why the attraction to "low magic"?
- Thread starter GlassJaw
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
Is that why we're making radical reworkings of the system instead of playing traditional, conservative, standard D&D?hong said:
Last edited:
Issue # 1 for me:
Magic item creep is the biggest problem I have with 3.X games. I have replaced all creation feats with equivalents that allow temporary versions of rings, wands, etc. They last a few weeks, have a finite amount of spells or charges. Players have the items they need, and create them quickly, and as a plus for them, I have removed XP cost for creating items. So far, my players seem to like the change.
Issue # 2 for me:
High level spells can ruin a badly designed game, and it's much easier to nerf the spells than to change your game or module. I have tweaked a few spells so they fit my style, but I also want to encourage my players and not ruin their creativity or fun so will never simply ban a spell. They know (well in advance) what works and how it works...that way they can begin making plans.
There's nothing wrong with high powered gamestyles, but, like anything else they get boring after awhile. If your aim is to defeat enemies, sure, a rod of blasting to that end works great. But, after the 20th time you've used the same tactic it starts to get get boring...and this, I believe is the problem with ultra high magic games. It becomes too convenient not to solve your dilemas, and you can't rationalize it as a character,"Well, I know this works but won't use it because...well, just because I won't."
The trick, is not to give a player too muich power so the adventure gets boring, but not enough to make them feel overwhelmed and helpless. One of the great things about this game is the feel of a challenge, and overcoming it with your wits, or your strength...not just the rod of blasting. This is what is appealing for many of us. Give us too much magic, too many high level spells, or too much magic items, and you feel like it's the equipment/spells that is wining not you.
Magic item creep is the biggest problem I have with 3.X games. I have replaced all creation feats with equivalents that allow temporary versions of rings, wands, etc. They last a few weeks, have a finite amount of spells or charges. Players have the items they need, and create them quickly, and as a plus for them, I have removed XP cost for creating items. So far, my players seem to like the change.
Issue # 2 for me:
High level spells can ruin a badly designed game, and it's much easier to nerf the spells than to change your game or module. I have tweaked a few spells so they fit my style, but I also want to encourage my players and not ruin their creativity or fun so will never simply ban a spell. They know (well in advance) what works and how it works...that way they can begin making plans.
There's nothing wrong with high powered gamestyles, but, like anything else they get boring after awhile. If your aim is to defeat enemies, sure, a rod of blasting to that end works great. But, after the 20th time you've used the same tactic it starts to get get boring...and this, I believe is the problem with ultra high magic games. It becomes too convenient not to solve your dilemas, and you can't rationalize it as a character,"Well, I know this works but won't use it because...well, just because I won't."
The trick, is not to give a player too muich power so the adventure gets boring, but not enough to make them feel overwhelmed and helpless. One of the great things about this game is the feel of a challenge, and overcoming it with your wits, or your strength...not just the rod of blasting. This is what is appealing for many of us. Give us too much magic, too many high level spells, or too much magic items, and you feel like it's the equipment/spells that is wining not you.
Mystery Man
First Post
I havent met a DM yet who hasn't banned something. If you havent yet banned anything, you've just not played long enough.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
Joshua Dyal said:Is that why we're making radical reworkings of the system instead of playing traditional, conservative, standard D&D?
I think you can be nostalgic/conservative in regards to settings, and still be interested in new mechanics. We're not all Diaglo
I prefer the 'magic is rare, mysterious, and powerful' type stuff because it was LotR, Amber, Lankhmar, etc, that pulled my attention away from history and biography towards fantasy literature, and then to gaming. When I played them more often, I preferred wargames with historical settings (ie Caeser Alesia) because of my other interests.
OTOH, I love learning new rules systems, and I've played more different ones than I can count.
Kerrick
First Post
I like it because it's more challenging. If I have a few resurrects at my disposal, where's the fear in charging into the dragon's lair? Sure, I'll probably get fried, but hey - I've got three more lives! Kind of takes the shine off your accomplishments when you can waltz through the adventure with little effort. Now, we play in a high-magic, high-power campaign world, and our DM is brutal - if we do something stupid, he's not afraid to kill us - and I do enjoy it... but I'd still rather play low-power, low-magic. *shrug*
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
Kerrick said:
That's my problem: it ultimately devolves into a game of Diablo II.
Last edited:
Wombat
First Post
There are a lot of reasons I prefer less frequent (and less powerful) magic in my games.
The first point has been covered many times already -- such magics are much closer to the fantasy novels I have loved in my life: Tolkein, Leiber, Le Guin, Kay, de Lint, etc. Since the reason I got into gaming in the first place was the combination of running away from miniatures wargames and wanting to play in a world that felt roughly like the books I read. High magic worlds, such as Moorcock, were less appealing to me.
The second point has been covered less often, but bears repeating -- lots of magic means having to really think about the implications of those magics even with beginning characters. Certainly a 1st level character does not have the ability to teleport or to raise the dead, but there are other characters in the same world (NPC) who do have those powers, especially BBEGs. This means having to think in terms of those powers early in a campaign. If such powers only come into play when the characters reach "higher" levels, then you are not being true to the game world. This includes, of course, the concept of "magical technology" (which also bleeds over into another non-magical complaint, the overly capitalistic feel of such games, when the basic world is supposedly feudal/pre-capitalism) and the ease with which simple magical items for the masses.
Both of these factors lead to magic-as-physics and magic-as-ordinary, rather than magic-as-sense-of-wonder and magic-as-terrifying-power. Lose that sense of wonder and, I feel, much of what I love in fantasy literature is lost.
The first point has been covered many times already -- such magics are much closer to the fantasy novels I have loved in my life: Tolkein, Leiber, Le Guin, Kay, de Lint, etc. Since the reason I got into gaming in the first place was the combination of running away from miniatures wargames and wanting to play in a world that felt roughly like the books I read. High magic worlds, such as Moorcock, were less appealing to me.
The second point has been covered less often, but bears repeating -- lots of magic means having to really think about the implications of those magics even with beginning characters. Certainly a 1st level character does not have the ability to teleport or to raise the dead, but there are other characters in the same world (NPC) who do have those powers, especially BBEGs. This means having to think in terms of those powers early in a campaign. If such powers only come into play when the characters reach "higher" levels, then you are not being true to the game world. This includes, of course, the concept of "magical technology" (which also bleeds over into another non-magical complaint, the overly capitalistic feel of such games, when the basic world is supposedly feudal/pre-capitalism) and the ease with which simple magical items for the masses.
Both of these factors lead to magic-as-physics and magic-as-ordinary, rather than magic-as-sense-of-wonder and magic-as-terrifying-power. Lose that sense of wonder and, I feel, much of what I love in fantasy literature is lost.
I don't know if this is your intent, GoodKingJayIII, but that passage sounds a bit like the kind of "my campaign is even grittier than yours" boasting that turns off many players -- it doesn't sound like fun, even to me, and I'm in the "low magic" camp.GoodKingJayIII said:
But Excalibur isn't a +1 or +2 sword, and it doesn't grow in power as Arthur grows in wisdom -- it cuts through rock and steel.GoodKingJayIII said:
As you point out, there's a packrat mentality to D&D. Most fictional characters have a few signature magic items, not dozens of +1 and +2 items -- or a few +3 items they bought with gold from all the +1 and +2 items they sold. Arthur has Excalibur and its scabbard. That's it.GoodKingJayIII said:
Of course, when it comes to Gandalf, or Merlin, or any other mysterious advisor, who knows what they've got hidden away somewhere? We don't get to see it, use it, and understand it in minute detail. (Doesn't Gandalf arguably have one of the rings of power through the whole trilogy?)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
