why the attraction to "low magic"?

[Wombat]

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).

Actually, Gilgamesh is interesting in that he was, according to at least a couple translations I have seen of the tablets, 2/3 god, which makes for an interesting spin. I have no idea how that particular figure was arrived at, but maybe his parents were oddly compliant...

Be all that as may be, we seem to be covering several different notions in this thread.

1) How many magical items should a character have?

2) How common are magic wielders in a campagin?

3) Are magical dingi available for purchase?

4) What are the implications in a low level campaign of high level wizards? Does this same criteria affect the world in the same manner as in a high level campaign?

5) How ubiquitous is magic? Does everyone in the world, including Joe Farmer, accept it?

6) Does the magic available appreciably alter the social, economic, and/or political structure of the world?

In many campaigns I have seen, there is little or no acknowledgement of high level spells at the beginning of a campaign, unless said spells are used to save the party's collective tuckus. This seems short-sighted to me. If big magics are going to be there in the world, acknowledge the fact from the beginning and have the world alter accordingly; conversely, if you have a world you really want and the magics would throw this out of alignment, alter the magic. It just depends with which end of the equation you takes as being "vital".

A few incoherent thoughts before I go to bed...

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Hong limited teleport in his game in an interesting way; one can transport oneself from anywhere, but one must travel to one of a limited number of places, the locations of which are known.

Prevents teleport-raiding, allows for "Get the Hell out of here!" butt-saving. Kinda cool.

 

[Belegbeth]

... all in all, it's not nearly as hard to make a low magic campaign as a lot of folks who are really jittery about the legendary 'balance' of d20 seem to think.

Exactly right. I am endlessly amazed at how obsessed some people are with maintaining "balance" in their campaigns, and this is why fighters must be allowed tons of magical gear, etc.

Ensuring that all the PCs play an important role is not rocket science -- any decent DM can tweak his campaign, low magic or not, to ensure "balance."

 

[barsoomcore]

Ensuring that all the PCs play an important role is not rocket science

Exactly.

There's no golden set of rules that will ensure your campaign never gets unbalanced. Nor is there any value a priori in a campaign where magic's economic and social effects are carefully thought out.

I came up with a set of rules once that went something like this:

It's okay that not everybody likes the same thing.
It's not a bad idea to try something new every now and then.
The fact that somebody doesn't like what you like doesn't make either of you stupid or bad.

Keep those in mind. Life gets much simpler.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I've also already integrated some of those other ideas; for example most 'clerics' in my campaign are experts, aristocrats, or even commoners who take a feat to make knowledge (religion) a class skill and maybe the Skill Focus (Knowledge (religion)) feat. I also use the Treat Injury rules from d20 Modern in place of the Heal rules from D&D, so the PC's butler is actually a relatively skillful medic who can replace (to a large extent) some of their missing healing magic, especially with a little healing downtime here and there.

I haven't had any problem with the CRs of creatures, either -- all in all, it's not nearly as hard to make a low magic campaign as a lot of folks who are really jittery about the legendary 'balance' of d20 seem to think.

Glad you like the non magical effects idea... I prefer the 'magic' arms/armour creators IMC to be craftsmen, rather than only spellcasters. It kind of panned out from there...

I went much the same way with clergy being normal people. Most are Experts... For some reason I hadn't even considered the aristocrat class, but that makes a lot of sense for the senior ranks - a good steal! Cleric class is for miracle workers or saints, in my view.

I hadn't thought of the Treat Injury idea - will have to see if I can steal it from the modern SRD - makes a lot of sense for the heal skill. Can you restore a reasonable number of hit points with it?

I took the idea of vitality points another GM used for a Star Wars game. Basically a nights rest, downtime or a logical 'scene break' sees the characters restored to full hitpoints. Figured it was less bookeeping that way and helped with the more cinema style we were trying to hit.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

In many campaigns I have seen, there is little or no acknowledgement of high level spells at the beginning of a campaign, unless said spells are used to save the party's collective tuckus. This seems short-sighted to me. If big magics are going to be there in the world, acknowledge the fact from the beginning and have the world alter accordingly; conversely, if you have a world you really want and the magics would throw this out of alignment, alter the magic. It just depends with which end of the equation you takes as being "vital".

A very interesting thought. Something I've definitely been guilty of before...

I'd prefer to leave the magic system fairly well alone as I'm rather fond of it. Although, I prefer less magic users than the 'default' 1%.

So what would be good ways to demonstrate the impact of the powerful magic to the players?

I feel the 'right way' for me would be to let them know it's there without throwing it in their faces or letting it take over the game.

5) How ubiquitous is magic? Does everyone in the world, including Joe Farmer, accept it?

Mistrust, fear, hatred or a healthy slice of jelousy... It's Medieval X-Men!

 

[tetsujin28]

Because "high-magic" is completely a construct of the D&D system itself, from the very early days, and is dumb? At least, that's my answer as far as "why low-magic".

 

[Desdichado]

I hadn't thought of the Treat Injury idea - will have to see if I can steal it from the modern SRD - makes a lot of sense for the heal skill. Can you restore a reasonable number of hit points with it?

Depends on what you mean a reasonable number. My PCs just graduated from 3rd to 4th level, so they aren't losing a hundred hit points an encounter yet, or anything like that. It can be equivalent to a potion of cure moderate wounds or so to someone who's actually good at it, though. There's a feat (Surgery, I think it's called) also from the Modern SRD that improves it as well.

The other rule that I use in conjunction with this is the Damage conversion rule from Unearthed Arcana. Basically an amount of damage for each attack equal to the characters armor value (2 points for the two leather-wearing guys) is converted to subdual damage rather than normal damage. So they still go down at the same point in the fight, but afterwards, a few hours of resting up after getting battered around means you're in good shape without having to heal or rest for days and days. It accomplishes sort of the same thing as Vitality points in Star Wars, but it's a bit simpler and runs without sitting uncomfortably on the D&D system of critical hits and all that. The only challenge we have with this rule is remembering to apply it.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Right; I'm not saying you (or anyone else in this thread) has said that explicitly, simply that it's a common position to take in discussions of this nature. I'm speaking generically, not specifically.

 

[LostSoul]

It's okay that not everybody likes the same thing..

No it's not.

It's not a bad idea to try something new every now and then.

Yes it is.

The fact that somebody doesn't like what you like doesn't make either of you stupid or bad.

Yes it does! I am stupid and bad!

err... hold on a second...