why the attraction to "low magic"?

[molonel]

molonel, you're establishing strawmen and shooting them down with gusto while ignoring my point. There are two very clear definitions of D&D standard magic distribution -- the distribution of spellcasters in the population at large, and the frequency of encounters with magical creatures. We don't need to debate on those -- they are clearly outlined for us in the Dungeon Master's Guide. And either one alone clearly indicates that the standard D&D magic distribution is far higher than what we observe in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth.

Well, as someone has already said, one of those points wasn't quite so clear as you thought, and actually it was demonstratably false.

And again, which part of Third Age Middle Earth do you want me to compare to those tables? Rivendell, or the Shire? Lothlorien, or Angmar? In Hyboria, what shall I compare? Conan's native Cimmeria, or the wizard-ruled lands of Stygia?

One of my main points, throughout this discussion, has simply been that there are conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as cookie-cutter examples of "low magic" when the worlds themselves are not static backwaters of low magic goodness. As a result of my points, your language has become a lot more confined and specific, you'll notice. It's never "Middle Earth" now, but "Third Age Middle Earth." That, in and of itself, communicates that you admit some traction in the points I've made. Most of the folks, yourself included, were not nearly so specific when those points were originally raised.

Pretty soon, your assertion is going to look something like this:

"Okay, molonel. Fine. Maybe the culture in the city of Aquilonia, the wizard cults in the mountains and the wizard-ruled lands of Stygia don't exactly fit our definition of "low magic" here, and maybe there are large regions of Middle Earth in the Third Age that don't fit that definition, either, and the First and Second age and the Age of Stars and the Age of the Lamps definitely don't. But you are absolutely FORCED to admit that the deserts of Shem, the Pict lands not ruled by shapechanging shamans and the northern wastelands of the Cimmerians (but not the Aesir) fit that definition! And you MUST admit that the Shire is pretty low magic."

I don't actually care about fuzzy impressions of "standard D&D" -- all I'm trying to say is that classic fantasy worlds such as Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower distributions of spellcasters and lower frequencies of encounters with supernatural creatures that the standard D&D setting does, according to the rules as published. Ergo, they can usefully be described with the term "low-magic" since they exhibit demonstratably lower levels of magic.

And I feel I've shown, through several anecdotes drawn directly from the books themselves, that your statements are incorrect or leave a great deal unaddressed. Perhaps it's time to agree to disagree?

That people may use the term "low-magic" to incorrectly group settings that exhibit very different traits is inconsequential to my point. That the standard D&D setting is not perfectly definable in all its traits is inconsequential to my point. My point is that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth exhibit lower distributions of spellcasters and supernatural creatures than the standard D&D setting does, and thus can be called "low-magic".

But what I'm saying is that even within Hyboria and Third Age Middle Earth, as within a "standard" D&D setting, there are disparities between different cultures. Someone else has already pointed out that you were incorrect in your assumption about the commonality of magical creatures in a standard D&D world. Will you possibly entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that there was more to Hyboria than the Cimmerian backwaters? Hedgewizards and shamans were not an uncommon occurence in the Conan stories, and their resemblance to low-level wizards and clerics is striking. The reason Conan is said to be so scared of magic, in the early stories, was because he was a barbarian.

hong's always right, of course. Leaving me with but one lonely statistic to cling to in my efforts. Which is one more than my opponent has, so I'm still ahead. Okay, forget about frequency of "magical creatures". I don't need it. Never liked it anyway. Let's consider only distribution of spellcasters. It's still clear that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth show vastly lower numbers of spellcasters than standard D&D mandates, according to the rules in the DMG.

Well, I've confined myself mostly to references from the actual texts of the stories we've been discussing, and specific examples from those, so I can see why you'd prefer statistics since the stories don't actually offer any. Where do you draw your statistics about the occurence of spellcasters in Hyboria and Middle Earth, since you're now "clinging to statistics?"

molonel, if you want to show that Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth are NOT lower in their magic distribution than standard D&D, come up with a different statistic by which they have higher than standard, and we'll call it even. Or show that my statistic is faulty. Or accept that yes, Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth are pretty acceptable examples of "low-magic" settings. Whatever differences they may possess otherwise.

Well, you haven't SHOWN that they were lower. You've simply said it several times, and naturally the more you say something, the truer it becomes, yes? So I guess we're at a stalemate on that point.

I consider there to be conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as a baseline for "low magic." If you think they work, great. I'm not telling you not to use them. I'm saying I can't use them that way, because I've read the stories closely enough and carefully enough that I realize it's easy to walk away from them after a cursory reading, and forget a lot.

 

[barsoomcore]

As a result of my points, your language has become a lot more confined and specific, you'll notice. (snip) Most of the folks, yourself included, were not nearly so specific when those points were originally raised.

Excuse me, but you are mistaken. Just to jog your memory, here's my entrance into this discussion:

There are plenty of low-magic worlds in fantastic literature. Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age is one.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, there, but no, your "points" haven't accomplished a thing. My position remains as it was when I started.

I started this conversation by pointing out that your statements concerning how much gear Conan possesses or how powerful he may be are irrelevant to the question of "Is Hyboria a low-magic world?" I was correct to say so, and the point stands.

Now, if you want to call Hyboria a high-magic world, hey, do as you like. My point is simply that for the majority of its inhabitants, it is a lower-magic world than standard D&D, as is Third Age Middle-Earth. In standard D&D, virtually everyone in the world knows a spellcaster; indeed, most know several. This is not the case in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth. This is what I've been saying, and again, this point stands.

There are conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as cookie-cutter examples of "low magic" when the worlds themselves are not static backwaters of low magic goodness.

Hm, attack straw men much?

I agree with you (as I've said previously) that both settings display local variations. I'm glad you think it's interesting. It has nothing to do with my point, however. I'm not saying that each and every corner of Hyboria is lower-magic, I'm saying that on average, Hyboria is lower-magic than standard D&D -- for the average person. I'm not saying (and never have said) that the stories of Conan exhibit very low levels of magic. I'm saying that for the average joe, magic is much more prevalent in D&D than in Hyboria.

Someone else has already pointed out that you were incorrect in your assumption about the commonality of magical creatures in a standard D&D world.

I am not incorrect in my assumption about the frequency of magical creatures -- I am incorrect in my belief there was evidence for any particular level of frequency. The frequency isn't different than I assumed -- there simply isn't any evidence to prove it one way or the other. I might still be right about the frequency, but neither of us can decide the issue, so it's a wash.

You seem to want to use that to argue that I'm probably wrong about other stuff. Sorry, but ad hominem attacks convince me not at all.

If someone has encounter tables for Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, that would provide some evidence. I'm more than happy to drop that particular assertion since doing so in no way impairs my argument. If you want to keep worrying at it, feel free, but until somebody comes up with some evidence, I'm uninterested.

I consider there to be conceptual and imaginative problems with using those worlds as a baseline for "low magic."

Oh, well, then, I'll make sure not to do that. You'll note I haven't done so yet, so again, this is yet another strawman that you're setting up in order to shoot down.

I wouldn't use either as a "baseline for low magic", either. I've never said anyone should. All I've said is that they exhibit less magic than standard D&D.

And I feel I've shown, through several anecdotes drawn directly from the books themselves, that your statements are incorrect or leave a great deal unaddressed

Huh? Did you forget to put up a post or something? If you're going to claim that you've already backed up your rebuttals to my points with references to the texts themselves, you should actually back up your rebuttals to my points with references to the texts themselves. Cause otherwise that claim falls a little flat, I'm afraid.

Unless you think your offhand mentions of "wizard cults in Stygia" and "Lothlorien" count as "several anecdotes". Please refer to this post where I discuss the existence and relevance of local variations in these settings. I am not suggesting there are no variations, nor do I see how their existence is relevant to my point, which centers on the average condition. Local variations must be combined and, er, averaged to produce the average, right?

So unless you've got anecdotes, let's not pretend you do, okay? And until you've shown my statements are incorrect, let's not pretend you have.

I'm saying I can't use them that way, because I've read the stories closely enough and carefully enough that I realize it's easy to walk away from them after a cursory reading, and forget a lot.

Implying that I haven't read them closely or carefully enough. You don't need to attack my scholarship like this in order to prove your points, you know. You simply have to be right.

You seem to think I'm saying a whole raft of things I'm not. And I'm sorry if I'm a poor communicator and have given you that idea. Let me try to be clear.

It is not my contention that all of Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth displayed a uniform distribution of magic (defined as number of spellcasters per unit of population). It is not my contention that those seeking an "ideal" low-magic setting should use either of these settings as their example. It is not my contention that in the stories set in these setting, magic is unheard of.

My contentions are two:

1. That the heroes of a story set in a particular setting themselves display high amounts of magic use in no way indicates that the setting itself displays an average of high amounts of magic use. It is perfectly possible to have high-magic heroes in a low-magic world.

2. That both Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower average distributions of magic (defined as spellcasters per unit of population) than the standard D&D setting mandates. There may be other measures by which they display higher distributions of magic, but it is clear from reading the stories set in these worlds that for most people, magic is very rarely encountered. This is not the case in standard D&D, where it is stated that nearly all people encounter magic on a daily basis.

You seem to be attacking very different points -- namely those contentions I've listed above as NOT supporting. If you feel the need to keep attacking those points, I won't stand in your way, but I'd be more interested in reading your responses to the points I'm actually making.

 

[kolikeos]

for me, low magic is a very bad thing, as i always like to play spellcasters.
but in the game im running now, although i did not want it to turn out this way, none of the pcs are spell casters and the players like it that way, although i do not.

 

[molonel]

barsoomcore, I'm going to wade through the flotsam and jetsam of whatever Philosophy 101 class you just took, and step to the meat of what you said in your last post. A discussion has degenerated far past any usefulness when two people insist on saying, "Actually, what I really said/meant/thought was X," or "No, that's not what I said" and "Yes it is!" and "No it isn't!" I'll deal with what you are saying in the present, and you grant me the same courtesy. That avoids the buildup of misunderstandings. I won't make any reference to anything which anyone else has said or argued, nor anything that you've said before now. Fair? I'm also going to ignore the snipes at how I present myself, or my arguments. It doesn't accomplish anything. If you are really interested in arguing the points, rather than attacking the person, then you will do the same.

It is not my contention that all of Hyboria or Third Age Middle-Earth displayed a uniform distribution of magic (defined as number of spellcasters per unit of population). It is not my contention that those seeking an "ideal" low-magic setting should use either of these settings as their example. It is not my contention that in the stories set in these setting, magic is unheard of.

Okay. So you aren't arguing against the idea that even within a setting which might be considered "low magic" (I'm saying MIGHT, not definitely) there may be cultures in which there is a higher distribution of magic. And the average person might just be familiar with magic. That's useful to know.

My contentions are two:

1. That the heroes of a story set in a particular setting themselves display high amounts of magic use in no way indicates that the setting itself displays an average of high amounts of magic use. It is perfectly possible to have high-magic heroes in a low-magic world.

Actually, I agree with you. Since I don't consider the average D&D game to be a genuinely, undeniably high magic setting - certainly nothing on the level of the Forgotten Realms, or Spelljammer - what tends to set adventurers apart is their high level of magical gear. I've never argued that D&D 3.5 characters don't have a good spread of magic items. Compare the average character wealth by level on page 135 of the 3.5 DMG to the average wealth of NPCs of the same level on page 127. At 20th level, the average PC (going by the book) has 760,000 GP worth of treasure, magic items, etc. The average NPC at the same level has less than a third of that. For a 20th level NPC fighter, 220,000 GP is enough for a good weapon, a good suit of armor and maybe one or two other items. The "average" 20th level NPC fighter listed on page 117 - and this is someone who would certainly be a general or a well-known NPC fighter in any non-epic campaign world - is listed with a +4 suit of armor, a +3 shield, a couple of AC items and a stat item (probably strength). The first magic item we even see on the charts for an NPC fighter is 6th level, and he gets a suit of +1 full plate.

So I agree: just because heroes, or player characters, have a high amount of magic items in no way indicates that the setting itself displays a high amount of magic use. But understand that I also apply this logic to the standard D&D setting. I think it's possible to misconstrue the level of magic in the standard D&D world by using the PLAYERS as the yardstick for what folks think is available or common to the rest of the world.

2. That both Hyboria and Third Age Middle-Earth display lower average distributions of magic (defined as spellcasters per unit of population) than the standard D&D setting mandates. There may be other measures by which they display higher distributions of magic, but it is clear from reading the stories set in these worlds that for most people, magic is very rarely encountered. This is not the case in standard D&D, where it is stated that nearly all people encounter magic on a daily basis.

Let's refer to these infamous charts we've been talking about, shall we? Flip to page 139 of the 3.5 DMG. You say all people encounter magic on a daily basis in a standard D&D game. But in anything smaller than a large town, the most anyone who lives out their lives in a small town (population up to 2,000 people) ever encounters is a 1d4-th level wizard or sorceror, or a 1d6-th level cleric. That is the highest level possible for NPCs in those settings. That also means that in a hamlet or thorp, it's entirely possible - and statistically likely - that with the modifiers listed there will be nobody from several spellcasting classes. In other words, no, all people do not encounter magic on a daily basis. There are higher level spellcasters available in large metropolises, and in specially magical communities. But note that in the MAJORITY of randomly generated towns (70 percent, by the book) the most anyone will EVER encounter is a 4th level arcane caster.

I contend two things, in return:

1. I do not believe that the standard distribution of magic, whether by magic items or spellcasters per unit of the population, is as high in the standard D&D world as you seem to imply. Nor do I believe that the standard distribution of magic, by either means, is as low in either Hyboria or Third Age Middle Earth. Do I believe that Hyboria is high magic? Well, if I did, then I've never said so. But I'm not sure it's so different from the "standard" D&D world, and you've given me no particularly compelling reason to think otherwise.

2. How much magic - by either standard - appears in a "standard" D&D world depends on two things: the commonality of high population centers, and the amount of civilization that appears in the world. One of the reasons the "adept" is an NPC class is precisely because it says that some cultures don't have the sophistication or development to train clerics or wizards.

 

[barsoomcore]

Alright, point one is uncontested. Wonderful. Onwards.

Your rebuttal to point two is that there are very few spellcasters above 4th level among the general population. No argument from me as to the truth of that assertion. I certainly agree that most folks in a D&D setting don't very often encounter spellcasters above 4th level. On the other hand, they will almost certainly encounter spellcasters below that level. Do you consider 4th level some kind of threshold point? I'm not saying there are high-level spellcasters everywhere. I'm just saying there are spellcasters everywhere.

At all levels of communities -- from thorps to metropolii -- average communities will have multiple spellcasters. The average hamlet described in DMG, of 200 souls, includes a 1st-level adept, a first-level wizard, a third-level cleric and two first-level clerics and a first-level druid. Does that sound like the average 200-person village in either Hyboria or Middle-Earth (can I stop saying "Third Age" every time?)? It sure doesn't sound like Bree, or Edoras, or even Minas Tirith. It doesn't sound like Aquilonia, or Khawarizm, or Bakalah.

Now, as to our personal conduct:

I'm going to wade through the flotsam and jetsam of whatever Philosophy 101 class you just took (snip) I'm also going to ignore the snipes at how I present myself, or my arguments. It doesn't accomplish anything. If you are really interested in arguing the points, rather than attacking the person, then you will do the same.

That's a brilliant tactic. "I'm going to smack you one across the chops, but then let's agree not to smack each other anymore. Doesn't that sound fair?" Nicely done.

Here's a better deal: You agree to stop making insulting assumptions about me, and I'll stop being so snide about your groundless arguments. Actually, you know what -- you go on trying to insult me. It's kind of amusing. And I'm actually really enjoying being snide about your groundless arguments.

If you think I've attacked you, rather than your arguments, then I apologize, and sincerely. It is not my intent to cast any aspersions on you personally. I don't know you, and I don't insult people whose character I am unaware of. And besides, ad hominem attacks are pointless, and I'm nothing if not efficient.

If there's a specific comment I made that you interpreted as an insult, I'd appreciate you letting me know, since it was done without intent and I would want to see how what I said could be interpreted as an insult, so as to avoid doing so in the future.

In that spirit, here are the attacks you've made against my person, as opposed to my arguments:

Someone else has already pointed out that you were incorrect (snip) Will you possibly entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that there was more to Hyboria than the Cimmerian backwaters?

Meaning you were wrong once so you're probably dumb, which means you'll probably be wrong again. Oh, and here's an insinuation that you don't know anything about the source material.

I've read the stories closely enough and carefully enough that I realize it's easy to walk away from them after a cursory reading, and forget a lot.

Meaning you're probably dumber than I, so you didn't get what I did out of the source material.

The flotsam and jetsam of whatever Philosophy 101 class you just took

Meaning you speak like a dummy so your logic must be faulty.

If I misinterpreted one of those comments feel free to explain what you meant. Please don't worry that you've hurt my feelings, or that I'm all upset now. I just don't like it when people take swipes at me for things I haven't done. Especially when it's something they've made a habit of themselves.

I don't agree that this discussion has passed the point of usefulness. I'm enjoying myself immensely, at any rate. But then, I'm right.

 

[molonel]

barsoomcore, I am going to focus on arguments. You can focus on behavior. You obviously prefer doing so when you devote 60 percent of your post to addressing it. I'm done with that. Seriously.

Your rebuttal to point two is that there are very few spellcasters above 4th level among the general population. No argument from me as to the truth of that assertion. I certainly agree that most folks in a D&D setting don't very often encounter spellcasters above 4th level. On the other hand, they will almost certainly encounter spellcasters below that level. Do you consider 4th level some kind of threshold point? I'm not saying there are high-level spellcasters everywhere. I'm just saying there are spellcasters everywhere. At all levels of communities -- from thorps to metropolii -- average communities will have multiple spellcasters. The average hamlet described in DMG, of 200 souls, includes a 1st-level adept, a first-level wizard, a third-level cleric and two first-level clerics and a first-level druid. Does that sound like the average 200-person village in either Hyboria or Middle-Earth (can I stop saying "Third Age" every time?)? It sure doesn't sound like Bree, or Edoras, or even Minas Tirith. It doesn't sound like Aquilonia, or Khawarizm, or Bakalah.

I'm saying that having three percent of the population in a village of 200 being able to cast a handful of cantrips doesn't rise above my threshold for high magic. It doesn't necessarily rise outside of my threshold for low magic, either. That depends entirely on how the DM handles it.

Is it so very different from Aquilonia, or even Minas Tirith? In my opinion, no. But we can swap cities: Bree or Rivendell, Edoras or Lothlorien. You focus on one part of the world. I focus on another.

I am thoroughly convinced of one thing, though: that is my opinion, and it obviously differs from yours. And I'm content to stay that way. You haven't presented me with any solid, convincing reason to think otherwise. Does magic change the whole face of the community when those sorts of spellcasters are present? Probably not. It doesn't change the daily lives of most people. The presence of a Cure Light Wounds to heal a sprained ankle or a hedgewizard who might just spend all of his time reading and casting Comprehend Languages doesn't mean that everyone knows those spellcasters on a firstname basis. Or that their presence changes daily life in any significant way.

But unless we're going to start covering some new material, I think we've both adequately expressed our POV. This is starting to smell like a verbal stamina contest, and if that's what it's turning into, then I will freely offer to bail out first.

 

[Desdichado]

Does magic change the whole face of the community when those sorts of spellcasters are present? Probably not. It doesn't change the daily lives of most people. The presence of a Cure Light Wounds to heal a sprained ankle or a hedgewizard who might just spend all of his time reading and casting Comprehend Languages doesn't mean that everyone knows those spellcasters on a firstname basis. Or that their presence changes daily life in any significant way.

And here I'd say you're very wrong. In pseudo-Medieval cultures, which granted is an assumption, but not an unlikely or unreasonable one, people lived in the same area their entire lives, for the most part. To assume that the people of a little village of 200 who all lived there forever weren't on first name basis with each other is, frankly, unbelievable. To assume that in a population of that size, whoever wanted a cure light wounds, or comprehend languages spell, or purify food and water, or heck, even prestidigitation at any time doesn't know exactly who to go to for that, and that they wouldn't do so whenever possible, I simply don't buy.

Also, you're seemingly fond of vaguely referencing the "text" of source material, as if your anecdotal evidence were somehow hard proof. I'd very much like to see this "text" wherein it is even implied that there are these "vast regions," to use your own phrase, of Middle-earth that are teeming with spellcasters. Near as I can tell, other than a few named characters we actually see; namely Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, Radagast, and the Witch-king, all you've got are some very vague references in the Appendices to a handful of sorcerers in Rhudaur, and some equally vague references to sorcerers amongst the Black Numenoreans, including some very apocryphal legends about Queen Beruthiel. Exactly what sorcerer means in this context is, however, completely unknown. And since most of those named characters are actually angelic/divine beings rather than mortals, who also tend to be pretty low key in their approach to spellcasting, I don't think that at all you've made your point about localized high magic convincingly.

So, you can go on claiming that your interpretation of Middle-earth is backed by some text, or careful reading you've done, but you haven't actually demonstrated it, you've simply said so several times. I have no problem in agreeing to disagree with you on that regard, but kindly do not make any claims for any more "textual authority" than you actually have.

 

[DragonLancer]

I don't know Conan all that well. Never read the books, they simply never appealed to me and it took me well over 10 years to finish the LotR trilogy even though I wanted to read them.

I would say from what I know, that Conan is low magic and low fantasy. Theres few real monsters and wizards are not throwing balls of flame or lightning bolts around. Its a story of a mighty warrior doing what he does. No grand quests or rings of power.

Then on the other hand Middle Earth in my eyes is mid-magic and high fantasy. Its grand quests, fate the world type story, and magic appears in many forms (Sting, the One Ring, elven rope...etc). But when we look at Gandalf and Saruman, we don't see them throwing spells around left right and centre. We see (in D&D terms) scrying, light and a couple minor spells.

You can have a low magic setting that has powerful mages and monsters. It just depends on the frequency and use of those beings. You can have high level wizards but they don't go around throwing spells or permanent teleport circles around - that would kill that feel.
I run a DragonLance game, a setting I feel is high fantasy but low-magic. I use monsters as they are used in D&D, so beholders / medusa's / gorgons / demons... etc make appearences, but wizards are more concerned with protecting their magic from misuse and don't go using it for just anything.

Others will surely disagree and say that what I am running is a mid-high level magic game, but its not. At the end of the day, low-magic means that its not everywhere. Villages may have access to a low-level cleric or druid who helps with healing or crops, but magic and casters are not so prevalent as to be everyday occurences.

 

[molonel]

And here I'd say you're very wrong. In pseudo-Medieval cultures, which granted is an assumption, but not an unlikely or unreasonable one, people lived in the same area their entire lives, for the most part. To assume that the people of a little village of 200 who all lived there forever weren't on first name basis with each other is, frankly, unbelievable. To assume that in a population of that size, whoever wanted a cure light wounds, or comprehend languages spell, or purify food and water, or heck, even prestidigitation at any time doesn't know exactly who to go to for that, and that they wouldn't do so whenever possible, I simply don't buy.

Okay, you simply don't buy it. That's valid.

But in how many fantasy stories have you read about people who give the local hedgewizard a wide berth? Or where the local druid is elusive, shadowy and only appears when people need him? That crazy old man with his books in the tower? It's cursed, you know. Don't go there. Nobody ever does. I simply don't see the evidence for "magic as technology" in the charts. If you do, that's fine. I think it's entirely up to the DMs presentation. And I don't think the rules dictate how that should go.

Here is how I see the difference between standard D&D magic and the world presented in the Lord of the Rings trilogy:

There are no divine spellcasters, because there really aren't any gods to grant divine spells. There is nothing like the evocation school with arcane casters. Magic is very low with the hobbits, who distrust it, and very high with the elves. It is passing from amongst the world as the elves retreat into the West, and the dwarves become more reclusive and retreat into the mountains. I would consider the Fourth Age of the Sun to be a truly low-magic world. But the ground of this discussion has shifted several times: it's according to the commonality of "magical" beasts. It's rated according to the distribution of magic items. Now we're dealing with spellcasters per capita. At every step along the way, I've been willing to look at the books. Pretending that I'm being deliberately vague, or avoiding evidence, is just dishonest. I'm not. I see differences between standard D&D cosmology and world-building, and Tolkien's world, and I don't believe that the latter translates very cleanly into gaming terms. MERP was a very D&D-esque interpretation of Middle Earth, and ICE had to play very fast and loose to put divine spellcasters (animists, I believe) into the world. They just didn't fit.

Am I going to do a line-by-line explication of all of Tolkien's works to provide a statistical breakdown of spellcasters per capita? No. And neither is anyone else. That is not a good use of my time. You may attribute whatever motives to that statement you wish.

The end result is: I don't consider Tolkien's Third Age, or Howard's Hyborea, to be good examples of what a low magic world should look like. What we are ultimately talking about, in this discussion, is what a low magic gaming world should look like. And while I don't think the underlying fabric of a very specific time in Middle Earth is as different as some here do from a D&D world, I also don't think the world as a whole translates very well into gaming terms.

 

[Desdichado]

Am I going to do a line-by-line explication of all of Tolkien's works to provide a statistical breakdown of spellcasters per capita? No. And neither is anyone else. That is not a good use of my time. You may attribute whatever motives to that statement you wish.

Actually, all I'd be interested in is addressing my point; that other than about half a dozen named characters, most of whom are actually divine/angelic beings, nobody seems to do any magic in Middle-earth. And yet, you still make the claim that it's not very clear if it's low magic or not. I'm not interested in a per capita breakdown of spellcasters either, I'd merely like to see one counter example to what I said. And I'm not asking you to reference it by page number, just refer to it. If Tolkien wrote it, I almost certainly have read it half a dozen times at least, and I'll catch up on my own.

I do agree that neither Tolkien nor Howard's works really lend themselves all that well to a game mechanics description; they certainly weren't interested in modelling the kind of consistency that game mechanics would probably have given the characters. But that's not really the point, so that whole thrust of discussion is off topic at best.