why the attraction to "low magic"?

[Desdichado]

I don't think that DMs who run good low-magic campaigns are better DMs. I think that people who run such campaigns might like to think of themselves as special, just as people who use Macs like to think of themselves as smarter or more creative than people who use Windows, and people who drive Porsches like to think of themselves as better people than those who drive station wagons, and people who like to play White Wolf like to think of themselves as better roleplayers than people who play d20.

I like to think that people who assume that anyone who's got a taste issue with which they disagree must therefore have some kind of disassociated personality defect are ignorant and offensive.

My assumption about DMs of low magic games is that they like low magic games, and that's about as far as I can reasonably push it.

 

[Wombat]

Actually, I think in many ways it would take a better GM to run a high magic (read: standard D&D magic) campaign.

Why so?

Because such a GM would actually take into account all of the magic, not just as it applies to a small battlefield or short set of encounters, but how it would affect the world overall. The implications of this level of magic in the world is staggering.

As a base-level example, let me take the sample hamlet of 200 people from the 3.0 DMG.

Okay, 200 people

we have one 1st level Adept, one 1st level Wizard, one 3rd level Cleric, two 1st level Clerics, one 1st level Druid, and one 1st level Bard. Total magic-using sorts in the town: 7. That is 3.5% of the population.

Now this does not bring a lot of magic to the town, especially of a high level, but it does bring enough to a small group of people (remember, 200) that it would utterly alter their lives. That Druid is going to be very popular with the farmers.

The problem is that if the 3.5% snapshot continued to a city of, say, 2000 people, we would now have 70 magic users, several of them of notably higher level. In a city of 20,000 we have 700 magic users, including several in the mid-range (12-15th level).

One 1st level cleric of average ability has 5 spells useable each day. A druid has four; a sorcerer has 8; a wizard has four. Those are spells who they can use every single day. And remember that in the case of a wizard/sorcerer, many of those spells are highly destructive.

The problem with many campaigns that I have been in, seen, and even run, is that the serious magic (other than healing or a bit of scrying) never really makes an impact on the campaign, much less the world, until the PCs are in a position to take these powers on.

This is one of the reasons I prefer low magic in my world -- it messes up the gameworld less. (This is also the reason that I cut down on the number of sentient species, vast numbers of magical animals, magical items, etc.)

 

[molonel]

I like to think that people who assume that anyone who's got a taste issue with which they disagree must therefore have some kind of disassociated personality defect are ignorant and offensive.

Well, I think that people who make those assumptions are sexy. But I'm obviously somewhat biased.

I also like to think that people who try to put words in my mouth are rather silly and immature. When did I say I disliked low magic? I've played low magic. I've run low magic. I'll play it again, and I will run it again. I have no preference either for, or against it. I love both Midnight and d20 Testament because they accomplished successfully what a lot of low magic game designers only attempt.

But I'm not married to low magic campaigns, and I'm not going to pretend that it makes someone into some sort of uberGM to run a successful low-magic game. If anyone needs that sort of reassurance to convince himself that he's on another plane of gaming, then he is exactly the sort of person I described. If not, then nobody should take offense at what I said. It doesn't apply to them.

I've heard the same tired arguments from people who run low magic games or 1st Edition AD&D games or 2nd Edition AD&D games or White Wolf Games or Ars Magica games or whatever. Someone just asked if running a quality low magic D&D game made someone a better DM. Doesn't it mean you have more "finesse?" Doesn't it mean that you are more experienced? Somebody obviously thinks so.

I'll say it again: Running an interesting, longterm D&D campaign is challenging no matter what genre or style you choose. To keep people fascinated, and coming back week after week to run their characters and listen to the unfolding story is a skill. They could be home watching reruns of Friends, or playing Trivial Pursuit. Roleplaying is a fringe hobby, and watching gamers argue about what sort of gaming is superior makes me laugh. We're all a bunch of nerds rolling dice. Lighten up.

 

[Baron Opal]

Um, yeah, what molonel said.

I'll give a brief mention as to why I perfer high-magic*.

1- More options for character growth, both mechanically and storywise.
2- More options for foes, particularly things like mind flayer cabals and demonic nests.
3- To have an epic story.
4- To give the players the chance to feel like they have awesome power. Power enough to shake the pillars of the world.
5- To allow the players the chance to explore, even to other worlds and
planes.
6- To foster the "cold war" between the players and myself concerning divinations, SBT, and other consequences of high level spells. Some of us like the magical Measures / Countermeasures aspect of the spells.

That said, after my gut check, above, I think my campaign isn't high-magic so much as high-level. I tend to accellerate xp awards until about 5th-7th level. I find low-level adventures to be boring unless there is a strong political or intrigue component. Things really get rolling for me when the characters reach 12th level. The sheer options at the character's disposal force me to be creative and inventive.

Also, I've never had the players in my game just throw away their character's lives. It costs a level to come back from the dead, and that's ignoring the sense of defeat you feel when that last blow fells your character. Even if you are able to secure a True Ressurection, it isn't cheap. Just because it's in the book doesn't mean that it's available or affordable.

The only time when characters died and raised similar to a video game is during a climactic battle between the party and Tiamat during my 1e days. The party level average was 16, and there was lots of demons, dragons, and the big girl herself. The party had a fully charged Rod of Ressurection when they went in. Now, this was when I was in high school, and it was the big bang before we went off to college, but we all had a blast.

Which is why we play the game, after all.

Baron Opal

 

[Desdichado]

nevermind...

 

[molonel]

Then I'll delete mine, too.

 

[Desdichado]

That's probably for the best, whatever it said.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Actually, I think in many ways it would take a better GM to run a high magic (read: standard D&D magic) campaign.

Why so?

Because such a GM would actually take into account all of the magic, not just as it applies to a small battlefield or short set of encounters, but how it would affect the world overall. The implications of this level of magic in the world is staggering.

I agree. It would take a fantastically skilled DM to run such a game, to truly consider the logical impact on the world of all of the spells possible. Most DMs can come up with some interesting plots - the king is back from the dead and wants his throne back - and some can design entire campaigns where the adventures and challenges properly account for everything the PCs can do. But I would think that very very few DMs can really show you how the everyday world itself can plausibly look, accounting for the economic, social, legal, and other ramifications of the spells being as common as the DMG demographics make them out to be.

If you say that D&D is only meant to run adventures, not to engage in world-building, then it's a lot easier to postulate a world as rich in magic as you want without worrying about how it impacts culture or economics. But even then, it takes a lot of time and effort to properly account for the logical impact of all the magic in the world when designing the limited scope of adventure elements, fortresses, and NPCs.

If you know of a DM who has run such an outstanding high-magic campaign, thank him for me. I won't read his Story Hour - I never read anybody's other than the one I play in, for a few reasons - but it would be cool to know there are such games.

 

[VirgilCaine]

As a base-level example, let me take the sample hamlet of 200 people from the 3.0 DMG.

Okay, 200 people

we have one 1st level Adept, one 1st level Wizard, one 3rd level Cleric, two 1st level Clerics, one 1st level Druid, and one 1st level Bard. Total magic-using sorts in the town: 7. That is 3.5% of the population.

Now this does not bring a lot of magic to the town, especially of a high level, but it does bring enough to a small group of people (remember, 200) that it would utterly alter their lives. That Druid is going to be very popular with the farmers.

The problem is that if the 3.5% snapshot continued to a city of, say, 2000 people, we would now have 70 magic users, several of them of notably higher level. In a city of 20,000 we have 700 magic users, including several in the mid-range (12-15th level).

One 1st level cleric of average ability has 5 spells useable each day. A druid has four; a sorcerer has 8; a wizard has four. Those are spells who they can use every single day. And remember that in the case of a wizard/sorcerer, many of those spells are highly destructive.

The problem with many campaigns that I have been in, seen, and even run, is that the serious magic (other than healing or a bit of scrying) never really makes an impact on the campaign, much less the world, until the PCs are in a position to take these powers on.

I have to quibble with your base-level example.
While these caster have spells they can use frequently, they don't have a very big impact, other than being able to heal wounds in the case of the Cleric, Bard, and Druid.

Druid popular with the farmers? Maybe for finding lost animals. The Druids gets Calm Animals, Cure Light Wounds, Detect Animals or Plants for first level spells, and Mending and Cure Minor Wounds as cantrips.

Maybe I don't have a very open mind but thats all I see on the 0th/1st level druid spell list as useful to a farmer as practical, everyday spells for "normal", mundane problems.

1st level Clerics popular? Yes. For healing. The 3rd level Cleric has Delay Poison, Lesser Restoration, Make Whole, Zone of Truth, Speak with Animals, Gentle Repose, and Cure Moderate Wounds.

The Bard and the Wizard have even fewer options for solving practicalproblems.

So the healers cannot heal broken bones (see 3.0 Regenerate description) or cure diseases. All the casters can repair objects to one degree or another, and they can make sure prisoners don't lie. Not a very big impact.

Okay. So fewer people die from hemophilia or wounds in this hamlet. I don't see a huge impact.

Same with the rest of the spells in the PHB. Healing, yes. Stopping plagues, yes.
But not a great impact except for people (nobles, adventurers, etc.) who can afford the extravagant spellcaster fees that are outlined in the Core books.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Same with the rest of the spells in the PHB. Healing, yes. Stopping plagues, yes.
But not a great impact except for people (nobles, adventurers, etc.) who can afford the extravagant spellcaster fees that are outlined in the Core books.

Try to imagine the impact of plant growth, or purify food and water or create food and water (a 3rd level cleric spell) on a world with a little more internal consistency than a typical Hanna Barbara cartoon. Do I need to point out that the reason peasants were peasants, serfs were serfs, the reason to this day most people in the third world don't really cause much trouble, is because they spend 99% of their time trying to produce enough food to eat? What happens when you take that away?

Think of create water, a zero level druid or cleric cantrip, in a time of drought? In a desert? EVERTHING CHANGES. Add cure disease to this mix, and try to imagine the impact on population growth alone!

With the zero level druid or cleric cantrip purify food and water, people could eat trash and forget about farming altogether.

I think honestly, the cheerful illogic of most rpg games tends to influence gamers toward a cheezy fantasy concept of history which distorts their grasp of reality... which in turn encourages them to enjoy high magic games more, a vicious circle...
DB