Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-28-06, 07:34 PM	Why do people like low magic campaigns? I see so many posts on the Campaign boards that I had to ask this question. I personally like magic a lot, and can't get enough of it, so it constantly surprises and perplexes me that some people reduce the amount in the game.
hiryuu 06-28-06, 07:44 PM	Why do people like low magic campaigns? I see so many posts on the Campaign boards that I had to ask this question. I personally like magic a lot, and can't get enough of it, so it constantly surprises and perplexes me that some people reduce the amount in the game. That way when you find magic, it's bizarre and wondrous. It's for the "little kid staring at the stars" feeling, which is cool.
razorboy 06-28-06, 08:13 PM	For extra challenge, and a chance for non-caster classes to shine at higher levels. Also campaign settings like Ravenloft virtually require low-magic approach to maintain the sense of mystery, mood, tension and constant danger. Some like it, some don't. It's not for every DM or player. I personally like absence of higher-level magic, but that's just a personal preference.
myusernameis 06-28-06, 08:34 PM	No meaning to offend but as far as I can tell it's because alot of dms don't know/wish/want to actually plan around there being magic that can foil an adventure they spent hours preparing.
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-28-06, 09:10 PM	That way when you find magic, it's bizarre and wondrous. It's for the "little kid staring at the stars" feeling, which is cool. I still don't get that. Not to be mean, I just don't see how this inspires wonder. I see such a world as mundane, more like the real world than I want for a fantasy. Maybe for me it's also the fantasy that not only is this stuff wondrous but it's right there to touch. How I see low magic (disclaimer: please do not get mad at me, as this is just a personal opinion and is designed to clarify my position): "Okay, so it's like real life, only there are a few special people who do cool things. Wait, that's still like real life."
AT-AT Assault 06-28-06, 09:15 PM	For extra challenge, and a chance for non-caster classes to shine at higher levels.Exactly. For Example: Suppose the PCs campaign has them based at a city (ie super familiarity) and they are at 19th level. One day they have to go back but some evil wizard has turned the surrounding plains to a viscious wasteland. The Ranger of the group has say a +40 to survival, so they'll be able to get to the city in a few hours time. The Sorcerror however knows Greater Teleport and can get the party there instantaneously. Which do you think the party will choose? And how does that make the player of the Ranger feel (since he's basically wasted effort on attaining his survival modifier)?
AT-AT Assault 06-28-06, 09:20 PM	How I see low magic (disclaimer: please do not get mad at me, as this is just a personal opinion and is designed to clarify my position): "Okay, so it's like real life, only there are a few special people who do cool things. Wait, that's still like real life."Its not so much the atmosphere of the game, but the mechanics therein. At higher levels non-casters are basically gimped. Another example: A Fighter at 20th level absolutely NEEDS his uber magic equipment. If he doesnt have his uber magic equipment he's as useful as a wet noodle. If you remove all things of wealth from a Sorcerror he's still quite able thanks to his spell casting ability. Not to mention Monks (they can dish out damage all day long with only a loincloth on them). The reason a lot of people like low magic (and Im one of them) is because without magic items and magic buffs non-casters suck :censored: while the casters just smile smugly.
FloppyLlama 06-28-06, 09:40 PM	double post
FloppyLlama 06-28-06, 09:41 PM	I still don't get that. Not to be mean, I just don't see how this inspires wonder. I see such a world as mundane, more like the real world than I want for a fantasy. Maybe for me it's also the fantasy that not only is this stuff wondrous but it's right there to touch. How I see low magic (disclaimer: please do not get mad at me, as this is just a personal opinion and is designed to clarify my position): "Okay, so it's like real life, only there are a few special people who do cool things. Wait, that's still like real life." Imagine that every +2 sword is a unique rarity with a name, a special feel to it and a history. Imagine that after fighting your way, tooth and nail, through a trapped dungeon of a crime syndicate you find this treasure. Never before have you seen or felt such a fantastic piece of equipment. It seems light in your hands, and its subtle shimmering creates a fascinating beauty that far outshines any sword you have ever seen. It hums when you swing it, and it feels as if some subtle force is guiding you. Never have you witnessed such a wonderful blade, and it continues to serve you well in your battles for days to come. Think about it that way. Magic is a rarity, therefore it is more valuable and more amazing. EDIT: To clarify, low magic has to be more than "Hey guys, magic armor is really not very common, ok?". It has to have a specific flair or flavor to it that makes the magic all the more fantastic.
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-28-06, 09:56 PM	Its not so much the atmosphere of the game, but the mechanics therein. At higher levels non-casters are basically gimped. Another example: A Fighter at 20th level absolutely NEEDS his uber magic equipment. If he doesnt have his uber magic equipment he's as useful as a wet noodle. If you remove all things of wealth from a Sorcerror he's still quite able thanks to his spell casting ability. Not to mention Monks (they can dish out damage all day long with only a loincloth on them). The reason a lot of people like low magic (and Im one of them) is because without magic items and magic buffs non-casters suck :censored: while the casters just smile smugly. Okay, now I understand (more than before, at any rate). And I think I can explain why I didn't see it before: I like it when the physical types are gimped. Let's devide D&D up into three kinds of classes: bashers, blasters, and skill users. Bashers beat you up somehow with a stick or a version thereof (however, I also include ranged attacks with mundane weapons), and that gets boring unless it's done in a really cool way (so a monk is sitll good). This is mainly because it's repetitive to me: slice up this guy, slice up that guy. Blasters unload pure energy at you. Instantly that's cooler. It also makes me feel as if there's more strategy involved. "Will the right combo of spells bring all your enemies down in one hit?" Skill users do phenominal things with generally non-magical techniques. They bluff their way through things, they sense, they deduce. They have a variety of different things to do. So as you can see, I'm not so much confused by non-use of magic as I am by non-use of a technique that is varied, which magic just happens to fall into. What I can't see is why when the option of magic is presented do people not take it and realize that this expands the possibilities for the world. As to the "needs magic items to remain balanced" I see that more as a failure of the non-caster classes to be kept up rather than the caster classes being too good. If a fighter needs a magic sword than obviously what you really need is a better way to go about taking out that pesky wizard. What seems to have been overlooked is the fact that great mages are often bested more by smarts than by strength.
FloppyLlama 06-28-06, 10:06 PM	I like it when the physical types are gimped. Well people who want to play physical types probably don't want you to gimp them because of a favoritism towards a particular flavor. Just because you find nothing appealing about a knight in shining armor in a fantasy setting as opposed to a Wizard disintigrating his foes at will doesn't mean you should try to enforce this favoritism in play. Caster types are more powerful than non-casters in various ways (mostly at high levels) but you cannot say "Well that's the non-caster's fault". It is obvious that you are less interested in what other people find interesting or flavorful, and more about making what you find cool suitably more awesome than anything else. This would of course make any attempt to balance the system baffling. Everyone should find magic as awesome as you do, right?
AT-AT Assault 06-28-06, 10:27 PM	If a fighter needs a magic sword than obviously what you really need is a better way to go about taking out that pesky wizard. What seems to have been overlooked is the fact that great mages are often bested more by smarts than by strength.Along with that wizard every other thing that is a CR of the Fighter's level. Ever heard of say DR 10/Magic? If for some reason you dont know what that means, it means you need a magic weapon or you damage is getting reduced by 10 points. A Fighter needs that sword, a Wizard can conjure up a sword like that for 10 minutes. Who do you think is more powerful? And by the way, I like playing Fighters and I play it with the style you claim they lack. FloppyLlama basically said what the other half of this post would have been.
a_psh 06-28-06, 10:57 PM	For me, it's all about treasure. In a vanilla D&D game, treasure is one of the core motivators, because it's so deeply a part of the mechanics of power. PCs will look for lucrative missions so they can improve their equipment. PCs won't go sundering any +4 anarchic flaming burst longswords. PCs will protect their equipment at all costs. Simply taking away a fighter's magic axe weakens his character much more than, say, chopping off his leg. Shiny little golden coins go from being an in-game storyline item to a meta-game measure of a character's raw mechanical power. Take all the archery feats you want, it's still the enchantments on your bow that really determine your damage power at 18th level. Moreover, a player who wants to give some of his money to war orphans, or wants to build a keep instead of upgrading his sword, or simply wants to roleplay a character who is continually wasting whatever fortunes he acquires (following in the footsteps of fantasy icons like Conan or Fahrd and the Grey Mouser) is, mechanically, screwed. The game mechanics reward you for being a greedy loner who pours thousands of gp into improving his sword while sleeping in dingy inns and still wearing your level 1 traveler's outfit. Now, that's not to say that this isn't a fun and viable character concept, but it shouldn't be required for every character. You only get one feat every few levels, but each chunk of 1000-5000 gp can easily be its own magic item. And that frostbrand those winged boots often influence your character's abilities much more than Weapon Focus or 4 skill points in Jump. Thus, players become dependent on the party wizard, NPC casters, and the whims of the treasure table for character customization. (Now, the problem here is that characters without any items tend to be BLAND! This can be addressed by giving the PCs more feats and skill points to work with.) This also ties the GM's hands quite a bit. He has to make sure that there's ample treasure in adventures, since acquiring that treasure is just as integral to character advancement as gaining experience points. Even if he's not actually micromanaging rewards to keep you within the guidelines, he has to watch your wealth levels because standard character wealth is taken into account in determining everything from spell DCs to CR. Unless he explicitly wants to gimp the PCs for the next five levels, he can't, say, throw the party in prison without having some contrived way for them to get all their loot back as they try to escape. In short: the better the toys, the more people come to rely on them and need them and the less a character's own abilities matter, in the end. Big toys are cool, but it's nice to throw them away and play a simpler, more character-focused game sometimes.
AT-AT Assault 06-28-06, 11:07 PM	Well said a_psh.
a_psh 06-28-06, 11:22 PM	Some additional, minor perks... Less equipment bookkeeping, if you want it: Equipment can be as simple as 2-3 weapons, one suit of armor, and a "backpack", if you don't care about keeping track of bedrolls and torches and rations. No potions and rings and multiple types of stacking bonuses and a whatnot. Less stat bookkeeping: A lack of buffs reduces the need to continuously recalculate the PCs' various abilities. Less option paralysis: In my experience, high-level PC casters, the powerhouses of the party, also tend to bog down play. Picking out two dozen spells to memorize from your known list of one hundred every day can be a rather arduous task, especially if you have to guess what you're going to be facing. Then the action begins and you have to strategically choose from among those two dozen spells every single round. If the spell is new or just particularly weird, this often means looking things up in books. Being able to do anything is the bread and butter of pen-and-paper RPGs, but that's a lot easier to run when there are five or six standard options and mechanics for handling any special tricks you come up with, rather than 20-30 options that you always have to consider. As noted above, you can play with less stuff, so PCs don't have to go on hour-long shopping trips (whether during or between sessions) every time they end up in a city. The mundane matters again: Your Wilderness Survival still means something at level 10. When the party has to get to the villain's castle atop a sheer cliff, it's all about the rogue Climbing all the way up while holding a rope in his teeth instead of the mage just whisking everyone to their next challenge. Your fighter can walk around with half a dozen weapons in his bag and actually use them all effectively, rather than just having one or two that level with him and a bunch of garbage that's just there for show. More importantly, terrain matters a lot more: there's a lot to be said for, say, cover when every battle doesn't involve perfectly-targetable magical effects. Similarly, setting your arrows on fire or uppending that great big cauldron of boiling oil to damage five enemies at once is a lot cooler if they're not just a poor man's flame arrow and fireball. Ditching wizards specifically makes non-casters a lot more fun and versatile because they don't just turn into the mage's personal bodyguards at high levels. Ditching clerics &c. puts the mystery back in the divine: religion can be about faith like in the real world, rather than simply bowing down to a being whose power and desires are absolutely and uncontrovertibly apparent to all.
Art_Tillary 06-29-06, 07:36 AM	For me, it's all about treasure. (snip) Moreover, a player who wants to give some of his money to war orphans, or wants to build a keep instead of upgrading his sword, or simply wants to roleplay a character who is continually wasting whatever fortunes he acquires (following in the footsteps of fantasy icons like Conan or Fahrd and the Grey Mouser) is, mechanically, screwed. The game mechanics reward you for being a greedy loner who pours thousands of gp into improving his sword while sleeping in dingy inns and still wearing your level 1 traveler's outfit. Now, that's not to say that this isn't a fun and viable character concept, but it shouldn't be required for every character. Now that is actually an interesting reason to look at a low magic campaign, or otherwise make changes to treasure, etc. Not having a lot of cash wealth makes more sense, also having to spend lots of treasure sounds good. I had already decided that I'd give out big treasures, but take it back in fees, taxes, scams etc. Have to think about it with regards to other stuff. AT
Seeker95 06-29-06, 07:46 AM	I have a different take on low magic. A low magic campaign does not gimp the party. It means that the party cannot just waltz into a magic store in every town, nor find a magic-item maker just around the corner. It means that the means of making magic items is not widely known, and the means of acquiring magic items is part of the game, rather than an assumed "down time purchase" function. In my low magic world, the item creation feats would be inaccessible or restricted for the party. Scrolls, potions, wands and CWI would be the only ones allowed, and CWI would be restricted to one-shot or charged items. Wands and CWI items would not cost half as much to create. Instead, they would be "full priced" (market price) to create. Selling magic items would be an adventure in and of itself, as finding a buyer usually means identifying yourself to those who would just as soon take as buy. In my low magic world, opponentswith magic are likely to use it during the encounter. Nothing will ever have full charges, if it has charges. Magic items will rarely be lying in a treasure horde. It will be used by the opponent. There will be a few individuals in the world who can craft more powerful items, but they guard the secrets of that construction. Commissioning an item requires finding such a crafter, and then convincing him or her that you deserve such an item (money is a pretty decent convincing agent). Finding this agent can become an adventure in its own right. Who and where require gathering information. This can result in others learning that you are seeking this information. That can make some folks scared or concerned. Making enemies in this process is not undeard of. Once you find the crafter, you learn there is a line of other people with money who have commissioned ahead of you. The crafter is as likely to make a condition on creation -- the party must acquire the materials. This creates another adventure. What better reason to go to the arctic north than to acquire the heart of a yeti? Or the ice gland of a white dragon? And then there is the quest for items of old. The use of lore (and the importance of a bard, loremaster, rogue, etc) increases. The wizard still casts spells, but expanding the spell book beyond two spells per level requires guild membership, money, and proving your worth. It can also require questing for a lost spell book with a rare or unique spell, or finding the reagents to allow the scribing of a new and important spell into his book. The cleric also has spell access, but is required to make sacrifice at each level to gain access to higher level spells. This also results in quests for lost holy relics or the destruction of a rival temple's altar, or other quest-based tasks. A low magic world makes unique items and legacy items more desirable and more important. It makes the family sword valued. It makes a ring of invisibility truly precious. A low-magic world makes magic less pervasive. It does not decrease the magic a party *can* have. It just decreases how easily the party can have it. A well-equipped party becomes known (and targeted) for its ability. Heroes are heroic bedcause they have accomplished what many cannot do.
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-29-06, 09:10 AM	Um, I still wish to continue this discussion, if you'll have me, so in the interests of not holding back this post now has a :rant: RANT ALERT :rant: on it. But first I would just like to say: I am very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very sorry if I offended anyone or made them mad. Or if I do it in the future. I'm not trying to do it. Response to the FloppyLlama: Okay, let me say that better: "I like it when physical types are gimped because I find physical solutions to actions to be both boring and offensive at times." Basically I don't like most combat because it's so one-dimensional. It's the same thing over and over again. Plus it's violent, and I hate violence. Response to AT-AT Assault: What style do they have that I say they lack? Please, tell me. Response to a_psh: What you said about treasure-focus and the need to play character-driven games was good. I agree with you that treasure shouldn't have to be an issue. The need of certain items just is wrong. But I like to see it from the point of view that the casters should stay as they are: the non-magic classes need more something to stay competitive. Just my preference. As for character-driven, if that gets bogged down in favor of treasure than I think the people who are getting bogged down are responsible for not saying "Ah, to hell with money." Less bookkeeping: good. Makes the mundane special: see, here is where I can't understand how you see things. Here's my perspective: Low-magic world: "So you used mundane methods to beat my army. Big whoop." High-magic: "WTF? You mean you beat my army WITHOUT USING MAGIC?!" To me, if you place an object among like objects it isn't that cool. Mundane in a setting where the mundane is common-place is just like "Okay, so what else is new?" Whereas in a high-magic setting doing something without magic becomes unique and wonderous because you have all this power but you didn't need it. Which is cooler? Response to Seeker95: Magic is hard to get. That brings magic down to the level of the mundane, because instead of "I can choose between great power or myself" it's "I can choose between hard-to-get power or myself that is easily at hand". What is the tension in that choice? So far I understand the mecanical reasons for low-magic, but I'm still unsure as to why aesthetically it is liked.
a_psh 06-29-06, 09:42 AM	Response to a_psh: What you said about treasure-focus and the need to play character-driven games was good. I agree with you that treasure shouldn't have to be an issue. The need of certain items just is wrong. But I like to see it from the point of view that the casters should stay as they are: the non-magic classes need more something to stay competitive. Just my preference.I hate to reference it in every low-magic discussion I've been in, but it really is good for this kind of thing: Iron Heroes... more feats, more skill points for characters, and more special abilities. Mearls' design goal for the system was to make an IH character without magical gear is about on par with a fully equipped D&D character (by default, what magical treasure there is in IH tends to be "magic-with-a-price" stuff that really hurt you when you use it, so using magic items is either a short-term thing or a zero-sum thing, rather than a long-term power boost). The thing is, though, pretty much every spellcasting core class is unbearably lame as written. Wizards, sorcerors, and clerics pretty much have no interesting abilities other than their magic. The druid or the dread necromancer are much better examples of how classes should look aesthetically: spells are just part of a larger set of magical and nonmagical abilities. Arcana Unearthed's magister class is another good example: it's effectively a wizard whose power also manifests in persistent effects (like levitating gently above the ground) in addition to spells. Also, I rather dislike D&D's casting system, as it's the primary reason encounter balance has to happen on a "per day" rather than "per encounter" basis, which creates all sorts of issues, such as "going nova" - you alluded to this particular one yourself, perhaps unintentionally, when you mentioned "bringing all your enemies down in one hit". As for character-driven, if that gets bogged down in favor of treasure than I think the people who are getting bogged down are responsible for not saying "Ah, to hell with money."The game rewards you for micromanaging your money. Regardless of whether you actually do it or not, the system encourages you to pinch pennies and spend a long time min/maxing your gear. Less bookkeeping: good. Makes the mundane special: see, here is where I can't understand how you see things. Here's my perspective: Low-magic world: "So you used mundane methods to beat my army. Big whoop." High-magic: "WTF? You mean you beat my army WITHOUT USING MAGIC?!" To me, if you place an object among like objects it isn't that cool. Mundane in a setting where the mundane is common-place is just like "Okay, so what else is new?" Whereas in a high-magic setting doing something without magic becomes unique and wonderous because you have all this power but you didn't need it. Which is cooler?In an FR-esque setting, there's really no reason for armies to exist in the first place. If one mid-elvel spell slot = 30 dead soliders, why bother with anything other than archmage-on-archmage, anyway? In a low-magic world, it's impressive that anyone without an army could beat your army at all. And, heck, in a low-magic that army-destroying magical artifact matters more because every other king on the planet no longer has three or four of them sitting around waiting to be used. A quick tangent here: one of the worst things about a lot of really high-magic games (and, yes I will single out FR here) is that they try to throw in all this high-powered world-changing stuff and then pretend that it actually doesn't change the world very much and that 90% of all the people out there are still medieval peasants or whatever. Eberron and Planescape are much better examples of just how strongly lots of pervasive and powerful magic should affect culture, society, warfare, and trade. If you want the faux medieval knights and villages and monarchs, you really have to tone down the magic. The thing about taking out the plethora of magical abilities that come to completely define the standard D&D game after level 10 or so is that it makes for more reality-driven adventures. Not a simulationist level of realism (that's often just boring), but the players can at least use their real-world problem-solving skills and real-world intuition rather than just continually paging through the Spell Compedium and the back of the PHB to find the right tool for the job. So far I understand the mecanical reasons for low-magic, but I'm still unsure as to why aesthetically it is liked.Mine were primarily aesthetic reasons.
AT-AT Assault 06-29-06, 10:21 AM	SilvercatMoonpaw, it is not so much you said 'bashers' lack style, its you failed to say what, if any, style they had. Bashers beat you up somehow with a stick or a version thereof (however, I also include ranged attacks with mundane weapons), and that gets boring unless it's done in a really cool way (so a monk is sitll good). This is mainly because it's repetitive to me: slice up this guy, slice up that guy. Blasters unload pure energy at you. Instantly that's cooler. It also makes me feel as if there's more strategy involved. "Will the right combo of spells bring all your enemies down in one hit?" Skill users do phenominal things with generally non-magical techniques. They bluff their way through things, they sense, they deduce. They have a variety of different things to do.Emphasis Mine. I'll concede that Fighters and Barbarians and Monks often come down to slice this guy up, dice that guy, but that is a player and GM problem, not a game problem. When I play a Fighter, I usually use tripping, bull rushing, overrunning, and the enviroment itself when fighting an opponent. I dont just stand there and swing my weapon around. And sometimes, when the situation warrants, I'll do even cooler stuff. Like if Im 10 or 15 above the enemies juggernaut warrior I'll ask the GM "If I jump down and attack will I get an attack or damage bonus [not counting the cool points inherent in such a manuever]". You've probably never seen non casters played this way. Repeated use of energy is inherently cooler than repeated visceral killing? That is so much an opinion. How about this "Slicing and Dicing is instantly cooler than spellcasting". There, I just refuted that part. Oh so there's more strategy in spell combos? Like a_psh implied, there is a whole freaking heck of a lot of strategy in a group of 5 mundane people taking down an entire :censored: army. It seems you're opinion of spellcasters seems to be overinflated. Thats not a bad thing, but know this: that is a consequence of how you and your group plays, not a consequence of the game system or the aesthetics of the game.
Grand Theft Otto 06-29-06, 11:24 AM	That way when you find magic, it's bizarre and wondrous. It's for the "little kid staring at the stars" feeling, which is cool. No its not. I've found thousands of magic items in my time. Nothing is really going to wow me at this stage. I'm 10th level and just found my first sword +1? Whatever. Its the story behind the items that MIGHT wow people. In our game, most people have weapons of +2 or so (letter items are called glamoured, and are just temp enchantments). Despite their list of treasure (roughly standard wealth levels), the players were really excited to find a regular adamantine sword in a few sessions back, because it was the sword of Kratys, the guy who brought freedom to the area they now rule. The party magister took it, enchanted it, and used it as a symbol to represent the return of prosperity to the area. After 20 years of gaming, magic is not likely going to be bizarre and wondrous to me, as a player, no matter how infrequent it occurs in a campaign.
Grand Theft Otto 06-29-06, 11:27 AM	For extra challenge, and a chance for non-caster classes to shine at higher levels. You're wrong, unless you seriously alter the caster progressions/spell lists. Casters can do things that the mundane charaqcters have NO chance to duplicate, or even approximate, whereas in a regular style campaign the fighters can use their items to bring them up to par. Even then, the ability to do magic in a low magic area is like playing a superhero in what is supposed to be a modern story. The only way to do low magic right is to essentially remove it from the player's hands. Otherwise spells are present in virtually any situation.
Seeker95 06-29-06, 12:44 PM	Response to Seeker95: Magic is hard to get. What is the tension in that choice?If you don't get it yet, I don't think you will. It is an aesthetic difference. Which means that it takes an aesthetically different mindset to understand. You like magic power. Why would you understand a game in which it is more limited?
a_psh 06-29-06, 01:01 PM	No its not. I've found thousands of magic items in my time. Nothing is really going to wow me at this stage. I'm 10th level and just found my first sword +1? Whatever. Its the story behind the items that MIGHT wow people. In our game, most people have weapons of +2 or so (letter items are called glamoured, and are just temp enchantments). Despite their list of treasure (roughly standard wealth levels), the players were really excited to find a regular adamantine sword in a few sessions back, because it was the sword of Kratys, the guy who brought freedom to the area they now rule. The party magister took it, enchanted it, and used it as a symbol to represent the return of prosperity to the area. After 20 years of gaming, magic is not likely going to be bizarre and wondrous to me, as a player, no matter how infrequent it occurs in a campaign.I agree with this. +2 swords are like candy corn: even if you make candy corn the only candy around, people still aren't going to go "Hurray, candy corn!" when you give them some. If you want the "wonder" of magic, you need to use weird magic, not just very low amounts of vanilla magic. A sword that gives you a trivial bonus to your combat abilities is unimpressive regardless of how much magic your game has (now, if you need that blade to damage a demon, then, yes, it's a bit more special, perhaps). You have to give the magic item a unique story, a unique appearance, and, ideally, even unique stats. Making items very rare and adding drawbacks to their use actually allows you to make them more powerful, if that's what you want. Instead of a +2 sword, why not throw in a fancy demonic blade that greatly enhances its master's combat abilities but drains the wielder's life force or subverts his will? Far more memorable, far more impressive, and ambiguously-valuable rather than just a flat bonus that is good to have but really just a crappier version of what you've seen before. To piggyback off of Grand Theft Otto's story, low magic gaming also lets you shift the focus back to items' histories and symbolic significance rather than just raw stats. That nonmagical relic is much more fascinating when your average still-fairly-low-level wizard can't crank out a bunch of superior blades in the course of a few weeks. You're wrong, unless you seriously alter the caster progressions/spell lists. Casters can do things that the mundane charaqcters have NO chance to duplicate, or even approximate, whereas in a regular style campaign the fighters can use their items to bring them up to par. Even then, the ability to do magic in a low magic area is like playing a superhero in what is supposed to be a modern story. The only way to do low magic right is to essentially remove it from the player's hands. Otherwise spells are present in virtually any situation.Also agreed. The other problem is that cleric and wizard magic is just too... predictable. If you want magic to be special, you have to heavily retool it and then not tell the players how it works up front.
OravennasBrother 06-29-06, 02:06 PM	let me say that better: "I like it when physical types are gimped because I find physical solutions to actions to be both boring and offensive at times." Basically I don't like most combat because it's so one-dimensional. It's the same thing over and over again. Plus it's violent, and I hate violence. Spells aren't violent? Do you play a D&D variant without Fireball, Cone of Cold and Meteor Swarm? I find magical solutions to be boring and offensive most of the time. "Oh look, an obstacle. Never Worry, I Felix, have the perfect item in my Bag of Holding to negate said obstacle, no real thought required." :bored: Physical combat is only the same thing over and over if the player does the same thing over and over - I knew a barbarian like that; she took Combat Reflexes and Weapon Focus Greatsword to avoid being 'just like' all the Power Attack/Cleave barbarians, then she proceeded to treat every encounter the same "I Rage and Charge." IF that is the limit of a [players tactical abiity, then they are in trouble. Same player with a Sorcerer was just as useless - even though the group was 6th level at the time. She would Nova on a group of goblins and then have nothing left for the Ogres who followed. Low-magic world: "So you used mundane methods to beat my army. Big whoop." High-magic: "WTF? You mean you beat my army WITHOUT USING MAGIC?!" To me, if you place an object among like objects it isn't that cool. So Napoleon was a lame commander because a lot of commanders have won battles? I guess Wellington was the same - even thoug he has the distinction of being the only major commmander of the Napoleonic Wars to NEVER lose a battle. And I suppose all the Medal of Honor recipients are a "big whoop" because others have received a MOH. Heck they even all got it for the same thing - demonstrating their possession of BIG BRASS ONES. I like low magic because the players can win on thier own merit, not just the stuff they carry. In Njal's Saga the epic hero Gunnar Gunnarson is able to fight in any conditions with the weapons at hand - that is what makes him terrifying, he can defeat enemies on his own, not because he has a christmas tree assortment of magic gear. IIRC he has a magic Glaive/Axe, but htat seems most used in a fight at sea early in the saga. In the Arthurian tales only Arthur ever carries magic - the Sword in the stone in early battles and Excalibur (+ its scabbard) in latter tales. His knights use mundane equipment, but who hasn't heard of Gawain and the Green Knight? Tristan and Isolde? El Cid has no magic gear, yet there exists an entire Epic about him, based on his historical exploits during the reconquista. I enjoy the feel of those tales, so I want less magic to enable my games to better capture that feel. In 2nd (and earlier) editions a character with no magic gear could still battle a lot of terrible enemies - yeah some things were totally immune, but then you had to escape and find someone who could tell you the monster's weakness. With 3.X high magic it's just pull out the proper alchemical metal and go to town.
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-29-06, 02:40 PM	Response to a_psh: Ah, ah, now I think I see. Yes, Iron Heroes is something to point out. It promises cinematic action and cool moves, which is where I think combat should go. However I don't think about it much because it was advertised as "testosterone driven combat" whereas I like more "kung-fu grace" style. Also, its only race is humans. Big turn-off. You mentioned Arcana Unearthed. Yes, the magic classes in there have more interesting abilities. Their downside is that they sometimes have too much flavor. The magister's spellcasting is tied to having a staff, and I can't really understand why a sufficiently talented mage needs a big clunky length of material. If the focus was any object, it would make just a bit more sense. But you're right, the spellcasting classes in the core are mostly boring in ability terms. Maybe that's why people like all these new base classes that have magic and abilities but are either lousy or broken. The "why would anyone use armies" really struck me. :banghead: I was completely stupid not to think about it. :banghead: Then you pointed to Eberron, and that's really what I'm talking about: it shows what a world can look like if magic becomes more integrated. Then I truely understood my inability to comprehend low-magic: I was looking at the world as something to be experienced, whereas everyone else seems to be looking at it as something to play in. In that instance not having magic means you actually have to do something. With magic someone just snaps their fingers. The thing to me is that magic is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem, but what happens is that it doesn't have enough limits to allow creativity. I agree that it would be perfectly fun to have more emphasis on skill use, but I don't see why that couldn't be supplemented with a few interesting spells. "Sneak into the Fotress of Doom?" Greater Teleport (blech) or use charm on the guards (yay!). "Ascend the tower?" Fly (zzzz) or use spider climb (oooo!). I see now how it stifles a game. Yet in my examples I've tried to provide a sense of how magic can add to the fun. Mundane solution that is stunningly brilliant: yes. Magical solution that is stunningly brilliant: yes. Mundane solution that is just raw power: zzzz. Magical solution that is just raw power: zzzz. Response to AT-AT Assault: Sorry, sorry. :banghead: See above for what I say about combat. If it's creative, then I like it. I just don't get to see much of that. Also, I don't really like violence much, so I'm biased against fighters and such. Response to Seeker95: It's about how balanced the choice is. If magic is hard to get, but gives you PHENOMICAL COSMIC POWER! then I can see. A little. It's just that when magic becomes as easy to achieve as not using magic, then the question becomes whether magic is really better. For the rest of you reading, I think what I'd like to see—rather than the "high-magic, high-combat" and "low-magic, high combat"—is a "high-skill, low-combat, with a reasonable amount of magic that supports the system without overshadowing it" system. Does that make my viewpoint easier to understand? (Just "understand", not "convert to".)
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-29-06, 02:54 PM	Spells aren't violent? Do you play a D&D variant without Fireball, Cone of Cold and Meteor Swarm? I find magical solutions to be boring and offensive most of the time. "Oh look, an obstacle. Never Worry, I Felix, have the perfect item in my Bag of Holding to negate said obstacle, no real thought required." :bored: Physical combat is only the same thing over and over if the player does the same thing over and over - I knew a barbarian like that; she took Combat Reflexes and Weapon Focus Greatsword to avoid being 'just like' all the Power Attack/Cleave barbarians, then she proceeded to treat every encounter the same "I Rage and Charge." IF that is the limit of a players tactical abiity, then they are in trouble. Same player with a Sorcerer was just as useless - even though the group was 6th level at the time. She would Nova on a group of goblins and then have nothing left for the Ogres who followed. Good point. Very good point. Extremely good point. I am repeating myself so you can understand how good I think your point is and how much of an idiot I am. So Napoleon was a lame commander because a lot of commanders have won battles? I guess Wellington was the same - even thoug he has the distinction of being the only major commmander of the Napoleonic Wars to NEVER lose a battle. And I suppose all the Medal of Honor recipients are a "big whoop" because others have received a MOH. Heck they even all got it for the same thing - demonstrating their possession of BIG BRASS ONES. I like low magic because the players can win on thier own merit, not just the stuff they carry. In Njal's Saga the epic hero Gunnar Gunnarson is able to fight in any conditions with the weapons at hand - that is what makes him terrifying, he can defeat enemies on his own, not because he has a christmas tree assortment of magic gear. IIRC he has a magic Glaive/Axe, but htat seems most used in a fight at sea early in the saga. In the Arthurian tales only Arthur ever carries magic - the Sword in the stone in early battles and Excalibur (+ its scabbard) in latter tales. His knights use mundane equipment, but who hasn't heard of Gawain and the Green Knight? Tristan and Isolde? El Cid has no magic gear, yet there exists an entire Epic about him, based on his historical exploits during the reconquista. I enjoy the feel of those tales, so I want less magic to enable my games to better capture that feel. In 2nd (and earlier) editions a character with no magic gear could still battle a lot of terrible enemies - yeah some things were totally immune, but then you had to escape and find someone who could tell you the monster's weakness. With 3.X high magic it's just pull out the proper alchemical metal and go to town. I reiterate: I am very dumb. I am the dumbest person in the world. Allow me to express the sorrow I feel for being dumb by bashing my smiley head against a wall. :banghead: Please do not assume that just beacause my tone seems comic that I am not being sincere. You quoted a spot where I was expressing myself very poorly. Allow me to clarify: if something is new, creative, different, cool, then it doesn't matter what it is or in what situation it is being done. It's just that mundane solutions to problems often seem more interesting when the other solution is all about power. Hence, when using mundane to defeat an army instead of magic which is easily at hand, it just has more "WOW" factor.
a_psh 06-29-06, 06:48 PM	Responses to selected passages: Ah, ah, now I think I see. Yes, Iron Heroes is something to point out. It promises cinematic action and cool moves, which is where I think combat should go. However I don't think about it much because it was advertised as "testosterone driven combat" whereas I like more "kung-fu grace" style. Also, its only race is humans. Big turn-off.To me, one of the biggest selling points of IH is that it seems like Mearls tried very hard to make sure that full attack wasn't the only game in town. There's a lot of manuevering and special tactics involved in the battles. The "action zone" system or whatever Iron Heroes calls it (introduced in the little squishy DM book) adds support for things like swinging on chandeliers to get from place to place or pushing over crumbling columns to squish your enemies. I wouldn't quite call it kung-fu grace (though the executioner and harrier, particularly in their hacked forms, come close), as there's an attitude of desperation to a lot of the combats, but the system is pretty good at supporting characters whose focus is on stealth, tactics, or precision. The magister's spellcasting is tied to having a staff, and I can't really understand why a sufficiently talented mage needs a big clunky length of material. If the focus was any object, it would make just a bit more sense.I'm not exactly wild about the magister as written, but I think it does offer an important game design lesson: it's better to make a class with fluffy secondary abilities that people then retool to meet their own needs than a class with nothing but a spell progression. Then you pointed to Eberron, and that's really what I'm talking about: it shows what a world can look like if magic becomes more integrated.Indeed. Eberron is tons of fun and Planescape is, like, the coolest setting ever. But those worlds aren't really medieval in character, and just plain can't be with the level of magic involved. "Grim and gritty"-style gaming or adventures in the spirit of some of the fantasy classics, such as Conan, LotR, or Lankhmar, definitely benefit from at least a small reduction in the pervasiveness and power of magic. The thing to me is that magic is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem, but what happens is that it doesn't have enough limits to allow creativity. I agree that it would be perfectly fun to have more emphasis on skill use, but I don't see why that couldn't be supplemented with a few interesting spells. "Sneak into the Fotress of Doom?" Greater Teleport (blech) or use charm on the guards (yay!). "Ascend the tower?" Fly (zzzz) or use spider climb (oooo!). I see now how it stifles a game. Yet in my examples I've tried to provide a sense of how magic can add to the fun. Mundane solution that is stunningly brilliant: yes. Magical solution that is stunningly brilliant: yes. Mundane solution that is just raw power: zzzz. Magical solution that is just raw power: zzzz.Those are all low-level spells, more or less. Low magic! :)
FloppyLlama 06-29-06, 08:16 PM	Response to the FloppyLlama: Okay, let me say that better: "I like it when physical types are gimped because I find physical solutions to actions to be both boring and offensive at times." Basically I don't like most combat because it's so one-dimensional. It's the same thing over and over again. Plus it's violent, and I hate violence. Great. This would make WONDERFUL roleplaying for a mage. I think it would be a fascinating attitude for a character. But your attitudes towards certain people's playstyles out of character as not fitting YOUR interests does not mean that your interests are therefore superior or the guidelines for design. What you have to understand is you will never fully understand the other mindset, because it is all aesthetics. You just have to accept that people do like violence, and don't find it offensive (or rather fun). Some people like being barbarish and brute. Question: How is fireballing someone any less violent than smacking them with a warhammer?
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-29-06, 08:54 PM	Great. This would make WONDERFUL roleplaying for a mage. I think it would be a fascinating attitude for a character. But your attitudes towards certain people's playstyles out of character as not fitting YOUR interests does not mean that your interests are therefore superior or the guidelines for design. What you have to understand is you will never fully understand the other mindset, because it is all aesthetics. You just have to accept that people do like violence, and don't find it offensive (or rather fun). Some people like being barbarish and brute. Question: How is fireballing someone any less violent than smacking them with a warhammer? Again, let me state: :banghead: I am dumb. I am so very dumb. I forget that other people exist. :banghead: Yes, you are right, I cannot make people see my point of view. I even subscribe to that principle as my own. Why :banghead: do I always forget that? However I do not think I will ever get over loathing people who like violence. As to the roleplaying suggestion: am already doing that currently. I'm in an Eberron game and play a gnome wizard who's detecting around Sharn in a party that includes a warrior elf who recently wanted to slit the throat of some gnolls we captured. I wasn't going to let him, and I was very reluctant to leave them in a position where they might starve. Being cruel is just too hard for me. Those are all low-level spells, more or less. Low magic! Did you mean that spells like this are available from first level in a low-magic campaign? Magic that had a lot of the flashy spells removed does sound like fun.
FloppyLlama 06-29-06, 09:23 PM	Again, let me state: :banghead: I am dumb. I am so very dumb. I forget that other people exist. :banghead: Yes, you are right, I cannot make people see my point of view. I even subscribe to that principle as my own. Why :banghead: do I always forget that? 'ey, take it easy on your head. Don't want to kill any braincells (you already consider yourself dumb). Seriously, don't be so rough on yourself. Sometimes it's hard to see the outside opinion. I can understand your strong personal convictions on violence, and why those would bleed over into the game (irony not intended), but maybe because of that, this isn't the best game for you? It seems like you channel it pretty effectively into your roleplaying, so that's good. Seriously though, you aren't dumb. Don't be so harsh on yourself.
AT-AT Assault 06-29-06, 09:49 PM	Response to AT-AT Assault: Sorry, sorry. :banghead: See above for what I say about combat. If it's creative, then I like it. I just don't get to see much of that. Also, I don't really like violence much, so I'm biased against fighters and such.Dude, dont kill yourself. If I come off as making myself sounding superior, or having a better opinion than you, tell me (cause I have style of talking that doesnt translate well to text, and it often comes off as snobbish). I highly suggest you try WotC's other D20s (D20 Modern, Star Wars D20) to get the full scope of mundane. In those games your characters abilities are almost never defined by what gear they have, but what they can inherently do. That is why i like low magic, it makes you think and strategize, not say "Oh I need to get to the top of that tower. Where's my scroll of fly?".
Squirrelloid 06-30-06, 01:53 AM	The reason I prefer low magic is because it means the world actually looks vaguely like some historical period. And by low magic i mean that the only spellcasters the PCs ever see are rare hermits, BBEGs, and maybe a PC if i'm feeling generous. The problem with high magic, even if its somewhat common, is it quickly degenerates into a scenario where people start asking why the world works the way it does. Teleport completely solves all caravan issues. It takes one mage to start teaching people wizardry in the hopes of creating a guild of merchanting wizards to totally upset the world. The following was the *start* of a discussion about the implications of dnd magic. Much followed this, but this was the thing i had easiest access to a record of: Anyway, i've been thinking about what a RAW D+D world would look like. The problem with D+D is they choose a setting archetype (medieval europe), and then they drop this mechanical system (the D+D rules) into it and expect the archetype to stay the way it is. What they don't appreciate is that medieval conditions (serfdom/peasantry, the manor system, feudalism, heirarchies of vassals) were created and maintained by political, social, and physical realities. D+D challenges at least two of these: (1) Magic very clearly changes the nature of the physical world by changing what is possible. For instance, in medieval europe land was wealth - you needed land to grow crops (accounting for >90% of the GDP of europe for most of the middle ages). Magic removes the need for anyone to farm again. One wizard with one casting of Planar Binding (Grab something with a Wish SLA) can feed the population of medieval europe for a week. And this is only one way in which magic changes physical reality. (2) The very premise of the D+D world challenges the social heirarchy. Medieval people had a deeply ingrained heirarchical mindset. Nobility was simply better than peasants, because God created them thusly. In D+D however, level is the ultimate arbiter of who is better, and characters can be individually powerful enough to defeat entire armies of knights on their own well before epic. When any peasant, by being sufficiently daring, can challenge the entire social structure, the idea that the social heirarchy is immutable is going to die quickly. The effects on medieval society in general are so far reaching as to be a *book* in and of itself. And with historic applications - the notion of equality was explosive historically. This is all ignoring the religious implications of a pantheon of very real deities, harking back to ancient world standards. This certainly has political and social implications that are *never explored in any published D+D material*. I'm also ignoring the stupidity that is the D+D economics system. We'll pretend it doesnt exist and imagine a system actually based on supply and demand is functioning. Otherwise things will stop making any sort of sense whatsoever in short order. (One has to wonder if RAW there is a deity of Monetary Supply who buys excess goods and creates goods in short supply to sell in order to maintain rigid prices on everything, and produces or destroys currency as needed). Honestly, anyone who had taken *one* microeconomics class would have laughed the developers out of a job before the travesty that is D+D economics ever saw print. In sum, the changes are so vast that nothing resembling the medieval world would ever have come to pass. For simplicity's sake, however, lets assume a medieval world into which the D+D mechanics suddenly emerge. Implication 1: Food producers of any sort become irrelevant. One spell is sufficient to meet demand at a tiny fraction of the cost that it took to grow food. 95% of the population loses their jobs. Implication 2: The same methodology can also create any raw materials needed. No further need for miners and the like. Implication 3: Teleportation magic can quickly and safely move supplies across long distances. Conclusion 1: virtually all unskilled laborers are out of a job. The only unskilled work left (at this point) is short range transport (distribution). Obviously the number so employed depends on the number of people to be supported, the method of distribution, and how spread out people are. But such jobs << people. Note that sanitary workers can also be considered to belong to this group (transport of waste out of cities). Conclusion 2: There is no need to live out on farms or in little villages. In fact, there is no money in villages at all - everyone moves to cities. This further decreases the number of jobs available for unskilled laborers in net (massive decrease in goods distribution requirements, some increase in sanitation disposal - but sewers can solve for most of the increased demand of waste disposal, and are easily built with magic). Modern ideas about distribution ("grocery store") eventually appear, further reducing demand for unskilled labor. Aside 1: Honestly, spellcasters can handle distribution too. Its called Tenser's Floating Disk, its a first level spell. But lets just assume that low level mages have better things to do with their time: learning how to actually do something relevant. Certainly wage competition favors unskilled laborers here, because it would still require a relatively large number of mages - the numerical advantage is only 1 mage to order 10 laborers, not 1 to thousands. Implication 4: Fabricate, a level 5 wizard spell, can make any finished product. Sufficiently complicated goods may require a craft check. Fabricate is lightspeed compared to standard crafting methods. Spellcasters eventually replace all skilled workers, taking on one or more specialties. Conclusion 3: Virtually all labor is done by spellcasters. Conclusion 4: At some point spellcasters realize that they don't care to support the monarch's wars anymore. All real power in a kingdom is in the hands of about 2-6 people, all spellcasters. The casters take over trivially. Health: Clerics can heal anything relevant. Education: Wizardry academies spring up to train wizards. Clerical schools also arise. Wizards can easily detect potential wizards with Detect Thoughts (anyone with Int 15+ is a viable candidate, standards can be relaxed a little if demand for wizards exceeds supply at int 15+. I'm not sure how clerics identify high wisdom candidates, but they might just take anyone with sufficient piety and throw out the rejects later). Children are inducted into academies at a young age and never see their parents again. By the time they reach adulthood they are probably already 5th level or higher. During this time they may also begin to specialize. "College"-like institutions for wizards will likely take them through 9th or 10th level, sufficient to handle Binding or Crafting (via Fabricate) duties. "Graduate" education to steer promising casters towards spell research or similar probably also exists. Experience can be gained in RAW by having non-lethal wizards duels as competitions within and between academies. (For instance, a CR 1 opponent is an ECL 5 encounter for a 1st level character by himself. This is worth a substantial amount of experience for the winner). Time between these competitions is spent learning spells and developing skills. So what happens to all those people who aren't selected to be future wizards or clerics? What happens when some enterprising mage develops the magic equivalent of industrialization (item of Fabricate at will)? How large of a population does such a society ultimately end up sustaining (at minimum - assume a LE society that doesnt care to support those who don't contribute)? Does the non-casting population have any function whatsoever? War: Magic obviously changes war to the point its no longer recognizable. However, competition for limited resources is historically one of the primary causes of war. The only possible reason for war is ideological or power driven. Ultimately every autonomous nation has the same primary values because they are all ruled by spellcasters (eg, Knowledge). Secondary values may vary dramatically. In the long run however, communication over long distances is instantaneous, supply is virtually instantaneous, there is no maximum size where operation becomes problematic. A worldwide political entity is the attracting point in this family of differential equations, its just a question of how long. The nature of that political entity is also quite variable.
SilvercatMoonpaw 06-30-06, 07:39 AM	Thanks to those of you who told me to stop beating myself up. I should explain that I only used so many banghead smilies to show I was seriously trying to be sincere. I overcompensate because i can't be sure you'll believe me. Response to FloppyLlama: What RPG out there doesn't have a high emphasis on combat? I know of maybe one (which I fortunately have the rules for). I don't think D&D is all that bad: I just have to do some tweaking to emphasize skills more. The benefit of D&D is that it doesn't have too many instances where it assumes the GM will be able to make the call, whereas other products do and that makes them slightly frightening. Response to AT-AT Assault: I starting to hear what you say, and what I'm really meaning to go for is a setting where there is still magic from 1st level, but it is mostly harmless things that replicate modern conveniences. Everyone learns prestidigitation for cleaning and arcane mark for signatures, that sort of thing. Maybe relegate harmful spells to prestige classes. You mentioned d20 Modern, but doesn't that still predicate itself on an assumption of combat? (I know it doesn't have to involve combat, but then neither does D&D.) Squirrelloid makes a really good point about how magic would seriously mess up a medievil world. My thinking is to try and remove problem spells and/or raise the spell level of certain spells to be out of the reach, perhaps of all but the most epic spellcaster.
AT-AT Assault 06-30-06, 11:59 AM	Response to AT-AT Assault: I starting to hear what you say, and what I'm really meaning to go for is a setting where there is still magic from 1st level, but it is mostly harmless things that replicate modern conveniences. Everyone learns prestidigitation for cleaning and arcane mark for signatures, that sort of thing. Maybe relegate harmful spells to prestige classes. You mentioned d20 Modern, but doesn't that still predicate itself on an assumption of combat? (I know it doesn't have to involve combat, but then neither does D&D.)Almost all roleplaying games will have combat, and thus a good chunk of the book will be devoted to describing the mechanics of combat. But in D20 modern you could easily be politicians, buisness owners, stealthy spies (minimal combat expected, dont think James Bond spy, think real world spy), scientest, and the list goes on. But DnD prides itself on combat (you can tell this because all core classes are in one way or another, designed to kill stuff). However in D20 Modern only half of the classes are designed for combat, the other half are designed for non combat (well Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic still have some combat capabilities, cant have our heros not be able to survive combat, can we?).
FloppyLlama 06-30-06, 01:21 PM	Almost all roleplaying games will have combat, and thus a good chunk of the book will be devoted to describing the mechanics of combat. But in D20 modern you could easily be politicians, buisness owners, stealthy spies (minimal combat expected, dont think James Bond spy, think real world spy), scientest, and the list goes on. But DnD prides itself on combat (you can tell this because all core classes are in one way or another, designed to kill stuff). However in D20 Modern only half of the classes are designed for combat, the other half are designed for non combat (well Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic still have some combat capabilities, cant have our heros not be able to survive combat, can we?). Yep. Combat is very much avoidable even when it happens. Laying down covering fire and gettin gout of there is easy to pull off. If you have a strong hero you can subdue them pretty effectively (if you remove those bizarre subdual rules which make it a lot harder than in actual D&D) and of course, you can always bring teargas or some other such implement. And that's only when you're already being shot at. Otherwise it's not hard to design a fun adventure avoiding it or not having it.
a_psh 06-30-06, 01:54 PM	Otherwise it's not hard to design a fun adventure avoiding it or not having it.Depending on how you run games, d20 Modern has a lot to offer the concombatant character, especially since being smart doesn't involve being a taxi, buffstick, and missile launcher. Even in more high-action games, you can have things like the Smart Hero trying to crack a computer system while his allies try to distract and delay a bunch of security guards.