why the attraction to "low magic"?

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

There are some other aspects of low-magic campaigns that many players and DM's find appealing.

With high-magic campagins:

- If you take the existence of common magic to its logical conclusion, you end up with a magic-as-technology world, which a lot of people don't like.

- You end up with situations that require DM fiat to prevent the players from turning difficult encounters into trivial ones (see the perennial scry/buff/teleport discussions)

- The game can become more about the gear than the character.

- In settings where raise dead, etc., are common-place, death becomes meaningless, and that means that it becomes significantly harder to challenge the PCs (in combat, anyway) without risking TPKs

I think a reason high-magic and powergaming tend to get lumped together is because your munchkiny power-gamers (the bad ones, anyway) are more interested in phat lewt and kicking ass than they are in situations where risk is balanced with reward. It's not that you have to be one of that kind to enjoy a high-magic games, it's just that high-magic games tend to attract people with that mindset. At least in my experience.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

It's also easier to design adventures when you don't have to worry about teleport, true ressurection, etc.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me preface this post by saying that I've had some bad experiences with DM's "forcing" restrictions on the group and justifying under the guise of "low magic". In attempt to curb (in his view) min/maxing and encourage role-playing, options were taken away from the players.

I've just been reading several threads (including the article about "What's Wrong With D&D") wherein someone claims that D&D doesn't meet his or her expectations for a workable fantasy world, and then a plethora of posters tell him/her to just add some limitations and homebrew a little. Usually, the problem is the overwhelming amount of magic available to D&D characters, and the powerful, overt nature of that magic even at low levels.

I have also read threads that argued that players balk at being restricted when anything less than the "throw everything in" aspect of the Core Rules is used.

While I have read lots of replies to threads that seemed to discourage changes to the overwhelming power of magic in the game, this is only the second thread I've read which began specifically for the purpose of claiming that a DM should not make changes specific to the feel of his or her world.

You are correct in thinking that high magic is not necessarily bad. Neither is low magic. I happen to prefer a sort of mid-magic. None of those types of magic determines how much "roll" vs "role" you're going to use in a game. Frankly, a character who has been designed to best use the rules to his advantage is as likely to be well played as one who has been devised otherwise.

I'll also be the first to admit that I've never played in a low-magic campaign "done right" either. I'm not passing judgement on those that run low-magic campaigns, I would just like to know a little about why you decided to go that route and perhaps some details as to how you go went about doing it.

1) I give out only 1/2 core rules XP. That means that spells which burn XP, and magic items, are much more rare.

2) I provided alternate routes to magical power.

RC

 

[Dogbrain]

I would just like to know a little about why you decided to go that route and perhaps some details as to how you go went about doing it.

Because I've done over-the-top-magic-everywhere (conventional D&D) to death, over and over. I also have grown quite bored with conventional setting assumptions. I want to do some low-magic, low-tech (as in before Hittite split off from proto-Indo-European) stuff for a while. I want the characters to be more than just platforms for the latest munchkin magic item. I want them to have to rely entirely upon what they can do if stripped down to their skivvies, because skivvies is pretty much all there will be in this setting.

Yes, I DO know that this means that conventional "can only be hit by magic items" monsters won't work in this campaign like they do in ordinary campaigns. So what? It's an INTENTIONAL DESIGN FEATURE. I fully expect some yoyo to automatically assume that I'll be throwing 10,000 vampires at first level characters, having admitted to the design feature.

 

[Dogbrain]

Slightly exaggerating, in D&D your character is what he or she owns. A character without any magic is basically completely worthless at higher levels (again, this is a slight exaggeration).

Gamers' lore has it that RuneQuest was written specifically after a PC in either Stafford or Perrin's D&D campaign introduced himself as "Hi, I'm a Holy Avenger, and this is my wielder."

 

[Desdichado]

I was about to type my comments when I decided to read the replies already posted so far, and naturally, the very first one hits the nail right on the head.

One item that hasn't been mentioned yet, of course, is that D&D changes significantly as you advance in level and magic. Low level games are completely different games, with little in common, with high level ones. Even the settings stop making sense after a while as you progress in level.

 

[Desdichado]

I want to do some low-magic, low-tech (as in before Hittite split off from proto-Indo-European) stuff for a while.

I don't want to derail the thread, but man, I'm interested in hearing more about this. The amateur linguist/archeologist in my just got majorly buzzed by that sentence.

 

[Mystery Man]

Regarding magic items.

Over time and experience, I've found the only problem I have is players who put together a "wish list" of items they want their characters to have. This takes away from the immersive qualities of the game when a person makes out a list of things they want their character to find. I think that when these lists are made it raises the expectations of the players that they'll actually find these things and makes it hard for the DM to insert the items in appropriate places. I completely ignore these lists and insert items that I think they'd find useful either in the immediate or future of the campaign and its up to them to decide to use them or sell them. My players have found that selling an item that appears worthless at the time is one that they wish they'd have hung onto at the least convienient moment. On the other side of that coin, and to be fair I also make sure that I provide enough fodder/gold and gems for them to sell or use to trade for the items they want.

 

[Psion]

I suspect some of it is an over-reaction to campaigns and settings wherein magic is an all too convenient answer to evey problem, and the presence of easily available magic can often interfere with the creation of interesting scenarios by making them devolve into magical arms races and start contemplation about why with X magic, people don't do Y, etc.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

For me, it's not really about "low magic" as much as it's about "low loot." I think that applies to my player and DMing mentalities. I'll give some examples.

The paladin I've been playing for the past two years has never garnered a plethora of magic items. This is due in part to the nature of the game world (the chance to "loot" comes up rarely) and the nature of the character. He's had the same +1 cold iron longsword since 5th level which recently became a +2 holy cold iron longsword. He's now 12th level, just got his mount, +2 full plate, and a masterwork steel shield. His mount is heavily barded, which probably puts him right around the average monetary value for his level. But it's been pretty slim pickings up to this point. My DM has a problem rationalizing valuabe loot in every single encounter, a problem with which I can empathize and commiserate. But I believe he's made adjustments to his game to alleviate the problems low loot can bring.

Yeah! This is exactly my feeling!

According to some GMing articles, you're not supposed to do this:

DM: "Okay, you killed the orcs. Upon identifying the items, you find their leader had a +1 greataxe."

Players: "We've already got a +2 greataxe. Nothing to see here. We'll put it in our bag of holding and sell it, along with all those twelve +1 rings of protection we pulled off of the last twelve NPCs we faced."

The opposite, of course, is also ridiculous.

DM: "Okay, after you bind your winds soothe your burns, you identify a +3 flaming greataxe."

Players: "Sweet! Um... aren't you going to have a hard time challenging us after this?"

DM: "Nah. I'll just give every NPC bigger and badder weapons."


The hunt for items leads to "grinding". This is what made me quit playing Baldur's Gate and Angband (and why I'll never play Diablo for more than a few minutes). Because so much of your character's power is item-dependent, you spend a lot of time scrounging through dungeons looking for gold (to buy items) or loot (to sell for cash, to buy items) or the occasional good item - you rarely find better items in treasure than what you have after the first few levels, and because NPCs have less gear than you do they also have worse items... and if they put all their money into a beefy magical sword, they skimp on other areas.

PCs who have successfully "grinded" are now a Christmas tree of magic items. I'll dig up someone's character sheet and post it one day.

Higher level NPCs, due to lower gear, especially fighter-types, are a lot weaker than players of their level. NPC spellcasters are often more= powerful because they're less item-dependent than other characters and their items suck more, too, and they have the NPC advantage of having to worry about spell slots less than the heroes. Even so, getting an NPC to have saves and DCs competitive with the heroes is very difficult. Players often have a real hard time boosting their low saves, and for NPCs it's even worse.

Converting to low-magic is hard, however; I'd like to see a low-magic setting that does all the work for me Midnight, for instance, does the classes for you but, unfortunately, doesn't give much advice on heirloom items (one of the best things in the book) and only has a few monsters. It has suggestions on how to convert monsters for low-magic, which amounts to "boost the CR". IMO this doesn't work - you can't just boost a monster's CR because it's DR is now unbreakable... it's hit points, AC, saving throws, attack bonuses (no magic armor), damage bonuses (likewise... no magic healing, no Con-boosting items, etc) haven't changed.


I prefer D20 Modern for a lot of reasons:

Mental classes can do things other than making skill checks (looks at the Expert) without magic.

The spellcasters are not overly nerfed. I wouldn't want to play in a low-magic setting where I have to make a spellcasting check to cast a spell. You're better off making the spells of an appropriate power level - in D20 Modern, the max spell level is 5th - this is just my opinion, however. There are lots of fantasy novels where casting spells is risky or really costly.

You learn how to dodge and parry. Even non-combative characters can make a flying leap (or dive) away from an opponent's weapon. The ever-present (and very tiresome) rings of protection and amulets of natural armor aren't present. You gain a bonus to class Defense instead, and there are even a few defensive feats.