why the attraction to "low magic"?

[Desdichado]

Now we're getting into questions of game design, and fiction versus game-time. Yes, they probably would have flown to Mt. Doom, or done anything other than drag themselves through hundreds of miles of ash and blackened stone for page after page after page, being led along by a small creature mumbling to himself. And it would have been a more interesting game, as a result. Some things that work in fiction do NOT work in a game, and the whole trudging to Mt. Doom would have been a real snozer of a campaign.

You say that like it's an absolute. While I agree that what works in fiction doesn't necessarily work in game, I'd find a game of "destroy the ring at Mt. Doom" where the players flew or teleported in, and then popped over to Minas Tirith to slaughter the orc army with a handful of well placed meteor swarm or cloudkill spells execrable in the extreme, not more interesting. You seem to take it for granted that the D&D method of modelling fantasy works well because you like the D&D method of modelling fantasy. This appears also to lead you to make unsupported leaps of logic, like your comments earlier that anyone who doesn't see the "obvious" correllations of the Lord of the Rings and D&D must obviously prefer to keep powerful abilities in the hands of NPCs only and wants to nerf his PCs -- as DrifterBob pointed out earlier, that brand of argument is pure sophistry.

If someone has played in one of my games long enough to be able to use spells like Teleport and Cloudkill, I'd like to think I can reward them with a more interesting encounter than ... more orcs. Lots and lots of orcs. Helms Deep would have been a great adventure for characters around 8th to 9th level. And if you think that would be a boring encounter, then you've never run a mass combat in 3rd Edition D&D.

You aren't making any sense. Is running mass combat boring or not? I tend to think not; Helm's Deep and the battle of Pelennor Fields are among my favorite chapters in the entire series, despite the lack of "high level" magic, or out there opponents and adversaries.

Read this article by Monte Cook:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html

It's about designing high level adventures.

Have before. No thanks. Monte has great advice, but again, the disconnect here that you (and Monte) have is in assuming that people who advocate the standard D&D solution to problems are actually satisfied with the D&D solution to problems. You apparently haven't been paying attention to anything anyone's said on this thread if you can ignore everyone's claims that they don't like the flavor of D&D magic ergo they prefer lower magic, and yet you still advocate designing adventures around the very magic that they dislike. That completely defeats the purpose.

Although it does explain where you're coming from in this thread. I'm just surprised that you're coming at it from this angle, because in order to do so you must have been ignoring most of what the low magic fans have been saying.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Actually I discounted it by the virtue of volumes. Meaning there isn't enough. Humans require 1-2 gallons of water/day depending on work and environment. Draft animals require about four times that. At 10 gallons per casting (5th level caster), you'd exhaust half your spells just watering the standard 8-ox plough team. Which doesn't leave much for people, plants, or those create food/water and heal spells.

Do your math again.

It's a zero level cantrip. A 5th level Cleric could cast 5. Thats actually 50 galons per day, easy, or enough water for 25-50 people by your estimate (I don't drink 2 gallons of water per day).

Plus, more importantly, all the 1st level clerics in town can produce 6 gallons per day each.

Lets also not forget other spells like control water, create food and water, purify food and water, etc. etc.

Oh, and incidentally, plant growth does not increase weeds right along with crops, SRD specifically says Enrichment: This effect targets plants within a range of one-half mile, raising their potential productivity over the course of the next year to one-third above normal.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

There's no reason to equate that dragon with a typical D&D Adult Red Dragon or those frost giants with D&D's Frost Giants though.

Thats absolutely right. Nothing in common other than the name, I suspect.

I read the story with the Frost Giants and they came across as basically human sized. After all, it was their sister who conan was chasing who led him to them, and he was chasing her with the intent of ahem, having relations. I think these things wouldn't even qualify as ogres.

DB

 

[VirgilCaine]

Do your math again.

It's a zero level cantrip. A 5th level Cleric could cast 5. Thats actually 50 galons per day, easy, or enough water for 25-50 people by your estimate (I don't drink 2 gallons of water per day).

Plus, more importantly, all [edit: two of] the 1st level clerics in town can produce 6 gallons per day each.

Lets also not forget other spells like control water, create food and water, purify food and water, etc. etc.

Other spells which are not personally available to these two 1st level and one 3rd level clerics in the 200-person thorp.

You don't drink 2 gallons per day? Maybe not when you have an air-conditioned house, vehicle and workplace AND when most people have jobs that don't involve lots of physical labor, no you probably won't.

But when almost every job in the thorp involves physical labor, I'd guess the peasants would drink more water.

Oh, and incidentally, plant growth does not increase weeds right along with crops, SRD specifically says Enrichment: This effect targets plants within a range of one-half mile, raising their potential productivity over the course of the next year to one-third above normal.DB

Read the two words in bold. PLANTS--weeds are plants, IIRC, and all of this assumes ideal conditions.

 

[molonel]

It's pretty clear that's not what I said at all. I said that "scry/buff/teleport" isn't low magic. If you want a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- you don't want scry/buff/teleport as standard operating procedure.

And you are acting like the only solution, therefore, is to remove those elements from the game. I'm pointing out that your solution is NOT the only viable solution, and not necessary in many campaigns since it's only possible at 9th level and above with an arcane spellcaster.

Let me be clear about something: I'm discussing this, and to me it's only a discussion. Play whatever game you want in any way you like. I do not consider low-magic games an inferior type of gaming. I never have, and I never will.

I do not, however, think that low-magic games are the best solution or the only solution to the objections raised to a standard D&D game.

Who said that?

Who was I talking to at the time? That's a pretty good clue.

You say that like it's an absolute. While I agree that what works in fiction doesn't necessarily work in game, I'd find a game of "destroy the ring at Mt. Doom" where the players flew or teleported in, and then popped over to Minas Tirith to slaughter the orc army with a handful of well placed meteor swarm or cloudkill spells execrable in the extreme, not more interesting. You seem to take it for granted that the D&D method of modelling fantasy works well because you like the D&D method of modelling fantasy. This appears also to lead you to make unsupported leaps of logic, like your comments earlier that anyone who doesn't see the "obvious" correllations of the Lord of the Rings and D&D must obviously prefer to keep powerful abilities in the hands of NPCs only and wants to nerf his PCs -- as DrifterBob pointed out earlier, that brand of argument is pure sophistry.

So, naturally, the only viable, enjoyable, imaginative solution is to just NOT deal with the problem. I've played a high-magic, high-fantasy game where our group destroyed just such an artifact. Not only was the creative and intelligent use of high magic helpful, it was REQUIRED. You want to have your characters quake in their boots at the approach of 10,000 orcs? Cool. I'm not going to stop you. But don't pretend that's more imaginative or interesting than staggered armies with war trolls, battlemages, dragons and clerics. I can create interesting and appropriate challenges for characters no matter what their level. Sticking with orcs - lots and lots of orcs - and making characters FEAR orcs (lots and lots of orcs) is not a method of DMing that I find extremely imaginative. Even Tolkien had to up the ante at the Black Gate.

You aren't making any sense. Is running mass combat boring or not? I tend to think not; Helm's Deep and the battle of Pelennor Fields are among my favorite chapters in the entire series, despite the lack of "high level" magic, or out there opponents and adversaries.

Of course I'm making sense. Mass combat can be extremely interesting. But it doesn't have to be mundane in order to be challenging. At high levels in a standard D&D game, the battle is decided by higher-level characters in cinematic fights. Large armies are often routed after the death of their leaders, just like - gasp! - classical fantasy stories like the Iliad. What happens after the powerful champions or rulers are defeated? Typically, the army around them flees. Why? Because otherwise, they are going to get their arses kicked. The lack of high magic at Helm's Deep may make it interesting to you. Personally, I preferred the presence of characters I knew, enjoyed and cared about. I liked Helm's Deep. Did I enjoy it more than the Chaos War in the sixth book of the Elric saga? Not really. Was it fun because it was low magic? I think that's stretching things more than a smidgen.

Some things truly are a matter of taste. But low magic doesn't necessarily make a better story, or a better game. A good DM with a good group of players makes a good game. Once you've got that, high magic or low magic doesn't matter.

Have before. No thanks. Monte has great advice, but again, the disconnect here that you (and Monte) have is in assuming that people who advocate the standard D&D solution to problems are actually satisfied with the D&D solution to problems. You apparently haven't been paying attention to anything anyone's said on this thread if you can ignore everyone's claims that they don't like the flavor of D&D magic ergo they prefer lower magic, and yet you still advocate designing adventures around the very magic that they dislike. That completely defeats the purpose.

Wow. How many times can I say, "Play whatever you like!" I don't assume anything. But I do know that the solution you advocate is not the only solution to the perceived problem. I'm interacting with what people say, and doing so in a much more thorough fashion than you are. If you want to insist that I'm not paying attention, fine. I see that as lazy argumentation, though. That's like me calling you a big poopie head. It's not really that funny, it's not really accurate, and it's beside the point.

If people want to say, "I prefer low-magic campaigns. That's what I like!" then there is nothing anyone can say to that. Nobody should say anything. But when people start saying things like, "Tolkien was low-magic!" or "Conan was low magic!" that creates some problems, because those statements require some unexamined assumptions, and aren't entirely accurate.

 

[molonel]

The Book of Lost Tales are extremely early drafts of the legends that often bear little in common with what later emerged in the various versions of the Grey Annals or the Quenta Silmarillion. Notably, in the earlier versions the balrogs were much reduced in stature and power from their later incarnations, although there were much more of them. In other words, your argument doesn't hold up; that was an abandoned and discarded version of the story that your referring to to prove your point. In The War of the Jewels Tolkien seems to have narrowed down the total number of balrogs to single digits.

The Fall of Gondolin is described in the Silmarillion as one of the last great sieges of Middle Earth, and the last great elven city to fall. Morgoth, among whose minions Sauron was only counted a lieutenant, and who according to the Silmarillion had many of the Maiar among his followers, used all of his collective might to crush it. Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, fell during that battle. If you want to think that Morgoth defeated the greatest of the Elven cities by flinging thousands upon thousands of orcs at it, fine. I'll take Tolkien's version over yours. But we can see, yet again, how the sources are culled to meet the needs of the argument. Just remember that Sting, the mighty blade carried by Frodo throughout the Lord of the Rings, was a mere dagger from Gondolin.

There is no place in any source by Tolkien which I am aware of where the numbers of the balrogs are listed in the single digits. And you have not provided one. You simply say that somewhere somehow that "seemed" to be your impression. Yet I can point to a story by Tolkien which directly, deliberately and unquestionably says otherwise. Also, since even the Silmarillion is a posthumously published collection, arguing that one is a definitive version of events - and naturally, the one you prefer must be definitive - is rather silly, especially since you can't point to any specific examples that contradict what I've provided.

There's no reason to equate that dragon with a typical D&D Adult Red Dragon or those frost giants with D&D's Frost Giants though. If we use a Megaraptor as the dragon, that's a CR 6 creature; if we use a T-Rex, that's a CR 8 creature. Similarly, we could use Ogres or Hill Giants for the frost giants; Robert E. Howard certainly wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual ... Then either (a) those monsters aren't the high-CR monsters you assume them to be, or (b) Conan is higher level than you (and that web site) assume him to be.

I never said they were completely synonymous, remember? I've read the stories. The dragon he killed with the dagger bound between 3 poles and a poison apple never breathed fire. It wasn't even red. I understand that Robert E. Howard wasn't using the D&D Monster Manual. I'm not the one that is arguing Conan fought challenges appropriate to his CR. On the one hand, you don't want me to say that Robert E. Howard used the monster manual, but on the other hand, you want to use Conan as an example of a single player facing appropriate CR monsters. Make up your mind. Either Howard was operating within D&D parameters, or he wasn't. Personally, I don't think he was. You seem to think otherwise.

We can agree that Conan is extremely bad-ass -- and more bad-ass than every foe (or group of foes) he beats. He is a high-power character. We can also agree that he doesn't need a laundry list of magic items. (He typically wields one or two bits of magic per story to defeat his supernatural foe.) What I don't understand is why you claim that Conan's Hyboria isn't low-magic by D&D standards.

I'm claiming that it's not low-magic by the standards of people who appear to be using Robert E. Howard as their example. I'm also claiming that using Conan as an example of low-magic is rather silly, since by any standards of magic or fantasy, Conan was a twink powergamer. If you consider Conan low-magic, then you must consider the Vow of Poverty in The Book of Exalted Deeds low-magic.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Other spells which are not personally available to these two 1st level and one 3rd level clerics in the 200-person thorp.

You were the one who brought up a 5th level caster. But frankly, with your premise you are relying on this laughably absurd concept that each "thorp" is completely isolated.

You don't drink 2 gallons per day? Maybe not when you have an air-

You don't know a thing about me, so such speculation is rather pathetic. Actually, I live in New Orleans and I ride my bike to work. I drink maybe a gallon of water on saturday when I do fencing practice out doors for several hours, but most days I don't even drink nearly that much.

Read the two words in bold. PLANTS--weeds are plants, IIRC, and all of this assumes ideal conditions.

I guess either I should have posted the entire description of the spell, or maybe you should have looked it up before posting.

Plant Growth
Transmutation

Level: Drd 3, Plant 3, Rgr 3

Components: V, S, DF

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Range: See text

Target or Area: See text

Duration: Instantaneous

Saving Throw: None

Spell Resistance: No

Plant growth has different effects depending on the version chosen.

Overgrowth: This effect causes normal vegetation (grasses, briars, bushes, creepers, thistles, trees, vines) within long range (400 feet + 40 feet per caster level) to become thick and overgrown. The plants entwine to form a thicket or jungle that creatures must hack or force a way through. Speed drops to 5 feet, or 10 feet for Large or larger creatures. The area must have brush and trees in it for this spell to take effect.

At your option, the area can be a 100-foot-radius circle, a 150-foot-radius semicircle, or a 200-foot-radius quarter circle.

You may designate places within the area that are not affected.

Enrichment: This effect targets plants within a range of one-half mile, raising their potential productivity over the course of the next year to one-third above normal.

Plant growth counters diminish plants.

This spell has no effect on plant creatures.

You will notice that with the two versions listed it specifically differentiates between growing briars and thistles on the one hand and crops on the other. And seeing as one casting can effect this much area for a whole year, a 5th level druid travelling around a district could easily effect every farm for miles around in a given growing season.

DB

 

[VirgilCaine]

You were the one who brought up a 5th level caster. But frankly, with your premise you are relying on this laughably absurd concept that each "thorp" is completely isolated.

I never assumed that. Yes, those higher level spells would do better. Yes, clerics COULD CERTAINLY run around casting create food and drink a dozen times in each thorp.

You don't know a thing about me, so such speculation is rather pathetic. Actually, I live in New Orleans and I ride my bike to work. I drink maybe a gallon of water on saturday when I do fencing practice out doors for several hours, but most days I don't even drink nearly that much.

No, I don't. But MOST PEOPLE don't do physical labor as their profession.
Many people exercise, but this is far from working ten or more hours every day.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone in America is a valid comparison to a D&D commoner because no one (or extremely few people) works as long or as hard as they did. How much someone who DOESN'T work in those conditions drinks is not an accurate data source.

I guess either I should have posted the entire description of the spell, or maybe you should have looked it up before posting.

Plant Growth

Overgrowth: This effect causes normal vegetation (grasses, briars, bushes, creepers, thistles, trees, vines) within long range (400 feet + 40 feet per caster level) to become thick and overgrown. The plants entwine to form a thicket or jungle that creatures must hack or force a way through. Speed drops to 5 feet, or 10 feet for Large or larger creatures. The area must have brush and trees in it for this spell to take effect.

At your option, the area can be a 100-foot-radius circle, a 150-foot-radius semicircle, or a 200-foot-radius quarter circle.

You may designate places within the area that are not affected.

Enrichment: This effect targets plants within a range of one-half mile, raising their potential productivity over the course of the next year to one-third above normal.

You will notice that with the two versions listed it specifically differentiates between growing briars and thistles on the one hand and crops on the other. And seeing as one casting can effect this much area for a whole year, a 5th level druid travelling around a district could easily effect every farm for miles around in a given growing season.

DB

Notice that the spell has two options--one, an orgy of fast growth creating a thicket out of all plants affected by the spell and the second, which slowly enriches the growth of ALL THE PLANTS in the area of the spell. It says plants. Not crops.

The "normal vegetation" clause is there, IMO, to show that it doesn't include shriekers or mold or some other "abnormal" vegetation types that would be a plant but not a plant creature.

 

[mmadsen]

It's pretty clear that's not what I said at all. I said that "scry/buff/teleport" isn't low magic. If you want a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- you don't want scry/buff/teleport as standard operating procedure.

And you are acting like the only solution, therefore, is to remove those elements from the game. I'm pointing out that your solution is NOT the only viable solution, and not necessary in many campaigns since it's only possible at 9th level and above with an arcane spellcaster.

What solution (or solutions) are you recommending for a game that feels like classic fantasy -- either swords & sorcery or high fantasy -- where scry/buff/teleport is not standard operating procedure?

Obviously you can play a lower-level game, but then it's hard to have great warriors like Conan or Legolas. Or you can restrict the level of spellcasters. Or you can restrict the spells available to spellcasters (e.g., remove teleport, or boost its level). Or you can apply a cost to spellcasting (e.g., it causes madness, it alerts your enemies to your presence, it can backfire).

I do not, however, think that low-magic games are the best solution or the only solution to the objections raised to a standard D&D game.

I think Joshua Dyal is right:

You apparently haven't been paying attention to anything anyone's said on this thread if you can ignore everyone's claims that they don't like the flavor of D&D magic ergo they prefer lower magic, and yet you still advocate designing adventures around the very magic that they dislike. That completely defeats the purpose.

The low-magic argument is that we don't like the flavor of D&D magic. How do you address that without changing the flavor of D&D magic?

If people want to say, "I prefer low-magic campaigns. That's what I like!" then there is nothing anyone can say to that.

Hmm...

But when people start saying things like, "Tolkien was low-magic!" or "Conan was low magic!" that creates some problems, because those statements require some unexamined assumptions, and aren't entirely accurate.

As far as I can tell, your argument against "Conan is low magic!" is "Conan is super-powerful!" -- and I don't see how that's an argument at all.

 

[Drifter Bob]

LOTR and Conan are low magic

Before I respond here, I want to point out, like molonel, I really don't care how people play. I think at some level it is a matter of taste.

I do however think D&D as written tends toward higher magic than a lot of people can handle while retaining any degree of verisimilitude, or want to play in as a matter of taste, and I also think that D&D as is is MUCH higher magic than the source fiction.

I disagree with Molonels arguments here regarding the latter issue, but that doesn't mean I feel that he can't play high or low magic games if he wants to.

What sophistry? He said that among the high magics he didn't like was scrying, and then compared it to LotR. I can't help it if he likes to compare D&D to books he may or may not have read, and chooses not to remember inconvenient points for the sake of argument.

My point is that scrying is ok, as long as it is put at the level it should be. It is currently too common and too available. In LOTR, by contrast, it's quite rare.

So, if I understand you correctly, you want those things to be in the hands of the NPC, and therefore the DM, but not the players.

No, you don't understand me correctly. The issue isn't whether NPC's or players have powers per se, it's at what level the power is available. I'm sure you don't think 1st level players should be able to cast meteor swarms. That does not mean that you think only NPC's should be able to do it or only the DM should be able to do it. A low magic campaign merely states that powerful magic options should be rarer and should appear further up the power pyramid.

You guys seem to switch back and forth between LotR and Conan, depending on the argument.

I'm responding to YOUR post. I already addressed Conan. I'm sorry if i don't have time to respond to every single claim you made, you are rather a prolific writer!

Even in standard D&D world, the number of people who can cast meteor storms (snip) In 3.5 rules, in a standard world, the number of people who can cast Raise Dead (snip) Resurrection? Level 7 spell, 11th level caster, and a

Yes, but you fail to recognize this basic fact: Sauron, Saruman, and Gandalf are the three most powerful spellcasters in the world (in fact they are spritis and super-human). Any spellcaster in the top fifty of Greyhawk let alone Forgotten Realms could cast those spells, could in fact probably take over Middle Earth....

therefore OBVIOUSLY, LOTR is obviously a much lower magic setting.

And by the way, whether it's one balrog or 100 in the entire history of middle earth, whether its 10 dragons or 1000, thats still way, way, way less than any official D&D campaign setting I know of.

And another point, Elric and Vances Dying Earth which are higher magic than Conan or Lankhamr or LOTR, are also lower magic than D&D.

If you, on the other hand, prefer dead characters to stay dead, then that is simply a matter of taste. There is nothing we can argue about, because you can't argue preferences.

Granted.

Read this article by Monte Cook:

It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not a huge fan of Monte Cook's D&D material, at least not for actually playing, though I enjoy reading it sometimesf.

DB