D, but that's hardly saying that low magic & d20 don't mix.
 

Geoff Watson said:
No, they expect to be able to commision just about anything.

Guess that hasn't been my experience. They don't want to wait for it, they don't want to have to find the necessary Wizard and negotiate.

And it would certainly be true that they want to be able to sell anything, anytime. Without any hassle.
 

Chimera said:
And it would certainly be true that they want to be able to sell anything, anytime. Without any hassle.

Well, they could do that, but they might not get the price they are looking for... ;)
 

Chimera said:
Guess that hasn't been my experience. They don't want to wait for it, they don't want to have to find the necessary Wizard and negotiate.

And it would certainly be true that they want to be able to sell anything, anytime. Without any hassle.
It's not D&D's fault that your players are stubborn.

The fact that there are "market prices" listed for magic items in the DMG does not mean that there are markets where magic items are sold. For one thing, I've never seen a DM who doesn't compare the item requested by a player with the demographics of spellcasters in the town - are there NPCs in town who could make it, never mind the question of whether or not they would? You might make an exception for a potion or scroll, which an item crafter might have traded for in the past and kept around to sell later, but not a +2 holy flaming longbow.

I think it's very much the DM's responsibility to establish the availability of magic items, and to communicate this to her players.
 

Remove ads

Top