why the attraction to "low magic"?

[Baron Opal]

Yeah, one of the assumptions that I've made concerning the presence of low level curative magic is that the mortality curve is reversed. There is a relativly low level of infant and child mortality, and a higher adult level. As I understand it, it was difficult for a child to survive to 5 yrs of age, but if they did, they were quite likely to survive to 16, and thus to reproduce themselves. There was a second dip from 20 to 30, but if you made it to, say 40-45, you would probably live until you died from old age.

With the presence of magic, you are likely to not only survive to 5, but also to 20 or so. This leaves more people at the adult age. Why doesn't the area become over run by humans and kin? Why, the monsters of course. They put the hurt on villagers aged 20+, and the older range of the curve remains "mideval".

But then, that's kind of drifting towards world design...

Baron Opal

 

[Geoff Watson]

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

So, is EVERYONE (or nearly everyone) in a high-magic campaign a spellcaster?

Otherwise, these things help a few people, and by no means everyone.

As for 3rd level spells, just how many 5th level Clerics and Druids are there? Not many.

Geoff.

 

[Drifter Bob]

So, is EVERYONE (or nearly everyone) in a high-magic campaign a spellcaster?

Otherwise, these things help a few people, and by no means everyone.

As for 3rd level spells, just how many 5th level Clerics and Druids are there? Not many.

Geoff.

Review Wombats example above. Certainly a decent sized village could easily have a 5th level cleric or druid, and even the smallest "thorp" to use the DnD term is likely to have someone who can cast zero level spells. All that created water and purified food can have a stunning effect on an economy...

DB

 

[S'mon]

I think it's certainly very hard to run a plausible, self-consistent high-magic (or D&D 3e standard-magic) campaign in a believable world, and takes a very good DM to do so. Not many even try though - "internal consistency of a Hanna Barbara cartoon" is all WoTC aims for, and few DMs do more than that. Of course it also takes a good GM, of a different sort, to run challenging and interesting high-level high-magic battles in 3e, my experience has been that it's much harder than in 1e-2e, the line between ridiculously easy and TPK in 3e is so narrow. I'd call the latter kind of GM the 'Monte Cook' GM - world-building is not their forte, their forte is running high-powered battle scenarios. The former kind of GM seems very rare in 3e since WoTC seem to almost actively discourage this approach. A good high-magic setting-designer would be Aaron Allston, who wrote the Dawn of the Emperors boxed set for the Mystara BEXCMI OD&D setting. That featured a plausible and self-consistent ultra-high-magic setting in the Alphatian Empire. I've seen a few high-magic-setting GMs on ENW like Shark and the Urbis guy, but they seem a small minority.

Myself, I've designed high-magic settings but 3e standard magic is an uncomfortable fit with most of my gameworlds, which predate 3e, so I've had to tone the rules down to fit the setting. And while I enjoyed running deity-level AD&D (eg with Upper_Krust's Thrin PC) I find now that running high-magic 3e games often involves sitting around for half the session while the Wizard PCs plan their spell selection, which can get very boring. Generally I find running low-magic to be easier and more fun.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Try to imagine the impact of plant growth, or purify food and water or create food and water (a 3rd level cleric spell)
With the zero level druid or cleric cantrip purify food and water, people could eat trash and forget about farming altogether.

Okay. IIRC, you need a community of around 400 to support a 5th level cleric. That cleric can produce enough food for maybe 15 people per day, consuming all his 3rd level spells. That amounts to 4% of the populace, not eliminating farming. Purify food and drink lets you un-spoil food. Trouble is, it requires having spoiled food to begin with. Purify does help during winter when grain will start going bad, reducing the losses from rot, mold, and fermentation.

Plant growth, at least by MMS:WE, boosts production by around 33% per acre. Unfortunately, that boosts the number of weeds, creepers, and parasitical plants as well, which doesn't really change the man-hours/bushel ratio in a world without herbicides.

Goodberry is a wonderful thing, but with the exception of holly berries, I'm not aware of too many berries available year round. And again, we're not talking enough food to feed the population.

Then there's the population survival arguement. Yes, more children will survive childbirth and probably to around 4. But 5 year olds are probably the primary foodstuff of many monsters. They're big enough to be tasty, fast enough to get away from adults, and virtually defenseless on their own. This is probably why a 1st level adventurer can be about 14 years old; great ghu only knows how many of his buddies were dragged into the sky by a peryton, hippogrif, dire bird/bat, giant bird/bat, or fiendish critter, not counting the ankheg, worgs, goblins, orcs, gnolls, or other monsters.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Okay. IIRC, you need a community of around 400 to support a 5th level cleric.

The intelligence of gamers is so wasted by trying to rationalize nonsense. I once met brilliant grad student at MIT who had developed rationalizations for how everything in (the original) star trek was, in fact, realistic. The alternate races with pointy ears. The green antaena girls. The furbles. The square landing craft. Everything.

Without even picking apart any of the arguments you just made above, I'll just point out that you left off any discussion of the ZERO LEVEL CANTRIP create water. I suppose that balances right out as well does it? Is the water impotable to plants and livestock? Because if not, it would allow high density human populations to overrrun almost every corner of the planet (or is your world a disk?)

And as for predatory animals, incidentally, how many of the really common predatory monsters in the SRD are tougher than Tigers, or Brown Bears, or packs of Wolves, or Lions? Ordinary common humans in RL had little trouble eradicating them without any magic. How many monsters could cause the kind of depopulating massacres that humans have inflicted on each other on a continuous basis since the beginning of time? Or which surprass the effects of plague?

DB

 

[GlassJaw]

my first double post!

 

[GlassJaw]

If you assume that there is a low ratio of number of casters to the general populace, even in a high-magic world, then many of the "survival" spells discussed previously will have an unbelievable social impact, nevermind the economy of health of the people.

Using the example above, we'll assume there is a 5th-level cleric in a town of 400. He can cast create water 5 times per day. That's 50 gallons. A human (according to the DMG) needs a gallon of water per day. So the cleric creates enough water per day for 50 people, assuming he uses all of his 0-level spells to do it. He could even use his higher level spells and create enough for whole town!

The social effects of this are twofold:
1. The people will no longer need to rely on themselves for sustenance. They know it will be created for them. Populations would boom (at least in the short-term).

2. If there aren't enough clerics to go around, some people will go without. This would cause civil unrest and most likely rioting.

My point? Who cares. Even in a low-magic world, in which people run to avoid stuff like this, there can be major issues with even the most "minor" or spells. "Yeah, my world is low-magic, I only allow up to 2nd-level spells and casters are very rare. That way, magic won't have much affect on the world." Yeah, right. If that's the case, it will have MORE of an effect IMO since the people will know that there are those out there that can create water out of nothing. The clerics would probably rule the land. It would probably turn into some kind of Mad Max Beyond Waterdeep nonsense if you really wanted to do a social analysis.

I gave up on trying to justify magic and its effects on the world long ago. It makes my head hurt. And when my head hurts, I'm not having fun. You want continual light lamps on every corner? Great.

If you want to completely remove magic altogether and switch to a more realistic medieval setting, good luck. Playing a peasant farmer with the plague that lives to the age of 19 isn't my idea of a fun RPG.

 

[Drifter Bob]

conan wore armor

First off, I'd like to say that this is a good discussion, and fair points made by most sides. I've played in high magic, (snip)and low magic (snip) I've seen both styles suck, and I've seen both styles soar.

I agree with your basic point here, and this line in particular...

...see no reason why I should always try to force such people to sit through the roleplaying equivalent of a Jane Austen novel.

... is both very amusing and quite true. Plenty of bad low magic games exist out there, and there are an unfortunate number of power tripping DM's running some of them.

I do have a few bones to pick with some of your points though.

I just reread all of Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Of course Conan didn't need magic items. He was stronger, faster, tougher, had more skills and greater fighting prowess than anyone he ever met.

See, I just read an anthology of the original Conan stories myself, and I think you are really missing something. One of the things I was struck by was that Conan relied on cunning as much as brawn, and more surprisingly, relied on superior (though non magic) equipment as often as he could. In the dozen or so stories I just read, Conan was saved by heavy armor and / or helmets in at least half of them, by having a weapon with longer reach in at least one, and by superior tactics in three or four. And Conan did run away from fights a few times incidentally. Yes, Conan was stronger than any opponent he faced, but unlike most RPG characters, Conan knew he couldn't face a mob of opponents all by himself unless he had some major advantage on his side (like he had heavy armor and they did not).

All in all, it was a revelation to me how much Howards original Conan books drew upon historical basis and how well versed Howard was with what wars and personal fights were like in the age of swords and spears.

A lot of fantasy novels are designed, in game terms, to have one character (or maybe two) as the primary focus of the story, and the characers are powerful enough and resilient enough to face all of the challenges they encounter.

So what is preventing 5 or 6 party members with complimentary skills from being able to handle what one or two super heroic characters could?

People have mentioned Achilles, Odysseus and characters from Tolkien (snip) No. Beowulf's mail shirt frequently stood up to damage that would rend average steel links into breakfast cereal.

This is a reflection of the widespread misunderstanding of, and virtual contempt for "mundane" martial items such as weapons and armor. I've seen some historically accurate riveted link and welded link mail armor which is practically indestructable, and I guarantee you it wasn't made of mythral or by dwarves. I think it's the monty haul mentality in RPG's which has contributed to the idea that real kit is lame. It's like people who demand UFO's or Loch Ness Monster and never even realise how cool real earth critters actually are.

The weapons and armor used by Beowulf seemed like magic to those people, because a) the whole world was magical to them, and b) these particular weapons were so extraordinarily awesome and beautiful. For example, when Beowulf uses Unferth's sword, "the curious sword with a wavy pattern, hard of its edge" he is talking about a pattern welded sword. These are real. Have you ever seen one?

http://www.templ.net/pics/a15av.jpg
http://www.templ.net/pics/a05bv.jpg
http://www.templ.net/making_of_weapons/blades.php#damask4

They are incredibly beautiful and extremely potent weapons of reality. My point here is this idea that real kit is lame or worthless is bankrupt. Players should have a lot of options, but they don't have to shoot lazer beams or summon demons to be cool.

Low-level D&D play *is* low magic, even by the book.

I don't agree, it's only low magic compared to the rest of whats out there. As I said before, spells like invisibility are high magic spells!

As for spells like teleport and ressurection not affecting the attitudes of players toward the game, we'll just have to agree to disagree I fear...

DB

 

[mmadsen]

Having said that, I've seen low magic campaigns suck more often than they soared. Most low magic campaigns I've seen start out with huge ambitions. The DM's almost always, to a person, think to themselves, "Okay, now that all that nasty math and all those cheesy magic items are gone, now we can focus on CHARACTER!"

Is there something wrong with reducing the math or the number of magic items? Or with focusing on character?

At any rate, that's not at the heart of the low-vs-high-magic discussion we've been having here; this next passage is:

They talk about the good old days of fantasy, and Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser books, or Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Or the Illiad. Or Tolkien's novels.

You take such a negative tone. Is there something wrong with enjoying those works? With emulating them?

There are a few problems with this thinking, conceptually, before we even get into game mechanics. I just reread all of Robert E. Howard's Conan books. Of course Conan didn't need magic items. He was stronger, faster, tougher, had more skills and greater fighting prowess than anyone he ever met.

Yes, he was able to beat apes, lions, giant spiders, giant snakes, human guardsmen, etc. He was fighting appropriate challenges for a single PC without a long list of magical items. Is there something wrong with that?

A 6th-level barbarian with no magical gear is stronger, faster, and tougher than a CR-2 ape, or a CR-3 lion -- if not a CR-5 giant constrictor snake. Those are the foes you'd expect him to face in an otherwise by-the-books D&D campaign that featured (a) a single protagonist, and (b) rare magic.

Most D&D adventures assume, and often have, at least 3 to 4 characters, all of whom deserve screen-time and all of whom depend on each other.

What does this have to do with the magic level?

Like it or not, there are plenty of guys who enjoy action movies, sit in a boring desk job 50 to 60 hours a week and WANT to kick the out of a dragon on Saturday.

What does this have to do with the magic level?

I see no reason why I should always try to force such people to sit through the roleplaying equivalent of a Jane Austen novel.

What does this have to do with the magic level? Is Conan in any way the equivalent of a Jane Austen novel? I couldn't imagine a better example of opposites!