why the attraction to "low magic"?

[molonel]

Joshua Dyal, all I can say is that I feel no particular urge to respond with sarcasm to either mmadsen or Drifter Bob. I look down through your posts and read a long string of "You ... you ... you ... you." In this discussion, you are the only person to directly address me with terms like "ignorant" and "offensive." I look through their posts and I see more discussion about ideas, the imagination, abstracts and game mechanics. I also observe a healthy amount of humor in Drifter Bob which encourages me to lighten up, and remember it's just a game. It's a well-taken lesson, and I've tried to apply it in my responses to him and mmadsen. The fact that you compare arguing with someone you disagree with to dealing with your children only reinforces the perception that you are condescending, and encourages me toward a tone I'd rather avoid in this discussion. I don't particularly care whose fault it is, and I'm not assigning blame. For some reason, you and I seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. If that's my fault, then I'm rectifying that now. If it's your fault, then I'm going to choose not to bait you further. The odds are very good that we both participated in this misunderstanding equally, and in that case, it doesn't help either of us to continue.

 

[Desdichado]

True enough, and I thank you for stepping up and being the better man. Quite honestly, it's entirely possible I'm bleeding attitude from a pretty lousy day at work as well, and I've never claimed to be very diplomatic. I'm probably a bit over-reactive on this particular topic as well; for some reason when it comes up there's usually someone who has to take it upon themselves to show how I'm having "wrong fun" because I'm not a good enough DM to play the rules as written. There's even someone kicking around the boards who put that in his sig; something to the effect of, "if you want low magic, play some other game and leave D&D alone!" If I have come across as condescending, I apologize.

I do admit I'm a bit baffled in trying to reply to you, though, which is perhaps a big part of my problem. I'm not sure I understand your position on either Robert E. Howard or Tolkien. You've gone to extensive lengths to show how you believe they can be effectively modelled in the D&D system, yet you appear to be stating positively that they are not well modelled by the system. I'm not sure where they feature in the argument anymore. Usually in these types of arguments, someone like mmadsen will come in and say they want something more like Howard or Tolkien rather than standard D&D, and someone else will come in and try to show how they are more or less modelable under D&D. I thought we were going down that familiar path earlier in the thread, but either you're making a reversal in your position or I'm completely missing something.

Also, another statement I made, which I think got fairly lost in the shuffle (only mmadsen responded to it, for that matter, to say that he agreed) is that for someone like me, who doesn't particularly like the flavor of high level D&D magic, showing the Monte Cook argument on how to construct adventures that allow players to utilize all their D&D magic is a fairly pointless exercise; it doesn't address my original concern at all, and is only likely to make me even more disaffected with the game than I already am.

 

[barsoomcore]

Some things shouldn't be taken for granted: Verisimilitude is good.

If no one else says it's a good thing, I do, and I think it is both expected and practiced by any good DM. (snip) An arbitrary DM who feels no obligation to maintain the vivid and continuous dream of a well-made world can ruin a game through whim and ever-changing circumstances.

I understand that you LIKE verisimilitude. That doesn't mean you're right to take it for granted. People may enjoy (and sensibly, too) games in which verisimilitude is chucked out the window, where it's all about puzzle-solving and tactical thinking and killing things and taking their stuff.

You like verisimilitude, that's great. But it is not in and of itself a virtue.

Some things shouldn't be taken for granted: High-magic means more options.

High magic does mean more options.

Nonsense. The number of options in any given situation is dependent on the design of the adventure and the sensibilities of the DM. A DM may very easily create a high-magic adventure that railroads the PCs and negates their magic capabilities. Likewise, a low-magic adventure might provide PCs with more options than they can even consider.

The fact that a high-magic adventure CAN provide more options does not make it a priori true that high-magic adventures ALWAYS have more options.

***

On a separate note, I'd like to point out that the fact that Conan kicks huge amounts of butt has NOTHING to do with whether or not Hyboria itself is a high-magic world. It's not. Or at least, compared to Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, it's not. Sure, Conan is comparable to a high-level D&D character with lots of gear. Agreed, good point.

But so what? The argument isn't that CONAN is low-magic, it's that HYBORIA is low-magic -- which it most certainly is. People saying, "I want to play in a world like Hyboria," aren't saying, "I want to play a character like Conan." Or at least, proving that wanting to play Conan is equivalent to wanting to play a high-level twink D&D character doesn't prove that wanting to play in Hyboria is ACTUALLY wanting to play in a high-magic world.

And there are plenty of low-magic worlds in fantastic literature. Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age is one -- regardless of what may have been in the case in earlier days, in the years leading up to the War of the Ring, it's very clear that there is almost no magic flying around Middle-Earth -- at least, not for the vast majority of its inhabitants.

And that's a big part of it. For the vast majority of inhabitants of a typical D&D setting, magic is part of their everyday life -- most towns and villages have a couple of spellcasters, and magic-using monsters are often encountered. Contrast that with life in the Shire, where the only spellcaster to visit in living memory is Gandalf, and all he does is set off fireworks. Just encountering elves and dwarves is a big deal, something that most of the people in the Shire will never do. This is clearly true across Middle-Earth to a greater or lesser degree. The Rohirrim, the Gondorians, the men of Dale -- none of them have ANY spellcasters in their entire nations. The armies of Hyboria only rarely have the benefit of magical assistance -- usually in the form of a single spellcaster who dies at the hands of Conan. If you don't call that low-magic (at least in comparision to the standard D&D settings), I don't know what to say.

The point isn't "Do some of these heroes display qualities that might be modelled in D&D terms using magic?" It's "Do these worlds obey the standard rules of D&D with respect to the distribution of magic?"

And clearly the answer for both Hyboria and Third-Age Middle Earth (and Nehwon, and the world of the Black Company, and others) is no, they exhibit a vastly reduced distribution of magic compared with the standard D&D rules such as numbers of spellcasters in the population and frequency of encounters with magical creatures. You, molonel, might disagree with others as to what that distribution actually is, but I can't imagine you would suggest that Hyboria obeys the standard D&D rules on these points. If you do, please provide careful evidence, because I'm likely to be skeptical. Note that the average hamlet of two hundred souls in a D&D setting contains one wizard, three clerics, a druid and an adept. That sure doesn't sound like the Hyboria I read about.

The conclusion is that a DM who wants to run a campaign that models the world of Hyboria or any similar world must make substantial changes to the standard D&D distribution of magic.

 

[molonel]

Well, this thread has resurfaced. I'm glad the servers survived the hurricane.

True enough, and I thank you for stepping up and being the better man. Quite honestly, it's entirely possible I'm bleeding attitude from a pretty lousy day at work as well, and I've never claimed to be very diplomatic. I'm probably a bit over-reactive on this particular topic as well; for some reason when it comes up there's usually someone who has to take it upon themselves to show how I'm having "wrong fun" because I'm not a good enough DM to play the rules as written. There's even someone kicking around the boards who put that in his sig; something to the effect of, "if you want low magic, play some other game and leave D&D alone!" If I have come across as condescending, I apologize.

And if, during the flurry of answering so many, and so much, I've suggested to you that your approach is inferior, than I also apologize. That was not my intent. I don't think low magic is bad gaming, and I don't think low magic DMs are pansies, anymore than I think high magic DMs enjoy hack-n-slash rollplaying over character building and story.

I do admit I'm a bit baffled in trying to reply to you, though, which is perhaps a big part of my problem. I'm not sure I understand your position on either Robert E. Howard or Tolkien. You've gone to extensive lengths to show how you believe they can be effectively modeled in the D&D system, yet you appear to be stating positively that they are not well modeled by the system. I'm not sure where they feature in the argument anymore. Usually in these types of arguments, someone like mmadsen will come in and say they want something more like Howard or Tolkien rather than standard D&D, and someone else will come in and try to show how they are more or less modelable under D&D. I thought we were going down that familiar path earlier in the thread, but either you're making a reversal in your position or I'm completely missing something.

I don't think Conan or Tolkien is effectively modeled in the D&D system, but I also think the comparison in terms of "low magic" and the application of that term to the stories themselves is rather misleading. When modeled in D&D terms, Conan is a twink. But I also don't think an archetype is very well modeled in d20 terms, where balance is more important than it is in a work of fiction. The magic system in Hyboria, where magic carries a sort of taint, and even the best wizards are somehow corrupted by their use of magic, is also not very well translated, but the fact that a lot of folks seem quite willing to ignore that factor in Hyborian magic speaks to the desire to limit power rather than effectively model the world in D&D terms. I'm told that Mongoose's d20 version of Conan addresses this element in magic.

Also, another statement I made, which I think got fairly lost in the shuffle (only mmadsen responded to it, for that matter, to say that he agreed) is that for someone like me, who doesn't particularly like the flavor of high level D&D magic, showing the Monte Cook argument on how to construct adventures that allow players to utilize all their D&D magic is a fairly pointless exercise; it doesn't address my original concern at all, and is only likely to make me even more disaffected with the game than I already am.

That's my answer to the question, like it or not. I prefer to address the problem of enjoyable campaign design by carefully selecting which materials players can draw from during character creation. To me, this solves a great deal of the problem of out-of-control campaigns devolving into hack-n-slash slugfests. I think low magic campaigns perhaps reach the same conclusion by a different route. So do campaigns that limit XP advancment, and design the world so that the highest level characters are between 10th to 12th level. Those are all valid solutions, and which one you choose is a matter of taste.

 

[molonel]

I understand that you LIKE verisimilitude. That doesn't mean you're right to take it for granted. People may enjoy (and sensibly, too) games in which verisimilitude is chucked out the window, where it's all about puzzle-solving and tactical thinking and killing things and taking their stuff. You like verisimilitude, that's great. But it is not in and of itself a virtue.

Of course I have a right to take it for granted. And you have a right to disagree with me. It's America. Even in a world where problem-solving and tactical thinking and killing things and taking their stuff, there are constants you learn to expect, and the rules of a consistent world. When you swing your sword, a natural 20 will hit, and a natural 1 will miss. If that changes from combat to combat, and between swings, that's a loss of verisimilitude, and the game turns into a Monty Python skit. A world has to obey its own rules, and do so consistently. It is a virtue, whether or not you acknowledge it as such. A rules book creates verisimilitude. You cannot avoid that.

Nonsense. The number of options in any given situation is dependent on the design of the adventure and the sensibilities of the DM. A DM may very easily create a high-magic adventure that railroads the PCs and negates their magic capabilities. Likewise, a low-magic adventure might provide PCs with more options than they can even consider. The fact that a high-magic adventure CAN provide more options does not make it a priori true that high-magic adventures ALWAYS have more options.

It's not nonsense. Magic provides options. That's not to say that nothing else can, or the absence of high magic is synonymous with the absence of options, or that those can't be taken away in another fashion. But it's hardly nonsense.

You, molonel, might disagree with others as to what that distribution actually is, but I can't imagine you would suggest that Hyboria obeys the standard D&D rules on these points. If you do, please provide careful evidence, because I'm likely to be skeptical. Note that the average hamlet of two hundred souls in a D&D setting contains one wizard, three clerics, a druid and an adept. That sure doesn't sound like the Hyboria I read about.

My point is simply that appealing to Hyboria as a low-magic environment ignores some important considerations. You are free to disagree with me, and since I've addressed this point ad nauseum by now, I'm content to agree to disagree. I'm not terribly fond of repeating myself. I have a friend who frequently plays EXTREMELY low magic campaigns, and who was shocked to hear that anyone considered Robert E. Howard's Hyboria a low-magic environment. To him, that was sheer lunacy because wizards and the supernatural were common in the Conan stories. Some things truly are a matter of perspective.

 

[barsoomcore]

A rules book creates verisimilitude.

Okay, I won't argue that. Point taken.

That's not to say that (snip) the absence of high magic is synonymous with the absence of options

The only point I was trying to make. I felt that some people (not necessarily you) were trying to claim that the absence of high magic was indeed synonymous with the absence of options. We agree here, too.

My point is simply that appealing to Hyboria as a low-magic environment ignores some important considerations. (snip) Some things truly are a matter of perspective.

Which is why I've tried to maintain the notion that "low-magic" means "a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules". By that definition of "low-magic" I think it's clear that Hyboria is low-magic -- and that is not a matter of perspective. Your friend may have a different definition of low-magic, that's fine with me. My point is that Hyboria presents a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules, and a DM who wishes to run a campaign in a world with a similar distribution of magic to Hyboria must make changes to the standard D&D rules.

NOT that my definition of low-magic is correct. That IS a matter of perspective.

 

[Desdichado]

It's America.

Not necessarily, when you're debating online.

 

[molonel]

Which is why I've tried to maintain the notion that "low-magic" means "a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules". By that definition of "low-magic" I think it's clear that Hyboria is low-magic -- and that is not a matter of perspective. Your friend may have a different definition of low-magic, that's fine with me. My point is that Hyboria presents a lower distribution of magic than the standard D&D rules, and a DM who wishes to run a campaign in a world with a similar distribution of magic to Hyboria must make changes to the standard D&D rules. NOT that my definition of low-magic is correct. That IS a matter of perspective.

But even within this discussion, exactly what the standard D&D rules entails has been a matter of some debate. Do the standard D&D rules require you to have magic stores on every corner? No. Do they require you to have every item available in every village and hamlet? No. Do they require a magical monoculture where all classes, all items, all spells and all creatures are present in all times, and in all places. Absolutely not. Even within the storylines held up as examples of "low magic" there are cultures where magic is more common or more prevalent: the Noldor in LotR, the elves in Lothlorien, the wizard cults in Hyboria, and the first and second ages of the Sun in the Silmarillion. It depends on who you ask, and where you look, and how carefully. One of my points, throughout this discussion, is to pull back the rather simplified approach that some people take in painting very different and diverse story backgrounds with the same broad brush of "low magic."

Not necessarily, when you're debating online.

True enough, but when the server rests in the United States, it's a safe bet that everyone enjoys the equal right to disagree with me if they have access to an internet connection.

 

[Incenjucar]

Personally, I prefer high-magic, low-availability.

My setting includes powerful spellcasters with great variety (most magic use is more along the lines of a ranger or bard than a full-blown wizard or cleric), but, due to a serious lack of long-lived races or make-yourself-undead tricks, there's very very few of them that are powerful enough to overshadow more 'mundane' classes. While there are powerful outsiders, most of them have a damnable time getting to the prime, and they're usually stuck with making deals with mortals for long-distance manipulation. I find that making almost all magic concentration-based very very useful in explaining a lack of magic accumulation.

There's plenty of magic out there. But it's not overwhelming, and is even less accessable than normal science (anyone can combine vinager and baking soda when they're still using velcro, but it takes years of training to master hurling searing hot pebbles at people while dodging their sword thrusts.

--

I find that one of the main issues in keeping magic from getting to the 'tech' level is the duration/permanency issue. The longer a spell effect lasts, the more effect it has on society. If you have to hire mages to cast Light spells constantly, you're NOT going to ever worry about spells replacing oil lamps. If you have to have a bunch of clerics casting 'create water' instead of using a Decanter of Endless Water, you're not going to have a bunch of ever-expanding oasise in the middle of a desert. If you keep the 3.5 durations of the Buff spells rather than the longer 3.0 durations, you won't have uber-effective magicked-up mining uperations. If there's no way to keep a creature magically harnessed for a relatively permanent amount of time, lightning rails become disasters waiting to happen.

Similarly, being able to call up a whole host of effects given time seriously changes the way a spellcaster works. If no character could have more than three spells active at any one time, for instance, it would have a serious effect on things, like lessening that whole "Scry+Teleport=You Die" thing.*

Another issue that is more about how magic compares to normal combat is the area of effect. Fireballs have a great deal more relavance to combat than Shocking Grasp. If spellcasters had mostly limited-target spells, at least until much higher levels, they wouldn't have nearly the effect on warfare and similar things as they currently do; compare it to having snipers amidst bowmen instead of bazooka-users amidst gunmen.*

*Mind you, with such a change, spellcasters WOULD deserve some compensation, since they're balanced based on fireball more than shocking grasp.

Now, you'll still get things like wizardly arc-welders and miners, but that just means more raw materials for more standard war machines and fortifications, and generally just making the same things with a higher quality and durability.

 

[DragonLancer]

You make some interesting comments there, especially with the consideration of duration. I normally consider what the spell does and the likely hood of it being desirable to a caster or society.

Food for thought. Thanx.