Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Etarnon 04-26-08, 11:41 PM	It's interesting to me that 1e directly suggested magic items in the game be placed at least initially by hand, with no "Magic Stores" 2e did the same. 3e threw all that out the window, and in settings like FR, magic seems very common, in my mind, cheapening it's value as rare, wondrous, and "Magical" I run a low magic game, because I don't want to have all the sorts of problems seen weekly in other "What's a DM to do?" threads when the game gets out of control. Anyone here of like mind? Or run a low magic campaign? Thanks for your input.
The Great Alchemist 04-27-08, 01:25 AM	I run a very low magic D&D game and generally would much rather play in low magic games. Why? Because low magic games are the only games with, well, magic. When there is a mighty wizard around every corner and a magic shop on every street then you don't have a world with magic in it - you have a weird sort of science fiction setting where magic is as common and accepted as modern people view a TV set. I prefer a world where most people have never seen a magic user or a magical creature, where some people might not even believe in such things. I want a world where each magical item is legendary and has a name and a history. I want a world where when something supernatural happens its viewed with awe and possibly terror. I want a world where a medieval lifestyle and warfare is still a plausible way for things to be done. I want a game where magic is magical, and a high magic game isn't like that at all. It cheapens magic in my opinion.
danielinthewolvesden 04-27-08, 01:40 AM	There were Magic stores in 2nd ED. http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Encyclopedia-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/1560765631/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1X5X52FDZNKC1&colid=3RHE4WIT5VV04 Magic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition) (Paperback) This wonderful book has an ambitious scope - not only does it have a well-detailed description of the first magic item-selling shop ever published by TSR, it also includes the gold piece and experience point values of thousands of magic items - with hundreds of illustrations to enhance play! But then the DM could have them if he liked. Even in Greyhawk there were places where some magic could be bought. Nearly every 2nd ED game I was in you could buy potions and scrolls. And of course, in 3.0/3.5 the DM does not have to have any Magic Shoppes if he so chooses. However, no doubt, Magik Shoppes (where you could buy nearly anything) were not very common in pre-D20, and seem to be a part of the normal game in 3.5. Thus "Magik Shoppes" are certainly WAY more common in the later eds. BUT- that does not equate to more magic, in fact the opposite. You may not have been able to BUY a +3 sword in 2nd ED, but you could certainly find them. Just about ALL my 2nd Ed PC's have more magic items than my 3.5 PC's do. Sure, the items are more a mixed bag, as you might really want a Flaming Sword but instead find a +2 mace and just have to be happy with it. Folks who like LM often complain about the "golf bag full of magic swords"- but I have never seen this in 3.5 and actually had a PC with such a bag in 1st ED! In fact I have several (below-20th level, but still quite high) PC's in 2nd ED who have a Ring of Elemental Command, something that no even my Epic level PC's have got their hands on in 3.5. Just becuase there were few "Magik Shoppes" in 2nd ED does not mean that magic was rare, in fact the opposite. Next- there's the weird idea that either you have Low Magic or you have Monty Haul High Magic. No, most campaigns are run with the wealth AROUND the DMG guidelines, which is "normal" or "middle of the road" magic. Some DM's like Low Magic as they need to control the PC's. Few Players like Low Magic- of course that does not mean they might not like a particularly well run LM campaign. If you really need LM, then run Iron Heroes. It is DESIGNED for super-low magic and is well balanced for it.
Rosisha 04-27-08, 01:53 AM	I also play almost exclusive low magic, low power games. Even in 3rd Ed D&D I avoid handing out magical items as if they were candy, as I find that doing so cheapens them. I don't like players calculating where they are in their "build" based on the magical items they have. I especially don't like players telling me that they are going to trade items in for items they "need." Such a system really takes away from the enjoyability of the game. I find, in a way, it cheapens things. I hate to say this, as I fear this might come off as a flame, and I do not mean it as that, but I feel placing a money value on magic is the same as paying for romance, it turns those involved into cynical and jaded participants. Magic, like love, should be special, found in the heart, and not calculated on a spread sheet. This is my opinion only, and is my view, on my feelings regarding the matter. This is not to imply anything, or to insult anyone. Nor should it be taken that way. If you find such a game enjoyable, then obviously you have not become cynical and jaded regarding the system, and thus, for you, it is from the heart. Not me though! When I consider a character, a world, a campaign, or just design in general, I seek to do as much as possible without magic. The reason for this is that, I want to have explinations for why every field is not plowed with Unseen Servant. Magic, if over-represented, leads to more and more breakdowns in world continuity. Especially when you consider average human tendencies towards greed and consumption. Example. A third level magic user gains the feat Craft Wonderous Item. With the backing of a local Lord, whose wealth comes from agriculture, he creates plows that basically push and direct themselves. Suddenly huge tracts of land can be plowed without the cost of human labor. He creates special door latches that ring silver bells in a guards barracks if they are tampered with. All of this can be done, by the rules as written, by a low level caster. Given the prevalance of low level casters, again, by the rules as written, the question becomes, why has no Lord, or other reasonably smart person, attempted to do this? And if one were to do it, you can bet others would follow quickly. You can argue that magical items are expensive, but cost isn't something that stoped feudal lords, and the benefits would more then make up the costs. This is what bugs me about modern D&D. Especially when you add in other features as well. My first mage was a level 1 human wizard, no specialization. He had one spell per day, and a small spellbook. My DM and I choose spells out of the PHB and I had to roll a percentage chance to learn the spell. I failed on magic missile. I had shocking grasp, light, and a few others. How did I make up for it? I carried oil and torches and would use them together to make burning missiles (not alchemist fire, just good ol oil). I carried a ball of twine and used it to set up alarms for us. Just attach a few pieces of metal and if you hear them clang together... Basically I used my wits. I didn't use my stats, in fact, I often had to come up with ways of working around my stats. Was it sad not being able to blow everything out of the water? No. Was it enjoyable? God yes. Best wizard I ever played, and that includes 3.x wizards. Sure some of the options are fun, but I find the game becomes all about your stats, and not about your character. And that is a shame, because when I design a character I'm done at first level. I expect the character to evolve. I'm not along for the "build," I'm there to see how this individual grows and develops in the world around them. Sorry for the long rant, but it is all tied up together! Rosisha
Thubby 04-27-08, 01:59 AM	i like low magic, my current campaign uses it. it makes magic less of a cure-all. and does away with "bore through the walls" sort of shenanigans.
Cranewings 04-27-08, 02:04 AM	A good way of making a game low magic is to figure out who all of the mage's are and what they are doing. Don't let there be more than one or two in a city and those two should probably have a lot on their plate. The mage's aren't sitting around being bored, they are working, and knowing what the wizards are doing will have a big impact on what the WORLD is doing. If the mage's have stories, and the magic items have stories... that is a LOT OF WRITING... and you will find you can do with a lot less of them. That is how I do it, for the most part. I love low magic because, like it was said, if it is everywhere, the game becomes some sort of bizarre science fiction.
Thubby 04-27-08, 02:16 AM	or you can also leave them broke. the only thing non magical a player would want worth more than 1000 is full-plate
Rosisha 04-27-08, 02:18 AM	Some DM's like Low Magic as they need to control the PC's. Few Players like Low Magic- of course that does not mean they might not like a particularly well run LM campaign. If you really need LM, then run Iron Heroes. It is DESIGNED for super-low magic and is well balanced for it. I wanted to reply to this, as there are two misconceptions here. I've seen plenty of DM's run high magic campaigns and do worse then control their PC's. They side line them to tell a story about their ammazing X who can do no wrong, and is awesome in all ways with every conceivable magic item including the Kitchen Sink +5 vs Grease. As to few players liking low magic, again, I think this is wrong. I think the true way to look at this is: "Many posters on the WotC boards do not care for those systems which are built with established background and development, thus limiting options from the multitude of splat books, but instead care for those games which are "generic" or "RAW" and allow for their preferred build." The setting itself doesn't matter. I've seen plenty of high magic settings shot down as to restrictive. The problem isn't the setting, the problem is the DM. Give a bad DM the best designed setting in the world and the campaign will still crash. I don't care how well designed/balanced/thought out the setting is. To quote: "Build it idiot proof, and they'll build a better idiot." I do find, however, that a lot of D&D players these days are not interested in setting. They want their build. If the setting can't accomodate it, they don't see why that has to be. This is a shame, because it turns everything into generic D&D product, and destroys the role of imagination, of growth, of exploration and discovery. What is the purpose of having a 20 level build? Fine, great, you have a powerful character... but you're done. It is over. The character is finished, and has no reason to play other then to say "Hey look at what I can do with these numbers." This is great for a video game. I, on the otherhand, prefer to get my character concept down in level 1, and see where I go from there. As I adventure my character is exposed to new things, new concepts, new ideas, and I can choose to adopt them or not. Where will my character be in 5 levels? No clue. But I am going to look forward to finding out! Finally, one last point, if you want LM you can run D&D. The original creators had this in mind, and it will stay that way. Sure, Iron Heros is out there too, but it isn't needed. Go find a copy of the 2nd Ed AD&D player's handbook. Not only is LM considered okay and "standard" per the "RAW," but also low power. I quote the following in reference to a character, Rath, who has scores Str 8, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 13, Wis 7, Chr 6. Essentially this is a -3 character. So what does this version of D&D say about our friend Rath? "Too often players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he does not have at least one ability of 17 or higher! Needless to say, these players would never consider playing a character with an ability score of 6 or 7. ... But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him. (Cook, Player's Handbook, pg 25, 1989)." Emphasis mine. In my opinion this one statement shows that Low Power, Low Magic is perfectly acceptable within the D&D world. It presents an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining game world. Not only will you have fun creating that campaign world, but other players and DMs will have fun reacting to the world. Please forgive the slight paraphrase! Now, Iron Kingdoms is an interesting game, but there is no rule regarding what is acceptable and what is TRUE D&D. If you like Low Magic, Low Power D&D, it is available. If High Power, High Magic is your cup of tea, it is also available. If you prefer Above Average Power and Magic (the "standard"), then shoot, go for it. However, don't dismiss another's play style and ask for "pure" D&D. Balance and design are all well within the capablities of any reasonably competent DM. See my point above about bad DMs. And don't tell me most bad DMs prefer low magic, I think that most of them prefer the D&D generic, because they don't have the imagination to think up anything else... because they are bad DMs. Circular reasoning, I know, but in this case, sadly valid. Also keep in mind that this is all just opinion: yours and mine. I'm offering a perspective, but there are no facts. Only speculation. I respond to your post because I think that you are crossing the line from speculation to "statement of facts not in evidence." Nor can they be, this is the web. Interesting perspective none the less, and please feel free to reply to my reply! ~ Rosisha
runestar 04-27-08, 02:23 AM	I am fine with using the guidelines as presented in the DMG, and allowing fairly ready access to magic gear. Though to be honest, it does seem that I am amongst a rarity of players who do not feel that magic needs to be all that rare, wondrous or magical. I guess it did make a difference that I was introduced to 2e via the baldur's gate PC game, and am quite a fan of the FR setting, so perhaps that has quite influenced my perceptions somewhat. :P But yeah, to each his/her own. :)
Etarnon 04-27-08, 03:36 AM	Some of the best posts I've seen this month, right here. I've been defending Low Magic games since the first day I ran 3.5. Nice to see I am not alone. Much thanks.
Kobajagrande 04-27-08, 04:05 AM	Well, I probably play low-magic game. I never really used wealth per level guidelines - I mostly go according to what I feel party needs improving and how powerful I think the magic item is. +6 ability score item would be gained somewhere on levels 18-20. Probably, in the end, the amount of magic items the party has ends up below the suggestions in DMG, but then again, we never encountered any problems with that.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 04:42 AM	Yes...low magic all the way. I do it for a number of reasons. #1 - To annoy my players. #2 - I used to do Monty Haul's and it got ridiculous..I found the player attitudes were along the lines of "Oh Crap, not another 10 Sword +1s...someone got another Bag of Holding to stuff them into cause I ain't carrying them." This way, they appreciate magic items far more. #3 - It puts the onus on them to create the magic items themselves. Oh sure, they might come across a magic item or get one as reward, but MageMart simply doesn't exist nor will it ever. Magic items are carrots on my proverbial DM stick (that sounds bad, I know) used to get PCs interested in doing stuff that they might otherwise not want to do. #4 - Magic items crafted in my world can have backstory or history (ie. Tolkien), something I find doesn't usually exist in large magic worlds (ie. FR). #5 - Magic items can identify people as well (unless the magic item is strictly not identifying them) - for example a Bandit wielding a giant flaming axe isn't as common as a bandit wielding a long sword or pair of daggers so Bardic Lore, Knowledge: Local History, or even Gather Information checks can be useful. #6 - I'm cheap. No, I don't make or pay for the items myself, but I'm still cheap. #7 - I find that it makes DR monsters more thrilling in combat. For me anyway. :P #8 - I simply cannot rationalize a bunch of people mass-producing magic items at high personal cost. I know few Players who make characters that do that sort of thing - why should I mass produce NPCs to fill in their shortcomings? I'm sure I have more reasons than these, but these are the ones that stand out above and beyond for me.
Ecalsneerg 04-27-08, 06:38 AM	I run a low-magic campaign. Mind you, I replaced it with psionics :D But in all seriousness, I don't see how magic store = high magic. You could have hundreds of wizards and clerics in the world, but as someone logically pointed out, the PCs don't enjoy spending all their XP; why should NPCs?
The Great Alchemist 04-27-08, 07:27 AM	I do find, however, that a lot of D&D players these days are not interested in setting. They want their build. If the setting can't accomodate it, they don't see why that has to be. This is a shame, because it turns everything into generic D&D product, and destroys the role of imagination, of growth, of exploration and discovery. What is the purpose of having a 20 level build? Fine, great, you have a powerful character... but you're done. It is over. The character is finished, and has no reason to play other then to say "Hey look at what I can do with these numbers." This is great for a video game. This is a big problem (to me anyway) that I do kind of associate with 3rd edition - the obsession over build. I've been playing D&D since 1989 and changed over to 3rd edition not long after it hit the scene. It did seem to me that in 2nd edition, even though it had its fair share of power gamers, there wasn't this huge obsession with character build like there is now. For one thing, it wasn't as possible then - now you have all of these feats and prestige classes and more easily available magic items. Its been a big trend I've seen for quite a while now and its something that doesn't interest me at all. I do, though, love world development and personalization. I must have over 100 pages of background information on various settings I have designed including nations, cultures, religions, etc. Almost all of which is for very low magic settings and makes a lot of the prestige classes and magic items inappropriate. And my love for low magic certainly doesn't come from any desire to suppress players. In fact, in my settings the players are even more special because not every town is filled with high level characters and magic items. When an adventuring party comes along they are really special people - people the likes of which most people have never seen before. If there is a magic user in the party, then that person will truly be feared and respected - if not despised and hated.
ShatteredSun 04-27-08, 08:35 AM	I run a very low-magic campaign, although I achieve it by making magic taboo in the cultures of my gaming world. It's like the British Iles around 400-500 AD. Some cultures value divine magic over others, other cultures value only expressly druidic, and frequently they don't know enough to tell the difference and thus burn suspected magicsters at the stake. The reason magic is low in my campaign is because it's supposed to be set in the legendary age. After all, if the Gods have an invisibility helmet (Hulišshjįlmr) and it's supposed to be a big deal, that sort of thing can't be very common. My PCs actually appreciate this approach, because even though they're only mid-level, they're sort of a big deal in their world. I don't see the point of adventuring in worlds like FR, because any noteworthy adventure you can do can easily be done by the legions of other heavy-hitters in that world.
Roog 04-27-08, 08:37 AM	... But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him. (Cook, Player's Handbook, pg 25, 1989)." Emphasis mine. Yes, that was writen in the players handbook, but take a look at the stats given to the important NPCs in official published material, there was definitly an unwriten assumption that important characters have high stats. Take that together with the stat requirements for entry to particular classes, and the bonus XP for high stats, and it is usprising that someone felt the need to write a section telling players not just to give up on low stat characters.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 08:52 AM	For one thing, it wasn't as possible then - now you have all of these feats and prestige classes and more easily available magic items. Its been a big trend I've seen for quite a while now and its something that doesn't interest me at all. I beg to differ on this point (and this one only). In 1ed it wasn't really possible beyond the Bard (a cookie to whoever can tell me, without looking in their books, what it took to become a bard in 1ed), but in 2ed with Lizards taking over, we had an influx of splat books - Complete Humanoids/Dwarves/Elves/Halflings/Gnomes and Complete Fighters/Thieves/Clerics/Mages/Rangers/Paladins/Vikings/Knights of Charlemagne/ et al. This is really where I found that build became a part of it. It became all about optimizing the character race with an elite class - can you say Elven Bladesinger? Half Ogre Barbarian? Drow Cleric of Lloth (Llolth) or Assassin? It seems the advent of the splat book in 2ed saw the focus on build, and shortly after these hammered the market to a bloody pulp, 3.0 came out and hammered the market again with news ways to customize characters beyond simply race and class. And once again, after 3.0 came out, we got hammered with more splat books loaded with PrCs (cause you know, playing a BladeSinger out of the box just doesn't work anymore...you gotta earn it) and new feats to increase optimization and the snowball keeps rolling... Who here remembers basic? *chuckle* Like playing Gauntlet in the arcade only using dice instead. Warrior needs food...BAD!
runestar 04-27-08, 09:23 AM	To this day, I still fail to understand how being willing to take the time and effort to carefully craft out the build of my PC necessarily means that I am powergaming, or that I am somehow placing less emphasis on roleplaying. Classes, prcs, feats, every aspect are simply building blocks we put together to represent an idea. Good for you if your character concept is straightforward enough to be fleshed out with a single class and existing PHB feats. But if my concept is complicated or intricate enough that I need to use at least 3-4 classes, or heck up to 7-8 classes and prcs to properly represent, why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? Isn't this better roleplaying, because then, not only does my PC have a compelling backstory, but he will also possess the mechanical stats which allow him to back up these very areas which his backstory claims that he is capable of. Conversely, it seems contradictory to force me to limit my choices to say, 1 class and 1 prc max in the name of "roleplaying", when doing so would actually serve the opposite effect, by requiring me to warp and squeeze my role just so I can cater to the limitations of the system and the DM's rulings, which would in turn, just leave my unable to effectively roleplay my PC the way I want him to, because his stats just cannot support what I want him to be capable of. Can someone enlighten me on this?:confused:
Cranewings 04-27-08, 09:36 AM	Conversely, it seems contradictory to force me to limit my choices to say, 1 class and 1 prc max in the name of "roleplaying", when doing so would actually serve the opposite effect, by requiring me to warp and squeeze my role just so I can cater to the limitations of the system and the DM's rulings, which would in turn, just leave my unable to effectively roleplay my PC the way I want him to, because his stats just cannot support what I want him to be capable of. Can someone enlighten me on this?:confused: It may be good rp for you, but bad for the group. Maybe the gm wants to run a low magic world or a historical fantasy world, and a strange character with many classes would be an aberancy, a spooky one shot that stands out from everything else... in a bad way.
runestar 04-27-08, 09:57 AM	It may be good rp for you, but bad for the group. Maybe the gm wants to run a low magic world or a historical fantasy world, and a strange character with many classes would be an aberancy, a spooky one shot that stands out from everything else... in a bad way. I hear this quite a lot, to be honest. But how justified is this claim? Is it not possible to play a compelling, realistic or complete character who happens to be multiclassed? I don't get what it is about single classed PCs which somehow lets you be a better roleplayer than a multiclassed PC. After all, when you are interacting with someone, you don't get to see what class combination he is. That fighter standing right in front of you could very well just be a fighter20, or he could just as readily be a monk/swashbuckler/warblade/eternal blade. Does it truly matter, if the backstory is the same, but the latter is actually able to fill it out better? Say I want to play a swashbuckling type character and the theme meshes perfectly in some sort of medieval france setting. Now then comes the problem of how to go about constructing him. Fighter is obviously fail from the start. I can only go so far in combat with weapon finesse, spring attack, minor damage boosts from the weapon spec feat tree and a sub-optimal power attack:damage ratio. Not to mention that TWFing is inherently a rather weak career path for a pure fighter. The swashbuckler class is another problem, since it really only works up to 3rd lv, and pretty much stinks after that. I may end up setting for a rogue4/swashbuckler16 build with the daring outlaw feat, or who knows, some "monstrosity" consisting of 4-5 classes. At this point, I am sure you are all pretty much condemning me as just another powergamer. But I see nothing wrong with optimizing my build so that I will not suck at what I do. If anything, this is aiding me in roleplaying. To quote Tempest Stormwind, I can't roleplay if I am dead. And how do I stay alive? By being good at what I do? And how do I achieve this? You got it - optimization. Though on a side note, I think I am inadvertently derailing this thread somewhat, since my point seems to have little to do with magic settings.
Rosisha 04-27-08, 10:19 AM	Sure. I'll take a shot at answering the above question. Keep in mind that the concept that you are trying to understand is, for all intents and purposes, a system that depends on personal belief and approach to gaming. So instead of explaining why you are an evil powergamer, which is not necessarily true in the sense of fact, I will instead, attempt to explain why it is that I, as a fellow gamer, would view your style of play, as essentially power gaming! It is up to you to decide if you are in fact a powergamer by your own definition. What is Powergaming to Rosisha? I believe that powergaming occurs when a player attempts to minimize chance, and maximize options that grant victory. This happens all the time no matter what (do I take the longsword or the shortsword... better take the longsword as I can do more damage), but when taken to an extreme, constitutes powergaming. Okay... What is the extreme? The extreme is when every single aspect of the game must be controled, thus removing dice from the basic structure of your character. 25 point buy, for instance, is powergaming. It minimizes chance and maximizes your control over the character. Now combine this with, say, a 10 level build. For the next ten levels of gaming, you have everything planned out. You have chosen your hit points (max at first level by the way, thus minimizing chance again), feats, and prestiege classes, all to minimize chance (the natural evolution of the character) and maximize your control (what you want for the character). Further, this attempt at control over character development can also lead to choices being made that ignore the reality of the world in favor of personal build choice (i.e. in my world Sorcerers do not have a draconic heritage, but a player who was power gaming would tell me that they still want the Dragon Disciple PRC and tough luck to my world, me, and the hours of work I have done to present a fun game for the players). Power gaming is further defined as using the rules as written as a crutch, or a club, as the rules can be used as part of minimizing chance, and maximizing control. In this case, a power gamer is not just worried about their build, their character, but they are also worried about the game world itself and do not wish the DM to be the sole arbitrator of action and events. Using the RAW as crutch/club they are able to undermine the authority of the DM as interpreter of the world, thus minimizing chance happenings to their character, and maximizing their control. This is the extreme. I still get nervous if someone exhibits any of these traits. So, we now know what you think power gaming is... how do YOU build a character? Fair question. Let me give you the most recent example. Last night I designed an NPC for my current campaign world. I rolled 3d6 in order, so my first roll was for STR, my next for DEX, etc etc. My final stats were 8, 11, 9, 10, 13, 5. So should we throw this character away? No. I'm going to play him as a brutally honest cleric. He just doesn't know when to shut up! He'll tell the players that he thinks their clothing is just not right, and maybe the female warrior should get out of her chainmail and back into the kitchen! Hence the charisma of 5. Of course being a cleric, he spends a lot of time studying. That means that compared to his crusader friends, he has a low strength score. Where they went to the gym, he was found in the library. His idea of a workout is lugging five books at once. However, despite his faults, he is still very wise, and obviously mulls over the Big Questions. And you can always trust his work to be truthful, even if it is a truth you don't happen to like. Did I know this before I rolled the character up? Nope. In a sense, I didn't "make" or "build" a character. I was introduced to him. If this was a PC, I would take him to an adventure playing just as I described (he would seek alternatives to doing physical labor, and would spend time discussing the Big Questions, oh, and by the way, you need a bath!). Where would he go? How would he develop? No idea. I'll find that out when he gets there. What choices will he make? No idea. I'll find that out when he makes them. The character, instead of being a series of numbers meant to maximize control over the world and my chances of victory, is instead a living breathing creature that I am interacting with. Yes I have control, but I do not build. I let the natural evolution of the character hold sway. How does this relate to 2nd Ed AD&D + Low Magic? In one way it doesn't. The playing philosophy I outlined above can be played in any game setting, in any set of rules. However, in another way, 3.x makes what I outlined above especially difficult. The emphasis on rules as written discourage DMs from producing their own works and worlds via squandering imagination. The player is told that the rules as written are as close to balanced as you can get, WotC material should always be accepted, and that any DM who disagrees is a power hungry maniac seeking to control his players. This is, to say it bluntly (remember, right now I'm running with a 5 charisma!), so completely and totally untrue that it borders on really bad Soviet propaganda. And they had bad propaganda. Trust me. Their art work makes WotC art look good. These are the key three points that undermine the DM in 3.x: 1) RAW = good 2) WotC material = good 3) Since RAW is good, and WOTC is good, any modifications, by default, are bad. Such as low magic. What is ignored is that this isn't necessarily so. Yes, the RAW has good points, but that doesn't mean that it is, by default, good. No playing system this complicated is going to be made that is free of error. And further, just because a publishing company places something out, does not mean that it has to be used. And finally, just because a DM wishes to offer an alternative to the standard D&D world, just because a DM wishes to utilize their imagination, does not necessarily mean that the setting is bad, or the DM is a power hungry maniac. Which brings us back to the fundamental question of what is the powergamer: those that seek to minimize chance (i.e. a DM rolling the dice or creating a world without seeking their express permission) and maximize their control (by undermining the DM and his creation in preference to arbitrary rules which are not necessarily any better then what the DM has done). The success of powergamers on these boards is wittnessed with these common assumptions by posters: 1) low magic is inherently bad and is about DMs becoming power hungry maniacs. 2) Any build is fine, as long as it isn't Pun Pun or by one of the true experts on the CharOps boards. Those might be broke, but everything else is fine! 3) If a DM doesn't allow X... well he is back to number 1! 4) FR & Greyhawk are the only true worlds that should be played in, and should set the standard for what is acceptable. There are more but I am cutting myself short on purpose. I have to go to work in fourty five minutes! So hopefully I made my point clearly, and by no means did I wish to insult anyone, so hopefully people will accept that I have a point of view which is different and not get all testy! If you have any questions on this I'll do my best to answer em. Rosisha
Cranewings 04-27-08, 10:46 AM	Rune Star, your example is fine. I agree that you are right, and if YOU were in my game, I probably wouldn't care that you were multiclassing. I have a rogue in my game that took a level of wizard so he can eventually become an Arcane Archer. We rped the part of finding him a magical teacher, so it worked out. Those aren't the usual multiclass situations though. Normally people multiclass because they are trying to be crazy or take advantage of a rule. I know, I'm guilty of making a Ranger 1, Fighter 3, Holy Liberator or whatever, but I knew when I made it the character was stupid. The fact of the matter is that in the course of the game, there is very little reason to multiclass. A ranger is going to stay a ranger, and a priest is going to stay a priest. They aren't going to take a level of fighter (as if the ranger started ignoring the animal world and quit camping so he could practice fighting more) or a level of wizard (as if arcane is somehow as important to a cleric as his god) and when people make those choices, it seems wrong.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 10:49 AM	Runestar, I optimize. I know it, I admit it, and I do it because it makes the game more fun for me in this incarnation. And in 2ed I did it too (after all the splat books came out). The reason I criticize it is because my focus is now finding the optimum way to represent my character through the perfect choice of class, PrC, feats, magic items, race, world, backstory, lunar alignment, and the occasional Wish/Miracle. And to me, if I make the wrong choice somewhere along the line, or if a splat book comes out that makes it better, or GOD help me they CHANGE the damn thing yet again...well...it takes some of the fun out of the game. Whereas in previous incarnations, if I wanted to be a pirate, I said, "Hey guys, I'm a Fighter/Thief who lives on the sea, my Secondary Skill is Sailor (not that SS's ever made a difference in the game) and I'm going to select the following weapons to use." Making a pirate now...well...instead of just whipping that up and playing it, I have to plan things out. I'm not saying that this is inherently bad Runestar...I am saying it is somewhat more complicated. Sure, it is more specialized, but there is a reason that ICE's Chartmaster...err...Rolemaster died out. Too many options and you're going to spend more time and focus on making the ultimate perfect character instead of simply playing the game and RPing. It turns D&D into an MMO or PC RPG where you ignore RP for the most part just to gather loot and XP enough to move into the next stage of your build. For some people that works. For me...I like it simple. Maybe I'm a hypocrite here, but I have no problems with that.
Entropy_Judge 04-27-08, 11:03 AM	Bard (a cookie to whoever can tell me, without looking in their books, what it took to become a bard in 1ed), I'm probably missing something (Especially stats), but I'll give it a shot. Fighter to level 4-6, switch to Thief, levels 5-7, then you start training under the Druids, which multiclasses you into a Bard. I believe you had to be LN/CN/N, and, due to the requirements for multiclassing, you had to have STR 16+, DEX 16+, and, I believe WIS 16+. I hated that thing with a passion.
iserith 04-27-08, 11:11 AM	High magic is as close as I come to running Modern/Sci-fi games. This is how I view Eberron, which is easily my favorite setting next to Planescape. Eberron takes the existence of magic to its logical conclusion in the same way that technology evolved in the real world. In many ways, it combines the two. In every way, it attempts to account for the elements of D&D in a pretty believable way (as much as magic and dragons can be believable, anyway). I prefer to run games that are high-magic. My favorite games to play, however, are low-magic. I find that it brings out the best in me as a roleplayer. I find simple challenges like crossing a river or killing a bear for food and skins to be very fun. I hate - and no amount of italics or bold will fully underscore this - having to worry about my character's inventory. I'd rather keep the broken obsidian dagger I used to kill that evil legate in my friend's Midnight campaign than the +2 flame resistant spiked full plate I handed out in my last Eberron game. But hey, that's just me. That all said, people on both sides of this issue need to realize something basic: 1. D&D v3.5 is, in fact, based around the idea that characters have a certain amount of magic gear to balance them against monsters as well as each other; and, 2. The aforementioned truth can be completely negated by a clever DM in a way that enhances the game instead of detracting from it. Your experiences with D&D might cause you to disbelieve either or both of these statements, but I can assure you they are patently true. D&D is ever what one makes of it, whether you prefer organic character development like me or strategized character builds like others. I have players that only take points in skills they actually used during the last adventure when they level (like me). On the other hand, I have players that planned what skill points they would take at 10th-level back when they were 1st. This is no way means that one group is better than the other at roleplaying and I as DM design encounters to challenge both types of player. It's just that easy - all you need is a good DM and players with open minds - on both sides of the aisle.
weepingminotaur 04-27-08, 11:32 AM	The fact of the matter is that in the course of the game, there is very little reason to multiclass. A ranger is going to stay a ranger, and a priest is going to stay a priest. They aren't going to take a level of fighter (as if the ranger started ignoring the animal world and quit camping so he could practice fighting more) or a level of wizard (as if arcane is somehow as important to a cleric as his god) and when people make those choices, it seems wrong. I disagree with this. I feel that you are taking the discrete divisions between classes too seriously, or rather, you are confusing the practical, game-based reasons for separate classes with how characters would view themselves. IMO a ranger doesn't have a stack of business cards on hand identifying him as a small-business ranger who is only trained to track, shoot arrows, fight with two weapons, and get along with animals. The class 'ranger' represents an aggregate of different abilities and areas of expertise that, for one reason or another, correspond to the abilities and expertise of a certain character. But there is always going to be character bleed between classes. Many rangers might not even identify themselves as rangers! A ranger with one level in fighter might have gained that level coming off a grueling series of battles against his favored enemy, hobgoblins (for example), so it would make sense for his next level to address his martial improvements.
iserith 04-27-08, 11:40 AM	I disagree with this. I feel that you are taking the discrete divisions between classes too seriously, or rather, you are confusing the practical, game-based reasons for separate classes with how characters would view themselves. IMO a ranger doesn't have a stack of business cards on hand identifying him as a small-business ranger who is only trained to track, shoot arrows, fight with two weapons, and get along with animals. The class 'ranger' represents an aggregate of different abilities and areas of expertise that, for one reason or another, correspond to the abilities and expertise of a certain character. But there is always going to be character bleed between classes. Many rangers might not even identify themselves as rangers! A ranger with one level in fighter might have gained that level coming off a grueling series of battles against his favored enemy, hobgoblins (for example), so it would make sense for his next level to address his martial improvements. Agreed. This issue was one that I wrestled with for some time as the old gamer curmudgeon inside of me railed against "excessive" multiclassing. However, once you accept that classes are simply ways to represent various abilities, you will find that it sits better with you when people dip into a lot of classes. Classes are not necessarily "professions." Think about it in a more abstract way. How a player uses or abuses said system is a different matter altogether.
Cranewings 04-27-08, 03:24 PM	I disagree. I think classes are archtypes. A person has a class due to training, natural aptitude, and personality. By the time a character is old enough to take a level of ranger - by the time a man becomes a level 1 character, he has endured all the trials and challenges of growing up, into his life and body. A character goes up in level in part because he gets, "experianced" but also because he gets older and gains a better understanding. When a level 1 ranger is identified as a ranger, he is identified as such because of how he has lived his life for 15-20 years. When that level one ranger takes a level of wizard, he undercuts that idenity by tacking on something that has no buisness being there. I could agree with you is dnd was a point buy system in a modern setting where you could spend a portion of your experiance aquiring a new ability, but that isn't the case.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 04:05 PM	I'm probably missing something (Especially stats), but I'll give it a shot. Fighter to level 4-6, switch to Thief, levels 5-7, then you start training under the Druids, which multiclasses you into a Bard. I believe you had to be LN/CN/N, and, due to the requirements for multiclassing, you had to have STR 16+, DEX 16+, and, I believe WIS 16+. I hated that thing with a passion. :cookie: Me, I loved the Bard...it was the original PrC. I don't think the stat requirements were that nuts though - you had to have minimum 9's in the requisite stats (fighter - strength, thief - dexterity) to get into those - 16+ gave you 10% XP bonus...don't remember the druid stats off hand but those were nuts.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 04:15 PM	I disagree. I think classes are archtypes. A person has a class due to training, natural aptitude, and personality. By the time a character is old enough to take a level of ranger - by the time a man becomes a level 1 character, he has endured all the trials and challenges of growing up, into his life and body. A character goes up in level in part because he gets, "experianced" but also because he gets older and gains a better understanding. When a level 1 ranger is identified as a ranger, he is identified as such because of how he has lived his life for 15-20 years. When that level one ranger takes a level of wizard, he undercuts that idenity by tacking on something that has no buisness being there. Not sure I agree with you here Cranewings. Consider the number of people who join up with the military IRL and then do something else - say, medicine, and when they get out they take on a different path. To put it in D&D terms, lets say I join the Canadian Infantry and serve for 5 years and then get out and become a priest or Imam. I've gone from fighter as my class to cleric as my class. What if war comes to Canada and I re-enlist or get conscripted? I am back to fighter again (multi-classed as a cleric - very handy in D&D terms, relatively useless in terms of military beyond lending spiritual aid to fellow worshippers). It can happen and it can make sense in certain situations, but for the most part, the main reason people do it is build plain and simple. So I understand your concern that yes, this can be abused by optimizing powergamers, but you should not let that dissuade you from allowing it to happen for legitimite in-game reasons.
DerelictDroid 04-27-08, 04:18 PM	When you speak of Low Magic, does this include reducing Divine magic as well? My group is beginning a low magic campaign that includes the removal of Craft magic item feats. One of my players made the point that this low magic campaign empowers Clerics and Druids even more. So how do other DMs with low magic campaigns balance the Cleric and Druid?
Cranewings 04-27-08, 04:28 PM	Dash, like I said in my previous posts, I do let it happen when it is legit. It almost never is. 99.9% of the time when a ranger, for example, takes a level of ranger, rogue, fighter, whatever, he is in the forest or dungeon on the same kind of task he is always on. That's what I have a problem with.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 04:54 PM	99.9% of the time when a ranger, for example, takes a level of ranger, rogue, fighter, whatever, he is in the forest or dungeon on the same kind of task he is always on. That's what I have a problem with. You have a problem when the ranger takes a level of ranger? :D
Krusk 04-27-08, 05:15 PM	I have run a low magic fantasy setting before and it can be very fun, but without serious work the dungeons and dragons system itself, I have found, does not work well with low magic. It usually takes me extensive ammounts of house ruling on classes, and reworking enemies. If I do low magic now, I simply use iron heroes or conan d20. They do it good enough for me, and get the feel of low magic. My current dnd game I am running is "low power" meaning there are a rare few NPCs who reach above level 5, and for the most part people do not adventure. Commoners, levels 0-2. Gaurds/military folk levels 3-5. important NPCs level 7-10. Above that is someone who is to be feared or respected. The PC's, who do adventure, are of a higher caliber [you could almost call them heros]. By its nature this setting has less magic items floating around, but that does not mean there are not shops capable of making them. Why would the local blacksmith make a +4 vorpal flaming greataxe, if there is no one to buy it? However, local blacksmiths love when adventurers come through as it gives them an opportunity to try their hand at a once in a lifetime sword. Even if it is only a +2 longsword. Plus they get more money than they generally make in two or three weeks. Of course this magic item requires an extensive ammount of time to be crafted, so it is not simply walk in and point. You have to explain exactly what you want, and you have to find someone who is usually the best smith around.
Entropy_Judge 04-27-08, 05:47 PM	:cookie: Me, I loved the Bard...it was the original PrC. I don't think the stat requirements were that nuts though - you had to have minimum 9's in the requisite stats (fighter - strength, thief - dexterity) to get into those - 16+ gave you 10% XP bonus...don't remember the druid stats off hand but those were nuts. I thought you had to have at least a bonus in the primary stat to be able to multiclass (INT for MU, WIS for Cleric/Druid, STR for Fighters, etc). Oh, and I think I forgot something - IIRC, you had to be either a human or a half-elf. Unfortunately, I don't have my books with me, :(, so I can't actually check anything. But yes, original PrC, and pretty fairly broken, since I think it went 1-20, *after* you've got 9-13 levels already ... plus spell-casting.
Degausser 04-27-08, 06:36 PM	A low-magic campaign, I high-magic campaign. All in all, a campaign's magic level should come in secondary to the story. I don't set off saying "I want to build a low magic campaign" but instead "I want to build campaign world X" and, if it would make sense for that campaign world to have little in the way of magic items, then it has little in the way of magic items. But inherently, Low magic campaigns are like any other campaigns . . . their value is determined by the DMs that run the story, not by the type of campaign they are. I've played abysmal low-magic campaigns where the 5th level wizard was still casting first level spells because he hadn't gotten any 2nd or 3rd level spells yet (this was back in 2nd Ed.) Crippling a class was not fun for anyone. I've also played in a great low-magic campaign that was pulled off masterfully with a great plot and great role-playing. Bottom line, if you've got a good DM, then, chances are your game will be great. If not, then chances are low. The idea that you need 'magic item stores' or not won't be a deciding factor probably.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 09:21 PM	I thought you had to have at least a bonus in the primary stat to be able to multiclass (INT for MU, WIS for Cleric/Druid, STR for Fighters, etc). Oh, and I think I forgot something - IIRC, you had to be either a human or a half-elf. Unfortunately, I don't have my books with me, :(, so I can't actually check anything. But yes, original PrC, and pretty fairly broken, since I think it went 1-20, *after* you've got 9-13 levels already ... plus spell-casting. You might be right about the high stats for multiclassing (my books are back in Canada so I can't look it up either), but in that case, it would only be the rogue and druid that you needed exceptional stats in. Imagine a Bard with psionics...Mmmmm...1ed Quivering Palm.
Entropy_Judge 04-27-08, 09:41 PM	You might be right about the high stats for multiclassing (my books are back in Canada so I can't look it up either), but in that case, it would only be the rogue and druid that you needed exceptional stats in. Imagine a Bard with psionics...Mmmmm...1ed Quivering Palm. Quivering Palm: Requirements: 15 STR, DEX, CON, WIS ... I forget the Min for INT - not sure if it was 10 or 15 ... but you didn't need CHA! Also: No armor, you have a decent chance of hitting but at low levels you need a weapon. Oh, max HP at level 1 is 10, and I'm pretty sure you don't get a DEX bonus to AC either .... Oh, and you have to survive to 14th level in a class with 17 levels, and each level above ... 9th? requires a fight with the monk of that level in order to advance. It sucked being an AD&D monk, even if you could meet the requirements. Psionics were fun, though.
runestar 04-27-08, 10:29 PM	First all, I would like to thank everyone for responding to my point politely, respectfully and coherently. You have no idea how much I appreciate this.:) Ah screw, the other thread turned out to have little to do with said discussion. Sorry, Etarnon...
danielinthewolvesden 04-28-08, 01:35 AM	When you speak of Low Magic, does this include reducing Divine magic as well? My group is beginning a low magic campaign that includes the removal of Craft magic item feats. One of my players made the point that this low magic campaign empowers Clerics and Druids even more. No, in fact it hog ties them into the much despised and dreaded "heal-bot" role as they do not have potions wands and the like to do a fair portion healing for them. A wand of lesser vigor is a really good way to heal the party after combat, for example. Not having the ability to toss off 4 charges of that want after combat means they must dedicate 4 1st lvl spells for that task.
navar100 04-28-08, 01:38 AM	Yes...low magic all the way. I do it for a number of reasons. #1 - To annoy my players. #2 - I used to do Monty Haul's and it got ridiculous..I found the player attitudes were along the lines of "Oh Crap, not another 10 Sword +1s...someone got another Bag of Holding to stuff them into cause I ain't carrying them." This way, they appreciate magic items far more. #3 - It puts the onus on them to create the magic items themselves. Oh sure, they might come across a magic item or get one as reward, but MageMart simply doesn't exist nor will it ever. Magic items are carrots on my proverbial DM stick (that sounds bad, I know) used to get PCs interested in doing stuff that they might otherwise not want to do. #4 - Magic items crafted in my world can have backstory or history (ie. Tolkien), something I find doesn't usually exist in large magic worlds (ie. FR). #5 - Magic items can identify people as well (unless the magic item is strictly not identifying them) - for example a Bandit wielding a giant flaming axe isn't as common as a bandit wielding a long sword or pair of daggers so Bardic Lore, Knowledge: Local History, or even Gather Information checks can be useful. #6 - I'm cheap. No, I don't make or pay for the items myself, but I'm still cheap. #7 - I find that it makes DR monsters more thrilling in combat. For me anyway. :P #8 - I simply cannot rationalize a bunch of people mass-producing magic items at high personal cost. I know few Players who make characters that do that sort of thing - why should I mass produce NPCs to fill in their shortcomings? I'm sure I have more reasons than these, but these are the ones that stand out above and beyond for me. I highlighted the reasons I precisely do not like low magic games. I have often found that when a DM does run a low magic game, he hates his players. I don't mean literally "hates" his players, but rather is a control freak and doesn't want player characters to be able to do nifty things. He's adversarial, playing against the players instead of with them. Only he has "power".
navar100 04-28-08, 01:41 AM	I hear this quite a lot, to be honest. But how justified is this claim? Is it not possible to play a compelling, realistic or complete character who happens to be multiclassed? I don't get what it is about single classed PCs which somehow lets you be a better roleplayer than a multiclassed PC. After all, when you are interacting with someone, you don't get to see what class combination he is. That fighter standing right in front of you could very well just be a fighter20, or he could just as readily be a monk/swashbuckler/warblade/eternal blade. Does it truly matter, if the backstory is the same, but the latter is actually able to fill it out better? Say I want to play a swashbuckling type character and the theme meshes perfectly in some sort of medieval france setting. Now then comes the problem of how to go about constructing him. Fighter is obviously fail from the start. I can only go so far in combat with weapon finesse, spring attack, minor damage boosts from the weapon spec feat tree and a sub-optimal power attack:damage ratio. Not to mention that TWFing is inherently a rather weak career path for a pure fighter. The swashbuckler class is another problem, since it really only works up to 3rd lv, and pretty much stinks after that. I may end up setting for a rogue4/swashbuckler16 build with the daring outlaw feat, or who knows, some "monstrosity" consisting of 4-5 classes. At this point, I am sure you are all pretty much condemning me as just another powergamer. But I see nothing wrong with optimizing my build so that I will not suck at what I do. If anything, this is aiding me in roleplaying. To quote Tempest Stormwind, I can't roleplay if I am dead. And how do I stay alive? By being good at what I do? And how do I achieve this? You got it - optimization. Though on a side note, I think I am inadvertently derailing this thread somewhat, since my point seems to have little to do with magic settings. Stormwind Fallacy, that is to say, not you here but complaining against "optimizing".
StruckingFuggle 04-28-08, 02:08 AM	First, Runestar, I wanted to say your first post here is amazing. Thank you. *claps* May I quote? I've never really tried a low-magic campaign, except if you count the one where everyone started off as first-level commoners ... but that's about it. I can see your reasons for running low-magic campaigns, but I just don't share those preferences ... and I'd say "I can see how low-magic can work to represent those preferences better", but ... well, okay, I sort of can. "Familiarity", and all that - but yeah, I just don't share your preferences. But it might just be my perspective. Out of curiosity, if you - and anyone else who does - believe 2e's ways were better, why do you play 3.X? And, finally, because I can't resist replying to Cranewings ... (maybe we need a new thread?) Those aren't the usual multiclass situations though. Normally people multiclass because they are trying to be crazy or take advantage of a rule. The fact of the matter is that in the course of the game, there is very little reason to multiclass. A ranger is going to stay a ranger, and a priest is going to stay a priest. They aren't going to take a level of fighter (as if the ranger started ignoring the animal world and quit camping so he could practice fighting more) or a level of wizard (as if arcane is somehow as important to a cleric as his god) and when people make those choices, it seems wrong. ... Right. I doubt the characters think of it that way. A Ranger taking a level of Fighter? "I am getting beat on a bit in combat, I should study battle a bit more than my magic and survival stalking, because I seem to end up in more combat ... so I'll learn a few new tricks". Also, since Ranger Levels don't measure connection to "the animal world" and Fighter levels don't mean you can't spend most of your time in the wild, he's not As for the Cleric taking a level of Wizard, in general, no. Well, maybe he's dedicated to a god of magic. Or maybe he plans on doing something like taking levels in Mystic Theurge, or for some crazy reason, True Necromancer. He could have perfectly legitimate character reasons for picking up some arcane levels. Maybe he's in love with magic and wants to study more of it. Maybe he sees more spells and a wider variety of spells as the best way to serve his God. Maybe he sees how they both contribute to mastery of the undead, because they have different Undead-related spells ... ... And, again, levels in Cleric don't measure ... well, taking a level of Wizard doesn't mean he value wizardry more than his God in any meaningful way, and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you can mean otherwise... o.O 99.9% of the time when a ranger, for example, takes a level of ranger, rogue, fighter, whatever, he is in the forest or dungeon on the same kind of task he is always on. That's what I have a problem with. So how does being on the same kind of task Rangers are the only ones who can do Ranger tasks? (ooh! ooh! Can I coin a term for the opposite of this, and because I'm sick of Fallacies, call it the Miko Miyazaki Maxim? "Samurai don't need levels in the class called 'Samurai' to be Samurai" and the Wizboards Sidenote to the M3: "Sometimes, another class is even better at that job!")
Cranewings 04-28-08, 02:55 AM	You have a problem when the ranger takes a level of ranger? :D So I can't think and type at the same time. What? You know this. :dancin:
Kobajagrande 04-28-08, 03:37 AM	Out of curiosity, if you - and anyone else who does - believe 2e's ways were better, why do you play 3.X? Why not? I mean, I find 3e to be a fun game that still has the style that I want in my roleplaying game. Am I able to play a low-magic game in it? Yes, perfectly, despite the feeling prevalent on these boards. Do we see the need to optimize? No, not at all. Do we enjoy playing? Yes, yes we do. So why not?
Mock26 04-28-08, 04:54 AM	I don't prefer to run them, but I do enjoy occasionally running one or playing in one. I find them to be fun, and entertaining, and for both the DM and the PC's they can be a challenge. Low magic adds a certain feel to the campaign that I like. Then again, I also like to occasionally run high magic campaigns. For me it is all about variety. I like trying (as a player and a DM) different styles of D&D. I wouldn't want to do nothing but low magic or no magic or high magic or average magic. I want to experience different types of games. One of my all time favorite campaigns was an extremely low magic one based on ancient rome (but with all the D&D monsters). When we finally met up with the BBEG he was protected by an iron golem, and we didn't have anything that could hurt that golem. So, we then had to run for our lives and go find some weapons that could hurt this golem. We had ignored some very important clues to find the weapons first and this allowed the BBEG to get a bit more powerful after our first attempt and we tipped him off to our existance. What was funny/exasperating/interesting was that once we finally managed to take down that golem bodyguard and cornered teh BBEG he was really quite a wimp. All of his power was basically derived from fear and misperception that because he had a golem nearly everyone thought he was super powerful! And when we first met that golem for a while we thought the BBEG was a full-blown high-magic mage and that the DM had stacked the odds against us. That is of course until someone brought up again the really big clues we ignored early on in the campaign. The current campaign I am running is not low magic, but it is low on "useful" magic items. The group is currently 6th-7th level and the most powerful item is a +2 handaxe. There are also quite few +2 daggers and +1 regular weapons. The campaign is full of fluff magic items, such as a blanket that repels lice, a self-heating frying pan, a backpack that reduces the weight of everything in it by 25%, non-detectable gloves (they are leather gloves and while worn they offer all the protection of wearing leather gloves but you can't see them or feel them), a pair of boots that are always clean, and other such items. My group actually looks forward to the next useless magic item that will show up.
Sunic_Flames 04-28-08, 08:23 AM	I highlighted the reasons I precisely do not like low magic games. I have often found that when a DM does run a low magic game, he hates his players. I don't mean literally "hates" his players, but rather is a control freak and doesn't want player characters to be able to do nifty things. He's adversarial, playing against the players instead of with them. Only he has "power". +1! :cookie:
Sunic_Flames 04-28-08, 08:39 AM	*snip* Here's that post I was forgetting. Are you honestly suggesting 25 PB (anemic for any non full caster), max HP at level 1 (standard), not picking feats and PRCs and stuff by having a drunk monkey throw darts, taking a horribly weak PRC, and oh yeah wanting to actually influence the world are all examples of powergaming? :rofl: See, here's the thing. The DM controls everything in the world except the PCs. The moment he tries to control the PCs as well is the moment said PCs should snarkily request the script to the DM's novel, and walk. DM may control events but the players choose how they react to said events. Getting near TPKed by a mind flayer for example can result in a reaction of fear and hatred (leading to taking Illithid Slayer), awe (leading to taking some pro Illithid PRC), or just satisfaction (resulting in putting another notch into his belt, and moving on). Railroading is a sure sign of a power tripping DM. Low magic is a very likely sign as well, as most often it's caused by the DM being scared of his players being able to do something useful, and is most often a knee jerk reaction to a martial character who actually managed to not suck (by power dipping and using a small library of books of course, not to mention very exacting magic item selection).
iserith 04-28-08, 08:59 AM	Railroading is a sure sign of a power tripping DM. Low magic is a very likely sign as well, as most often it's caused by the DM being scared of his players being able to do something useful, and is most often a knee jerk reaction to a martial character who actually managed to not suck (by power dipping and using a small library of books of course, not to mention very exacting magic item selection). Does this apply to published low-magic settings like Midnight or just homebrew?
annoyinglizardvoice 04-28-08, 09:04 AM	I'm currently running a low magic game (think Conan + a few basic fantasy races). It's been going for several years and never seems short of players. I find too much magic in a game kills off any cool that magic has, and gives the player who knows the names of the most spell too much chance to powergame.
Zuggster 04-28-08, 09:37 AM	I don't consider my campaign to be low magic, but I do control what the PCs have access to buy. The Keep they run out of, I have a list of what potions are available for sale, and anything else can be requested if time is available*. The Artificer has X number of hours he can spend working on PC requests. The "Store" has 1-10 Misc items it has purchased from other "NPC Adventuring Parties" at all times, the usefulness is limited to die rolls (I roll twice and choose the better of the 2 rolls). And this list changes after each adventure they go on. Why I don't consider the campaign low magic, is that they are being paid for their services to the Keep by getting their weapons turned into magical weapons (basically 1/adventure), so its out there, just can be time consuming at points. *I use an alternate Creation method, so the Prices in the DMG don't actually fit the prices in Game anyway, overall items are cheaper, which means magic items sell for less too. The why I run it this way, mainly I don't like the System for Magic Item Creation in 3rd Ed. I don't like the idea a Mage can't make a Ring, Sword, Wand without having 3 different Feats spent on it. The system I use, needs the creator to take 4 feats, each corresponding to a power level; 1 shot (ie Scrolls and Potions - Wizards get this for free), minor, moderate and major which basically go up in spell level. So for a Wizard, if he only wanted to make 1 type of Magic Item, this system is worse, but if he wanted to make all types of Items, it is alot friendlier.
Dash Branaghan 04-28-08, 10:28 AM	I highlighted the reasons I precisely do not like low magic games. I have often found that when a DM does run a low magic game, he hates his players. I don't mean literally "hates" his players, but rather is a control freak and doesn't want player characters to be able to do nifty things. He's adversarial, playing against the players instead of with them. Only he has "power". So glad you picked up on the sarcasm in those particular reasons.
Rosisha 04-28-08, 10:33 AM	Here's that post I was forgetting. Are you honestly suggesting 25 PB (anemic for any non full caster), max HP at level 1 (standard), not picking feats and PRCs and stuff by having a drunk monkey throw darts, taking a horribly weak PRC, and oh yeah wanting to actually influence the world are all examples of powergaming? :rofl: If the post weren't so long, I'd automatically dismiss it as a joke post. Since you did put that much effort into it I'll take it seriously. See, here's the thing. The DM controls everything in the world except the PCs. The moment he tries to control the PCs as well is the moment said PCs should snarkily request the script to the DM's novel, and walk. DM may control events but the players choose how they react to said events. Getting near TPKed by a mind flayer for example can result in a reaction of fear and hatred (leading to taking Illithid Slayer), awe (leading to taking some pro Illithid PRC), or just satisfaction (resulting in putting another notch into his belt, and moving on). Railroading is a sure sign of a power tripping DM. Low magic is a very likely sign as well, as most often it's caused by the DM being scared of his players being able to do something useful, and is most often a knee jerk reaction to a martial character who actually managed to not suck (by power dipping and using a small library of books of course, not to mention very exacting magic item selection). Ah yes. Here is the post I was expecting: a long well thought out non-insulting post results in a short reply which ignores a lot of main points placed in it, and is insulting. Sunic, why are you so threatened by how other people play the game? See, I prefer to PLAY, not DM, in a low magic, low power setting. I like it. I enjoy the oppertunity. I find high magic games, high power games, to be nothing more then ego stroking festivals for the players. Using 3d6, in order, BEFORE I choose my 20 level character build, is how I prefer to play. I don't want PRCs, I sure as heck don't want to have my 20 levels fully mapped out before I start play. "Oh yay! I have all 20 levels mapped! I win the internets!" - What the heck is the point? There is no wonder left about my character. I have no idea what he will be doing, because.. he hasn't made it there yet! I always start at level 1 too. I don't like games that start at level 18. Again, what the heck is the point? My characters match the campaign world too. You tell me that the world is an African setting, I won't produce a tiefling half dragon warlock 4/thief 2/<insert OMG PRC here> 5/<insert whatever here> 9 and go "Here is my awesomesauce build!" Instead this is what I'll offer: "My character is a cleric of the <x> tribe (where X is given to me by the DM). He primarily uses a throwing club and large shield, but is very proficient in the sling as well. His stats are 10, 7, 7, 9, 13, 10 (I rolled these stats just now before I started this post). He wears a red sash and toga like outfit, with a leather belt. His holy symbol is a bone totem attached to a cord made out of grass." Now this is a character I actually want to play right now! I didn't even know this was going to occur before I made it, but that wisdom score obviously suggests a cleric. And this is it for me, as a PLAYER, that the character exists before I even get there... I'm not playing a set of stats, I'm playing a unique person with faults, who rises up and stands up to challanges to become a hero. Maybe my new cleric here will one day save his people from an evil tribe, or bring back the rains, or herd animals, or any other situation the DM wants to insert. Now, as a DM, if I put a lot of work into crafting a world (such as my current campaign setting) for my players enjoyments, and I'm up to almost a full year of design and development (which is the case) and someone shows up and says "oh sweet... but I want to do x, y, and z." You'll have to forgive me if I think that they are out to railroad me, the DM. This game is not just about the players. The DM has to be happy with the campaign as well. You can't just walk into the DM's home, and game, and be like "Okay your game is stupid for all these reasons I know cause I'm so awesomesauce. So we're doing X now." Doesn't work that way. If the DM says he is happier with a type of game he is not necessarily a jerk... maybe he is just tired of power hungry players always wrecking his games, and watching his games desolve into ******* contests between optimizers. Heck I have three DMs I usually game with, thank GOD none of them allow most of what 3.x allows. See, thats the problem: railroading works both ways, and in 3.x, it favors the players. This is a cooperative game between PCs and DM. If your DM is railroading you unless you are the Defender of PC Freedom at the table, then you have to get a new DM. I've never had the problems you describe and thank god for that. If you're ever in New Hampshire you should sit in on one of our games, cause seriously, I think it would open your eyes to what goes on in these games when you have a good DM and a good set of players. Of course, reading these boards, it is no wonder you are the way you are: DMs and Players seem to have lost a lot of the cooperative spirit of the game in favor of insanity. Rosisha
Dash Branaghan 04-28-08, 10:58 AM	Railroading is a sure sign of a power tripping DM. Low magic is a very likely sign as well, as most often it's caused by the DM being scared of his players being able to do something useful, and is most often a knee jerk reaction to a martial character who actually managed to not suck (by power dipping and using a small library of books of course, not to mention very exacting magic item selection). Sunic, I totally disagree with you here. Absolutely. Railroading, first of all, is not necessarily a sign of a DM power-tripping. Most cases, it is...but not all. You cannot tell me you haven't in some way railroaded a plot through, and if you tell me that, I'm rolling a Sense Motive against your Bluff check. Because we all at some point do it. Even experienced DMs do it - the difference is, we railroad our PCs but still give them the illusion they have choice in the matter - regardless of whether our BBEG shows up to challenge them if they do X or they do Y...the confrontation is inevitable. That qualifies as railroading - when you take the options away from the PCs or their choices make no difference in the end - just because they aren't aware of it doesn't change the fact. Your assumption to the motivations of most DMs of a low-magic campaign are, uncharacteristically, narrow. I run a low magic campaign not because I'm a power tripping ego maniac who wants to effectively neuter his players, but because of the non-sarcastic reasons I listed previously. I doubt Etarnon falls into the boat either. He can correct me if I'm wrong. But I am willing to bet that most are more like myself or Etarnon, rather than your knee-jerk power mad reactionaries. By your reasoning, I could argue that most DMs who run a High-Magic campaign are simply blood-thirsty goons who want to toss harder and harder creatures at the PCs to justify that eventual TPK that they so desperately need to fulfill their role as DM by saying that the PCs should have been able to handle the problem, they had a lot of magic items. Which is NOT why DMs run high magic campaigns (at least not most DMs...I'm sure this motivation possibly covers some). You want to know some of the benefits of my low magic campaigns? - The players become a more cohesive party because they have to rely on each other, rather than running off and doing the independant and oft-ill-fated reckless charge. - The players rely on skills, tactics and strategy a great deal more, so even if they lose their magic items, they aren't curled up like heroin-addicted PC wienies without their fix. - The players actually enjoy the challenges that much more. - The players have learned a valuable lesson which has spared them from more than one potential TPK - you can't defeat everything, so sometimes your only option is to run. - Magic items become that much cooler to them, and hence they appreciate it in game when they suddenly come across one. - They tend to design and produce their own magic items specific to their needs. These are only some of the benefits - and to be honest, I wouldn't trade these for all the magic items in the D&D Megaverse.
Dash Branaghan 04-28-08, 11:01 AM	Now this is a character I actually want to play right now! I didn't even know this was going to occur before I made it, but that wisdom score obviously suggests a cleric. I'm thinking more druid because of the Tribal thing...
runestar 04-28-08, 11:06 AM	My characters match the campaign world too. You tell me that the world is an African setting, I won't produce a tiefling half dragon warlock 4/thief 2/<insert OMG PRC here> 5/<insert whatever here> 9 and go "Here is my awesomesauce build!" This point does not make sense. Naturally, the build will conform to the campaign setting. For example, if I am playing in a medieval european setting, I wouldn't be so inane as to insist on some sort of asian-themed wuxia martial artist build. However, just as I am willing to cater to the DM's preference of settings, I consider it basic courtesy that he reciprocates in allowing me more freedom in optimizing my PC. As mentioned earlier, I can promise that my end product will still fit seamlessly into his campaign setting. All I ask for is that it does not suck. If he wants me to roll up a fencing style PC, I don't mind doing so. Just don't unnecessarily insist that I stick to a poor choice (such as a pure-classed fighter) when a better alternative exists, one which I will likely enjoy playing more. Nor do I see how character mapping is such a bad thing. For example, say I am playing a fighter. If I plan to take whirlwind at 6th lv or enter a prc at 7th lv, I will want to make sure that I meet all the prerequisites by then, rather than just taking whatever feat catches my fancy, and realizing how screwed I am later on when I cannot qualify for any of the higher-tiered feats. How fun is it to one day look back and your character and see nothing but a haphazard mess of random feats, and having all sorts of regrets about what you could have done better for your character? I will still be playing the same PC at the end of the day. Mapping out his progression from the start just lets me better unleash his full potential, because it not the best thought out backstory which decides what your PC can do, but hard cold stats. For example, if I want to play my fencer as a smooth-talking ladies' man who is well respected amongst his peers for his consummate fighting prowess, I will need the stats to actually live up to what my backstory suggests that I am capable of.
AntiDjinn 04-28-08, 11:11 AM	For the past few games my group has played (rotating DMs) spellcasters have been uncommon to rare. We don't limit the power of magic or magic items, but the game worlds have not been stacked to the rafters with NPC casters and item crafters. We prefer this because it makes the PCs a big deal; in any given room of characters odds are the PCs are the most capable and the ones people turn to to solve problems. In other words, we are not low on magic, but we are the exception rather than the rule which is why we don't need day jobs. Likewise, the worlds are not truly low magic, but the majority of the population does not interact with the monsters and magic on a daily basis the way adventurers and bad guys do.
Dash Branaghan 04-28-08, 11:12 AM	This point does not make sense. Naturally, the build will conform to the campaign setting. For example, if I am playing in a medieval european setting, I wouldn't be so inane as to insist on some sort of asian-themed wuxia martial artist build. I've actually done that with a Kensai character fleeing events back home and finds himself in the Western world. I recall he had a relatively low wisdom and high charisma, and I played him as a naive but likeable guy who would certainly loan you a gold piece and yes, you could pay him back next week, he trusted you. Needless to say the group was constantly watching him because he kept loaning money to strangers that asked, and even developed a reputation for it.
Rosisha 04-28-08, 11:29 AM	Runestar, if it doesn't make sense I can't explain it. For me the point of the game is to start my player at level 1 and see where it goes. I don't want to know. Lets go back to my tribal cleric guy (maybe a druid :D). How the heck do I know where he is going to be in five levels? I don't! And I do NOT want to know. I want to find out. For me the adventure isn't just going into the dungeon and getting the hawt lewtz, it is also exploring the character and seeing what happens to him. For you, mapping is part of the fun. It is a different style of play. As a player I can't stand high power, high magic games. I prefer low magic, and since I"ve been playing D&D since 1993, I have no problem keeping D&D low power. I have fun at it. As a player AND as a DM. And I don't consider myself a bad person for doing so, though some posters on this board would say otherwise. Rosisha
iserith 04-28-08, 11:34 AM	You want to know some of the benefits of my low magic campaigns? - The players become a more cohesive party because they have to rely on each other, rather than running off and doing the independant and oft-ill-fated reckless charge. - The players rely on skills, tactics and strategy a great deal more, so even if they lose their magic items, they aren't curled up like heroin-addicted PC wienies without their fix. - The players actually enjoy the challenges that much more. - The players have learned a valuable lesson which has spared them from more than one potential TPK - you can't defeat everything, so sometimes your only option is to run. - Magic items become that much cooler to them, and hence they appreciate it in game when they suddenly come across one. - They tend to design and produce their own magic items specific to their needs. Hot dog! We have a weiner! This has been my experience playing in low-magic campaigns. Dash's list nails it down cold. This is absolutely why I like playing low-magic games like Midnight or Conan. Midnight doesn't even have any money. You have to barter for everything and god forbid you should need to get an actual weapon. Everyone assumes you're an agent of the Shadow trying to set them up. It takes good Diplomacy just to get yourself a sturdy dagger. I found it to be so much fun. And I've run 3.5e Dark Sun campaigns where my group went from 4 to 10 players within a couple of weeks because word spread about how fun it was. It was the last low-magic campaign I ran though. I got into Eberron after that. My players still fondly remember PCs like Garr the Brick who was so poor he used a clay brick for a weapon. Nor do I see how character mapping is such a bad thing. For example, say I am playing a fighter. If I plan to take whirlwind at 6th lv or enter a prc at 7th lv, I will want to make sure that I meet all the prerequisites by then, rather than just taking whatever feat catches my fancy, and realizing how screwed I am later on when I cannot qualify for any of the higher-tiered feats. How fun is it to one day look back and your character and see nothing but a haphazard mess of random feats, and having all sorts of regrets about what you could have done better for your character? Here's how it goes at my table: Player: I never used this feat very much and now it seems like a waste. Can I change it for something else? Me: Okay. Result: Happy player who doesn't feel the need to optimize all the time. I will still be playing the same PC at the end of the day. Mapping out his progression from the start just lets me better unleash his full potential, because it not the best thought out backstory which decides what your PC can do, but hard cold stats. For example, if I want to play my fencer as a smooth-talking ladies' man who is well respected amongst his peers for his consummate fighting prowess, I will need the stats to actually live up to what my backstory suggests that I am capable of. And here's where I don't really care if people optimize or not - as long as you're designing around a backstory or archetype, fine, go nuts. I think we old-timers tend to get grumpy when the backstory is created as a result of the statistics in a very forced, metagaming kind of way. "Yeah, so I'm going to make an artificer and he's like, really into wands and stuff. Especially two wands like a gunslinger. He's totally known for it, too. Anyway, can I get two wands of acid orb? Why? Uh... because his dad was an alchemist and used to make acids or something. By the way, can I borrow all of your d8s in case we get into combat?" Anyway, I'm exaggerating, but it'll help you see where some people are coming from. Personally, I don't care as long as the player is having fun. There is a certain amount of satisfaction on creating a nifty build, especially if you like math and finding new synergies.
weepingminotaur 04-28-08, 12:47 PM	Why do people assume that a DM expressing a preference, any preference, about the campaign he's running is somehow unacceptable? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the DM is not the players' slave. Who would DM if it were such a tiring, unexciting slog in which he is simply reduced to a rules machine with no ability to inflect the campaign with his interests, preferences, and tastes (e.g. low magic)? Fact is, the DM works a lot harder than any single player at making the campaign go, and as such he is entitled to a greater level of control over what is and isn't allowed in his campaign. He is obliged, obviously, to be fair with his players, and to avoid abusing his power, but that power has been and always will be his to wield. If you don't like the low-magic campaign the DM is running, nobody is forcing you to play in it. Having an idea of how one's campaign should be run does not make you a power-tripping egomaniac. It does make you more than a rules-adjudicating beast of burden, which I suppose may be unpalatable to players more used to dealing with AIs than a live person who put a helluva lot of time and energy into the campaign they are so quick to ridicule and dismiss.
navar100 04-28-08, 02:02 PM	So glad you picked up on the sarcasm in those particular reasons. Sarcasm has an element of truth to it. If they were sarcasm they were not needed in an otherwise serious post. Nevertheless, they are serious reasons as to why I don't like low magic campaigns. Adversarial DMs can exist in high magic games as well, but those DMs tend to boast about it. Low magic adversarial DMs pretend they aren't, claiming they just don't like munchkins.
navar100 04-28-08, 02:33 PM	Ah yes. Here is the post I was expecting: a long well thought out non-insulting post results in a short reply which ignores a lot of main points placed in it, and is insulting. Sunic, why are you so threatened by how other people play the game? See, I prefer to PLAY, not DM, in a low magic, low power setting. I like it. I enjoy the oppertunity. I find high magic games, high power games, to be nothing more then ego stroking festivals for the players. Using 3d6, in order, BEFORE I choose my 20 level character build, is how I prefer to play. I don't want PRCs, I sure as heck don't want to have my 20 levels fully mapped out before I start play. "Oh yay! I have all 20 levels mapped! I win the internets!" - What the heck is the point? There is no wonder left about my character. I have no idea what he will be doing, because.. he hasn't made it there yet! I always start at level 1 too. I don't like games that start at level 18. Again, what the heck is the point? My characters match the campaign world too. You tell me that the world is an African setting, I won't produce a tiefling half dragon warlock 4/thief 2/<insert OMG PRC here> 5/<insert whatever here> 9 and go "Here is my awesomesauce build!" Instead this is what I'll offer: "My character is a cleric of the <x> tribe (where X is given to me by the DM). He primarily uses a throwing club and large shield, but is very proficient in the sling as well. His stats are 10, 7, 7, 9, 13, 10 (I rolled these stats just now before I started this post). He wears a red sash and toga like outfit, with a leather belt. His holy symbol is a bone totem attached to a cord made out of grass." Now this is a character I actually want to play right now! I didn't even know this was going to occur before I made it, but that wisdom score obviously suggests a cleric. And this is it for me, as a PLAYER, that the character exists before I even get there... I'm not playing a set of stats, I'm playing a unique person with faults, who rises up and stands up to challanges to become a hero. Maybe my new cleric here will one day save his people from an evil tribe, or bring back the rains, or herd animals, or any other situation the DM wants to insert. Now, as a DM, if I put a lot of work into crafting a world (such as my current campaign setting) for my players enjoyments, and I'm up to almost a full year of design and development (which is the case) and someone shows up and says "oh sweet... but I want to do x, y, and z." You'll have to forgive me if I think that they are out to railroad me, the DM. This game is not just about the players. The DM has to be happy with the campaign as well. You can't just walk into the DM's home, and game, and be like "Okay your game is stupid for all these reasons I know cause I'm so awesomesauce. So we're doing X now." Doesn't work that way. If the DM says he is happier with a type of game he is not necessarily a jerk... maybe he is just tired of power hungry players always wrecking his games, and watching his games desolve into ******* contests between optimizers. Heck I have three DMs I usually game with, thank GOD none of them allow most of what 3.x allows. See, thats the problem: railroading works both ways, and in 3.x, it favors the players. This is a cooperative game between PCs and DM. If your DM is railroading you unless you are the Defender of PC Freedom at the table, then you have to get a new DM. I've never had the problems you describe and thank god for that. If you're ever in New Hampshire you should sit in on one of our games, cause seriously, I think it would open your eyes to what goes on in these games when you have a good DM and a good set of players. Of course, reading these boards, it is no wonder you are the way you are: DMs and Players seem to have lost a lot of the cooperative spirit of the game in favor of insanity. Rosisha Game mechanics mean something. They are as much part of the game as the roleplay. You don't get brownie points for being willing to play a cleric with 10, 7, 7, 9, 13, 10. Good for you you'd have fun with it, but it sucks. He's -2 to initiative and AC. He has -2 hit points per level. He has only 1 skill point per level, bumped to 2 for being human. His fortitude save is poor, and his reflex save bites the big one. For this character to survive the DM would have to dumb-down the combat encounters so that an opponent dealing 2 points of damage is a major threat. All combat is a risk of character death, but it's no fun for every single attack to be if you're hit you're dead. Having an 18 does not equate to players lacking in cooperation or roleplaying a good character story. A character does not require an 18, but it's not a sin if he happens to have one.
Mock26 04-28-08, 03:01 PM	I highlighted the reasons I precisely do not like low magic games. I have often found that when a DM does run a low magic game, he hates his players. I don't mean literally "hates" his players, but rather is a control freak and doesn't want player characters to be able to do nifty things. He's adversarial, playing against the players instead of with them. Only he has "power". But that is pretty much only true when the DM does NOT play by the same "rules" (or restrictions, if you prefer) as the players. A DM who only limits the PC's to low levels of magic is NOT running a low magic campaign. I don't know what type of a campaign you would call it (one-sided power campaign? bad campaign?) but it is most definitely NOT a low magic campaign. In order for it to be a low magic campaign ALL inhabitants of the world have to abide by the same "rules." And, the type of DM you described will act the same way regardless of the magic level of the campaign. In my opinion the term "bad DM" trumps all other classifications for a game, be it high magic, low magic, optimized, power game, etc. If you are in a low magic game and have a bad DM then chances are it isn't the low magic that is adversely affecting your enjoyment of the game, but rather it is the bad DM.
The Great Alchemist 04-28-08, 03:01 PM	I've run and played in numerous low magic campaigns and I've never encountered anybody (nor myself) that sees low magic as a way to beat players or somehow punish them or bully them in any way. Any DM can easily bully players without low magic - the world is the DM's oyster and he can have legions of magic immune gods attack a party and kill them all despite what ever magic items they might have. Nor have I ever encountered anybody who thought that low magic was better for balance or chose it solely because it prevented players from being munchkins. No, people choose to play low magic games for thematic reasons. Because people actually like magic. And a high magic game is a game with no magic at all in my opinion. Its a game where wonder is cheap and the standard tropes that make fantasy an interesting genre melt away before the piles of magic items. High magic ruins medieval cultural flavor. Not necessarily just medieval flavor, but ancient flavor, Renaissance flavor, oriental flavor, fantasy flavor, etc. In a high magic world why do peasants need to work fields when magical servants can, or when priests can just make food. Why do knights train to fight when a mage can level an army with a single spell. It turns any setting into science fiction pulp, that turns me off and lots of other people too. High magic also cheapens magic. How special would Excalibur be if King Arthur bought it at the local magic store after selling them his +3 flaming sword? How special would Gandalf be if he was just one of numerous high levels wizards in a big city who worked for the king making flying carpets for the king's messengers? How would the story of Orpheus differ if the local temple was willing to cast Raise Dead? How scary are things that go bump in the night when there are magic streetlights on every block and the head of the town guards is a 20th level Paladin with more magic items then the DMG? Really, its as hard to tell a traditional fantasy tale in a high magic setting as it is to tell one in the modern era or in science fiction. Also, regarding the Stormwind Fallacy - it is possible to be a good role player and be into optimization. But there certainly doesn't seem to be a correlation (if not causation) between being heavily obsessed with optimization and not being as interested in role playing. It does seem that often optimization discussions dominate many forums where discussion of role playing or background issues is shocking rare. Is it possible that a weird combination of several different classes and prestige classes along with 20 levels worth of feats planned out from level one is done for thematic reasons instead of optimization alone? Yes. Is it very likely? NO. It doesn't help matters that virtually every prestige class seems based on a very generic, very high magic setting that doesn't lend itself to down to earth games. Back in 2nd edition they did have lots of splats - kits where you could make your wizard a savage wizard, or an Amazon wizard, or an arctic wizard. But the kits were much more thematic than crunchy - they were based much more around the idea of what their character was a few little tweaks of rules here and there. The old Fighter's Guide, Wizard's Guide, etc. were filled mostly with concepts and ideas, not feats and packages of special abilities. Sure, these things may have laid the ground work for the endless prestige classes and lists of feats we have now, but there was certainly a big difference. Though I do like 3rd edition. I like feats and think there really are good for customization. But I think that the option to customize and optimize has lead to an obsession with it that has gone way out of hand.
Sunic_Flames 04-28-08, 03:04 PM	Ah yes. Here is the post I was expecting: a long well thought out non-insulting post results in a short reply which ignores a lot of main points placed in it, and is insulting. The only insulting part was you used the objective term Powergamer so drastically out of context you might as well have called fire cold. I then went on to say that I'd be inclined to not take it seriously at all, except the time and effort invested in it makes it fairly clear it is not a joke. Sunic, why are you so threatened by how other people play the game? When people spread misinformation, I crack down on it. This goes back to drastically misusing the term 'powergamer'. "Oh yay! I have all 20 levels mapped! I win the internets!" - What the heck is the point? There is no wonder left about my character. I have no idea what he will be doing, because.. he hasn't made it there yet! I always start at level 1 too. I don't like games that start at level 18. Again, what the heck is the point? Is this in response to me? Because I don't recall having said it. My characters match the campaign world too. You tell me that the world is an African setting, I won't produce a tiefling half dragon warlock 4/thief 2/<insert OMG PRC here> 5/<insert whatever here> 9 and go "Here is my awesomesauce build!" Ah, a chain of completely random classes and templates passed off as awesome, when it really sucks horribly. As for the underlying point, see last comment. Instead this is what I'll offer: "My character is a cleric of the <x> tribe (where X is given to me by the DM). He primarily uses a throwing club and large shield, but is very proficient in the sling as well. His stats are 10, 7, 7, 9, 13, 10 (I rolled these stats just now before I started this post). He wears a red sash and toga like outfit, with a leather belt. His holy symbol is a bone totem attached to a cord made out of grass." Now this is a character I actually want to play right now! I didn't even know this was going to occur before I made it, but that wisdom score obviously suggests a cleric. And this is it for me, as a PLAYER, that the character exists before I even get there... I'm not playing a set of stats, I'm playing a unique person with faults, who rises up and stands up to challanges to become a hero. Maybe my new cleric here will one day save his people from an evil tribe, or bring back the rains, or herd animals, or any other situation the DM wants to insert. I think that lovely 7 Con will ensure he gets eaten by a wild animal, but I digress. Corpses make terrible roleplayers. Now, as a DM, if I put a lot of work into crafting a world (such as my current campaign setting) for my players enjoyments, and I'm up to almost a full year of design and development (which is the case) and someone shows up and says "oh sweet... but I want to do x, y, and z." You'll have to forgive me if I think that they are out to railroad me, the DM. Suppose they are. But I don't do that, I pick a DM that suits my needs without adaption. So the point is moot in this debate. This game is not just about the players. The DM has to be happy with the campaign as well. You can't just walk into the DM's home, and game, and be like "Okay your game is stupid for all these reasons I know cause I'm so awesomesauce. So we're doing X now." Doesn't work that way. If the DM says he is happier with a type of game he is not necessarily a jerk... maybe he is just tired of power hungry players always wrecking his games, and watching his games desolve into ******* contests between optimizers. Heck I have three DMs I usually game with, thank GOD none of them allow most of what 3.x allows. See above. See, thats the problem: railroading works both ways, and in 3.x, it favors the players. This is a cooperative game between PCs and DM. If your DM is railroading you unless you are the Defender of PC Freedom at the table, then you have to get a new DM. I've never had the problems you describe and thank god for that. If you're ever in New Hampshire you should sit in on one of our games, cause seriously, I think it would open your eyes to what goes on in these games when you have a good DM and a good set of players. Of course, reading these boards, it is no wonder you are the way you are: DMs and Players seem to have lost a lot of the cooperative spirit of the game in favor of insanity. Rosisha Nowhere near that, already aware of what happens when everyone at the table is good at what they do. Sunic, I totally disagree with you here. Absolutely. Railroading, first of all, is not necessarily a sign of a DM power-tripping. Most cases, it is...but not all. You cannot tell me you haven't in some way railroaded a plot through, and if you tell me that, I'm rolling a Sense Motive against your Bluff check. Because we all at some point do it. Even experienced DMs do it - the difference is, we railroad our PCs but still give them the illusion they have choice in the matter - regardless of whether our BBEG shows up to challenge them if they do X or they do Y...the confrontation is inevitable. That qualifies as railroading - when you take the options away from the PCs or their choices make no difference in the end - just because they aren't aware of it doesn't change the fact. I should have specified in a major way. Such as the DM informing the party of level 5s a small army is waiting to capture them, they have no chance to beat a level 15 wizard, a level 12 templated bodyguard, a level 10 second in command, and a few hundred level 1-3 Fighters with some Fighter 5s commanding units and therefore recommends simply roleplaying out getting knocked out, losing all gear, being tortured, beaten, broken etc. Oh and they somehow have bracelets that prevent all spell and SLA use, which everyone is wearing. With that said I still don't do it nearly as often as some do, because I don't have The Big Plot already drawn out to shove them into. Your assumption to the motivations of most DMs of a low-magic campaign are, uncharacteristically, narrow. I run a low magic campaign not because I'm a power tripping ego maniac who wants to effectively neuter his players, but because of the non-sarcastic reasons I listed previously. I doubt Etarnon falls into the boat either. He can correct me if I'm wrong. But I am willing to bet that most are more like myself or Etarnon, rather than your knee-jerk power mad reactionaries. Meaning thinking the present edition works like the past ones, when it clearly does not. Living in the past and operating on false information isn't much of an improvement. By your reasoning, I could argue that most DMs who run a High-Magic campaign are simply blood-thirsty goons who want to toss harder and harder creatures at the PCs to justify that eventual TPK that they so desperately need to fulfill their role as DM by saying that the PCs should have been able to handle the problem, they had a lot of magic items. Which is NOT why DMs run high magic campaigns (at least not most DMs...I'm sure this motivation possibly covers some). Not really. High magic benefits the weakest classes the most. It's a balancing mechanism. Casters will be gods either way. This lets everyone else contribute somewhat. That argument is very shaky at best. I have seen questionable things done with high power campaigns, but that was more along the lines of making a level 15 gestalt game, all stats base 18, and oh yeah no powergaming. In other words it's not a flaw of high magic, or magic level at all. It's a flaw of a DM making no damn sense and contradicting himself. You want to know some of the benefits of my low magic campaigns? - The players become a more cohesive party because they have to rely on each other, rather than running off and doing the independant and oft-ill-fated reckless charge. Stupidity is independent of magic. - The players rely on skills, tactics and strategy a great deal more, so even if they lose their magic items, they aren't curled up like heroin-addicted PC wienies without their fix. Stupidity is independent of magic. And considering losing a mid power magic item is literally a fate worse than death... can you blame em? Try not sending Sundertards after them. That's about as adversial as it gets. - The players actually enjoy the challenges that much more. Unproven opinion. - The players have learned a valuable lesson which has spared them from more than one potential TPK - you can't defeat everything, so sometimes your only option is to run. Stupidity is independent of magic. - Magic items become that much cooler to them, and hence they appreciate it in game when they suddenly come across one. That's nice. Still doesn't change the fact the system demands it, and any other system would grant the same benefit without that drawback. - They tend to design and produce their own magic items specific to their needs. Independent of magic level. These are only some of the benefits - and to be honest, I wouldn't trade these for all the magic items in the D&D Megaverse. I'm not seeing this alleged benefits. Put another way... OBJECTION! :rofl: And to add to what navar said, it's not even a matter of 18s. It's about at least having an 'elite array' which means 15, as opposed to being yet another peon.
Johnathan_Vagabond 04-28-08, 03:14 PM	I enjoy low magic campaigns.
Mock26 04-28-08, 03:33 PM	I enjoy low magic campaigns. Careful, you're spreading misinformation! Some members of these forums do not enjoy low magic campaigns, therefore you are not allowed to enjoy them. :D
Sunic_Flames 04-28-08, 03:53 PM	Careful, you're spreading misinformation! Some members of these forums do not enjoy low magic campaigns, therefore you are not allowed to enjoy them. :D Hey! No warning the smite victims! :D For the dense: Both this post and the quoted one are tounge in cheek humor.
iserith 04-28-08, 04:09 PM	As I stated in a previous post (more or less), this discussion will never end until both sides stop generalizing. Optimizers aren't necessarily bad roleplayers. Low magic campaigns aren't necessarily representative of a dictatorial DM desperately grasping for make-believe power. This may be your experience - and I feel sorry for the lot of you - but it isn't true of every player or every game... just Sunic. (Just kidding, Sunic. You know I love you as a man can only love another man.) For those of you concerned with the "realism" of "high magic," please give us a break. Low magic isn't real either. No magic is real unless my science teachers lied to me when I was in school. Frankly, I don't put it past them - it was a public school. But if you really want to see how a lot of magic can exist alongside peasant farmers, check out Eberron. It might not sound like your cup of tea, but you can't deny that it works. You might even like it. I just like to play D&D. I've played in high magic settings, low magic settings, no magic settings, and everything in between. I've DMed all of those, too. It doesn't really matter what the setting is as long as the story is good, the DM does his homework, and the players suspend their disbelief and roleplay well.
StruckingFuggle 04-28-08, 04:35 PM	Why not? I mean, I find 3e to be a fun game that still has the style that I want in my roleplaying game. Am I able to play a low-magic game in it? Yes, perfectly, despite the feeling prevalent on these boards. Do we see the need to optimize? No, not at all. Do we enjoy playing? Yes, yes we do. So why not? I ... had an answer to that. I knew I was going somewhere, maybe even somewhere clever, with it... But I'll be buggered now if I can remember what it was. :( I find too much magic in a game kills off any cool that magic has, and gives the player who knows the names of the most spell too much chance to powergame. Balance through player incompetence, eh? :P "The wizard's not broken, because tue guy playing him doesn't know to do his job!"
Zuggster 04-28-08, 05:14 PM	One of the reasons players got used to needing a high base score, was one of the editions (1st and/or 2nd) gave an XP bonus for having a High Stat in your Prime Ability Score. So players that have been in the game long enough, got trained to have to have a high score. It isn't an element of 3rd ed in that regard. Needing High scores to make Skills useful is. But as I said, High Scores were engrained in us from prior edtions.
Kobajagrande 04-28-08, 05:26 PM	I ... had an answer to that. I knew I was going somewhere, maybe even somewhere clever, with it... Stealing my christmas?
StruckingFuggle 04-28-08, 05:30 PM	It wasn't some sort of brilliant "HA I R TEH WINNAR!" plan, to irrevocably show you to be WRONG (I don't think it exists. :p), it was more ... an interesting and neutral observation. Great, now it's going to bug me.
Kobajagrande 04-28-08, 05:39 PM	It wasn't some sort of brilliant "HA I R TEH WINNAR!" plan, to irrevocably show you to be WRONG (I don't think it exists. :p), it was more ... an interesting and neutral observation. Great, now it's going to bug me. I seriously wouldn't bother man. It seems we have different underlying assumptions of how the game should be played and thus our experiences with it differ. Better course of action in this debate would be determining the differentia specifica of the two "sides" to see what gives two fundamentally different experiences. You know. It is pointless to think one side is completely wrong. To do so would imply the other are blatantly lying. So instead of arguing how "my D&D is better than yours" more productive would be to understand where the other side is coming from.
Etarnon 04-28-08, 05:46 PM	I run a low magic campaign not because I'm "a power tripping ego maniac who wants to effectively neuter his players", but because: I think real life is difficult. Difficult choices. Dealing with difficult people, tough situations, random luck, fate, what have you. The girl you liked that didn't like you. The girl you liked that you messed up the approach, she wrote you off. The girl you liked, married, then found her shacked up with someone else, when you come back from deployment. The friend of yours that this happened to, bound and determined to blow her head off, convincing him, past his ego, to press on, and get a regular divorce. Real people, dramatic situations of love, loss, and life. To me, a character's life is full of challenge, of rigorous testing, to even survive. Combat, and social / political situations. Goblins at low level, Dragons at mid, demons and the forces of darkness or overlords at high levels, where your fate determines the fate of your nation. Low magic to me enhances this, simply because it's not solved by a +8 godslaying weapon, or some other tool. Toss a PC off a bridge into rushing, icy water, and it's dramatic. Give that same PC magic items to remove the effects of cold, and lack of air, and it's "A nice, leisurely swim to the shore." Toss a pc off a cliff, and a ring or spell of feather fall will hook him up, easy descent. Put a pc in darkness, no infravision, with hungry rats around, and a tinderbox, and / or flint and steel, and a club as a torch... that's one situation. A pc with a ring with a light spell, is a different, much easier one. I see magic as technology. Yes, it's easier with magic. But what about when it gets too easy? There's no drama, no feeling of epic struggle, to prove your mettle. In a low magic world, it's rare, and wondrous. Anyone that has it has an edge, and advantage, over others, even if slight. And in a low magic world NPCs should have the same restrictions by setting. I too, enjoy the challenge of a gritty game (no matter the system), where I am making desert survival skills rolls to make a solar still out of a plastic sheet (taken from the ship's shower curtain), and slices of alien cactus to get a few drops of water, because the ship crashed 6 light years from nowhere. I want to have the party medic use biology to determine if the snake-looking thing is safe to eat, and try to detoxify it or my poisoned comrade if it's not. I want to see a PC on the battlefield, surrounded my mines, dig a bullet out of his hapless buddy with a bayonet, and improvised stitches. Because when PCs do those things, they are what is best about humans. Those same people that (we now find out in the news) 70,000 years ago were nearly wiped out, down to 2,000 people planet-wide. They braved the glaciers, the ice sheets, earthquakes, volcanoes, Mammoths, Sabertooths, with, let's hear it for it's truth "A HANDMADE 1d6 SPEAR." Made out of a stick, and sinew and obsidian, or a flint. Ye gods. What courage did it take to just deal with that. What courage indeed. And no magic. Other than perhaps, if it can be said, Divination, or Clerical, perhaps herbalism. No Magical healing. Not a control freak DM. A DM that wants his players to be heroes, and at the end of the day, exhausted from battle, stand atop the windswept cliffs overlooking the valley, and say, This, we did, this was our story. Those we fought with, not many can do this thing we did today. Perhaps with magic. But not NEEDING magic to do it. To do it with Constitution, and Wisdom, and Strength, they were born with, as so many have done that in real life led us to this, this day, in 2008. These people gave us life. If I can make a world like that...I've done my job right. It doesn't have to have total realism. but it doesn't have to have a store with goods out of MIC Either, for the buying. I still love this thread, despite Captain Negative's recently dropping in. Thanks to all.
Zuggster 04-28-08, 06:18 PM	Personally, when I want to play low/no magic, I don't play D&D. And to the prior point of low/no magic in some historic tomes, think about it this way...... Lord of the Rings..... Gandalf had a Magic Sword, Magic Staff, An Enchanted Pipe, Cast Light, Summon Celestial Eagles (multiple times at the end of the movie), Protection from Missiles, Does numerous Bigby Hand spells with Saruman, An Opposed Dispel Magic with Saruman, rode on a magically enhanced steed. Sounds like he was tricked out some. Aragon, Gimli and Legolas all had magical weaponry and armor. Boromir also had a Horn of Taunting. The party was outfitted with Cloaks of Elvenkind, and the brooches I am sure were enchanted as well. The Hobbits all were fitted with magical swords (from the elves not Aragon) and Frodo had Sting, a named Sword, plus the suit of enchanted Mithril armor. Not to mention the Rope and other Misc items they received. They basically visited a Magic Shop when they visited Galadriel, but didn't have to pay for it. Not to mention the fact that Gandalf notably "leveled" which allowed him to best Saruman. The mere fact that all the items weren't glowing, doesn't mean they weren't outfitted to the gills with magical items. Even the Elven Bread was magical, as 1 loaf could feed a family (of anything but hobbits) for a week. I didn't even mention the existance of all the Magical Rings mentioned. I think its very easy to say LoTR was low magic, because they didn't use specific magical items (such as a bag of holding), but consider the hundreds of arrows Legolas shot from his 1 quiver. You don't think it wasn't a quiver of holding arrows? To the King Arthur needing to sell his Flaming Sword +3 when he got Excaliber, remember, when he pulled it from the stone, he was a lowly squire. So imagine giving the best, most magical Sword in the World, to a Level 1 Fighter. Thats the kind of magic in the world. Is that really a Low Magic world, when that happens? Just as a counter rant.
navar100 04-28-08, 06:34 PM	I run a low magic campaign not because I'm "a power tripping ego maniac who wants to effectively neuter his players", but because: I think real life is difficult. Difficult choices. Dealing with difficult people, tough situations, random luck, fate, what have you. The girl you liked that didn't like you. The girl you liked that you messed up the approach, she wrote you off. The girl you liked, married, then found her shacked up with someone else, when you come back from deployment. The friend of yours that this happened to, bound and determined to blow her head off, convincing him, past his ego, to press on, and get a regular divorce. Real people, dramatic situations of love, loss, and life. To me, a character's life is full of challenge, of rigorous testing, to even survive. Combat, and social / political situations. Goblins at low level, Dragons at mid, demons and the forces of darkness or overlords at high levels, where your fate determines the fate of your nation. Low magic to me enhances this, simply because it's not solved by a +8 godslaying weapon, or some other tool. Toss a PC off a bridge into rushing, icy water, and it's dramatic. Give that same PC magic items to remove the effects of cold, and lack of air, and it's "A nice, leisurely swim to the shore." Toss a pc off a cliff, and a ring or spell of feather fall will hook him up, easy descent. Put a pc in darkness, no infravision, with hungry rats around, and a tinderbox, and / or flint and steel, and a club as a torch... that's one situation. A pc with a ring with a light spell, is a different, much easier one. I see magic as technology. Yes, it's easier with magic. But what about when it gets too easy? There's no drama, no feeling of epic struggle, to prove your mettle. In a low magic world, it's rare, and wondrous. Anyone that has it has an edge, and advantage, over others, even if slight. And in a low magic world NPCs should have the same restrictions by setting. I too, enjoy the challenge of a gritty game (no matter the system), where I am making desert survival skills rolls to make a solar still out of a plastic sheet (taken from the ship's shower curtain), and slices of alien cactus to get a few drops of water, because the ship crashed 6 light years from nowhere. I want to have the party medic use biology to determine if the snake-looking thing is safe to eat, and try to detoxify it or my poisoned comrade if it's not. I want to see a PC on the battlefield, surrounded my mines, dig a bullet out of his hapless buddy with a bayonet, and improvised stitches. Because when PCs do those things, they are what is best about humans. Those same people that (we now find out in the news) 70,000 years ago were nearly wiped out, down to 2,000 people planet-wide. They braved the glaciers, the ice sheets, earthquakes, volcanoes, Mammoths, Sabertooths, with, let's hear it for it's truth "A HANDMADE 1d6 SPEAR." Made out of a stick, and sinew and obsidian, or a flint. Ye gods. What courage did it take to just deal with that. What courage indeed. And no magic. Other than perhaps, if it can be said, Divination, or Clerical, perhaps herbalism. No Magical healing. Not a control freak DM. A DM that wants his players to be heroes, and at the end of the day, exhausted from battle, stand atop the windswept cliffs overlooking the valley, and say, This, we did, this was our story. Those we fought with, not many can do this thing we did today. Perhaps with magic. But not NEEDING magic to do it. To do it with Constitution, and Wisdom, and Strength, they were born with, as so many have done that in real life led us to this, this day, in 2008. These people gave us life. If I can make a world like that...I've done my job right. It doesn't have to have total realism. but it doesn't have to have a store with goods out of MIC Either, for the buying. I still love this thread, despite Captain Negative's recently dropping in. Thanks to all. Fine. Real life is like this. Real life is one big feces-hole. D&D is a game, not a reality show. I play to have fun, not sort out the DM's angst against the world. I want to play where I can grab by sword, bash the bad guys, and save the world, not go begging to the DM to boost his ego for scraps, I mean make Diplomacy checks just to get a weapon and end up with a brick. There are no brownie points for playing dirt poor beggars either.
iserith 04-28-08, 06:54 PM	I want to play where I can grab by sword, bash the bad guys, and save the world. I did all that too - in a low magic setting. I did it in a high magic setting as well. I bet I could also do it in a no magic setting and still have fun. not go begging to the DM to boost his ego for scraps, I mean make Diplomacy checks just to get a weapon and end up with a brick. There are no brownie points for playing dirt poor beggars either. You can't possibly see any fun in living in a world where evil has basically won? Where if my character is seen with a weapon (much less selling one) he can be put to death on the spot by any orc constable that wanders by? Where to get things I need to survive (like food?), I have to brave the elements of a hostile world and work hard to develop relationships with others all the while trying to stay under the radar from the oppressive regime that controls the world? That was Midnight for our group. How about if I replace the words "things I need to survive..." with "things that blow other things up?" What's the difference really? You're still working to overcome challenges relative to your power level. But in a low magic world, you just can't overcome them with magic loot. That's all. In my old Dark Sun campaign, the players began as slaves, started a resistance movement that tied into to existing broups, staged a revolt, assisted others in the assassination of Dragon-King Kalak of Tyr, then in the ensuing chaos, killed their enemies (both slave and establishment) to consolidate their power and become players in the new order. They did it all with almost no magic and began to foment the seeds of democracy in other city-states. Garr the Brick became an underworld figure and a legendary one at that because nobody was going to mess with them after they saw what he did to another slave with that brick. This doesn't sound entertaining to you at all? Not one bit?
Etarnon 04-28-08, 07:46 PM	Well, I liked the Brick idea. That's quite a concept. I thought that was Truly Cool (TM).
Mock26 04-28-08, 09:18 PM	Lord of the Rings..... ...snip... You appear to be basing your viewpoints of the Lord of the Rings on the movies. There were very, very, very few magic items in Tolkien's world. All of the rings were magical. The cloaks may or may not be magical in nature, though it is strongly hinted that the were not magical, merely made by craftsman who literally had thousands upon thousands of years of experience behind them (remember that Galaldriel is something like 10,000-12,000 years old). Beyond that there is virtually no mention of magic items within Tolkien's world.
danielinthewolvesden 04-28-08, 09:18 PM	You want to know some of the benefits of my low magic campaigns? - The players become a more cohesive party because they have to rely on each other, rather than running off and doing the independant and oft-ill-fated reckless charge. - The players rely on skills, tactics and strategy a great deal more, so even if they lose their magic items, they aren't curled up like heroin-addicted PC wienies without their fix. - The players actually enjoy the challenges that much more. - The players have learned a valuable lesson which has spared them from more than one potential TPK - you can't defeat everything, so sometimes your only option is to run. - Magic items become that much cooler to them, and hence they appreciate it in game when they suddenly come across one. - They tend to design and produce their own magic items specific to their needs. Only one of those are a benefit of a LOW Magic Campaign. The rest are benefits of a Low POWER campaign. Not the same at all. I am playing in a rather high powered Iron Heroes game. The players become a more cohesive party because they have to rely on each other, rather than running off and doing the independant and oft-ill-fated reckless charge.= Low power - The players rely on skills, tactics and strategy a great deal more, so even if they lose their magic items, they aren't curled up like heroin-addicted PC wienies without their fix.=Low power - The players actually enjoy the challenges that much more.Low power - The players have learned a valuable lesson which has spared them from more than one potential TPK - you can't defeat everything, so sometimes your only option is to run.=Low power - Magic items become that much cooler to them, and hence they appreciate it in game when they suddenly come across one.= Low magic. But agan, you have the fallacy of thinking your players enjoy your game because it is LM, not because it is well run. I have played in a VERY enjoyable Tunnels & Trolls game, about the most stupid system there is-all because of a great DM. How do you know that your players would not enjoy your good DMing combined with a moderate level of magic even MORE? weepingminotaur "Why do people assume that a DM expressing a preference, any preference, about the campaign he's running is somehow unacceptable? " It isn't. I have said may times that D&D is a game and all should enjoy it. But that's *ALL*. Why not consult your players? Note folks, we have many DMs here saying they like to RUN LM games. No players (or maybe Johnathan_Vagabond?) saying they enjoy playing in one. Think about it.
danielinthewolvesden 04-28-08, 09:25 PM	You appear to be basing your viewpoints of the Lord of the Rings on the movies. There were very, very, very few magic items in Tolkien's world. All of the rings were magical. The cloaks may or may not be magical in nature, though it is strongly hinted that the were not magical, merely made by craftsman who literally had thousands upon thousands of years of experience behind them (remember that Galaldriel is something like 10,000-12,000 years old). Beyond that there is virtually no mention of magic items within Tolkien's world. No, no magic to speak of. :P Just 2 or three high level relic/artifact swords (Sting, Galmdring, Aragons re-foreged sword), 3 powerful bane daggers, a cloak for each, a unbreakable bowstring, magic clasps, magic? rope, magic dirt- and maybe Aragons ring, fillet/circlet and cloak clasp Then there's the Seeing Stones (Relics or artifacts). Elendils Spear, the Wizard's staffs. Oh and the Phial of Galadrial. Add to that the two super-powerful greater artifact rings the Fellowship were toting, and you have a party equiped with loot FAR FAR beyond the tables from Pgae 135 of the DMG. :cool: Ah wiki has the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamdring#Glamdring * Aeglos: Snow Point[1] (Sindarin) Also: Aiglos The spear that belonged to Gil-galad, king of the Noldorin Elves, who was slain during the War of the Last Alliance. The fate of Aeglos after the death of Gil-galad is unknown.[2] * Andśril: Flame of the West[3] (Quenya)) See also: Narsil The name of the sword reforged from the shards of Narsil in T.A. 3019 for the heir of Isildur, Aragorn. He carried the sword during his journey south as part of the Fellowship of the Ring and it featured prominently at several points in the story, where it was sometimes referred to as the Sword that was Broken. Narsil (broken and reforged) acts as a symbol of the kingship of Arnor and Gondor.[4] * Anglachel: Iron of the Flaming Star (speculation[5]) (Sindarin) See also: Gurthang A sword forged by Eöl the Dark Elf. It was one of two swords Eöl forged out of a black meteorite: the other, Anguirel, he kept for himself. Eöl gave this sword to Thingol as payment for staying in his forest, Nan Elmoth. Thingol gave the sword to his subject Beleg. While Beleg was unbinding the unconscious Tśrin, the sword cut Tśrin, Tśrin then woke, and, not knowing Beleg in the dark, grabbed Anglachel and killed him. Tśrin was then given the sword by Gwindor, where it was reforged and renamed Gurthang.[6] * Anguirel: Iron of the Burning Star (speculation[7]) (Sindarin), or: Iron of the Living Star — ang (iron) + cuir (living) + el (star); compare Angrist, ang (iron) + crist (cleaver, sword) where c > g > ų.[8] One of the two swords forged by Eöl the Dark Elf from an iron meteorite. The other, Anglachel, he gave to Thingol for leave to dwell in Nan Elmoth, but Anguirel he kept for himself. It was later stolen from Eöl by his son Maeglin, when he and his mother Aredhel fled Nan Elmoth for Gondolin.[9] * Angrist: Iron-cleaver[10] (Sindarin) A knife made by the great weaponsmith Telchar of Nogrod, and borne by Curufin. Beren, who had taken it from Curufin, used it to cut a magical Silmaril out of Morgoth's Iron Crown; as Beren attempted to remove a second enchanted jewel the knife broke and a shard cut Morgoth.[11] * Aranrśth: King's Ire[12] (Sindarin) A sword that belonged to Elu Thingol, King of Doriath and High King of the Sindar. It eventually passed into the hands of the Kings of Nśmenor, as an heirloom, and was eventually lost with Ar-Pharazōn, who was entombed on the shores of Aman.[13] * Barrow-blades: Daggers or short swords forged in Arnor by the Dśnedain in the middle of the Third Age. They are described as "long, leaf-shaped daggers damasked with serpent-forms in red and gold" inside black sheaths "wrought of some strange metal, light and strong, and set with many fiery stones" [14], with characters inscribed on the blades. Even though the blades had lain inside a barrow for centuries, they were unrusted; this was either because of some virtue in the sheaths or the spell that lay on the mound [15]. The blades are also said to be "wound with spells for the bane of Mordor" [16]. The Barrow-blades are found by the Hobbits in the barrow of a barrow-wight and given to them by Tom Bombadil. Frodo's sword breaks in the confrontation with the Witch-king at the fords of Rivendell (The Fellowship of the Ring , page 286). Sting was later given to him by his Uncle Bilbo at Rivendell. Sam, Merry and Pippin keep their swords. When Merry and Pippin are captured by the Uruk-hai, Aragorn guessed that they were probably despoiled by the Orcs save for the blades, as they feared to keep them, for the reasons mentioned above [17]. Uglśk, the leader of the Uruk-hai band was said to have took the swords but "threw the things away as if they burned him" [18] though whether this was merely a poetic description of the fear of the blade as mentioned by Aragorn or the magic within it that caused this was unknown. Sam's sword was captured and sent with Frodo's various belongings to the Dark Tower when Frodo was taken by Orcs at Cirith Ungol. The "proofs" (mithril mail, Sam's sword, elven cloak) of Frodo's capture were seized from the Mouth of Sauron, but whether Sam ever got his blade back is not told. Merry's Barrow-blade plays a major role in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields; this particular blade pierces the Witch-king's knee, crippling him and thus giving the outmatched Éowyn the chance to kill him. An alternative interpretation is that Merry's blade deals the fatal wound, as it was enchanted with magic specifically aimed at the head Nazgūl.[19] Pippin's sword was used by him to pledge fealty to Denethor, Steward of Gondor [20]. At the Battle of the Morannon, Pippin slew a great Troll-chief with it, saving his friend Beregond's life [21]. The sword's true name is not known, but during the Scouring of the Shire, Pippin called it "this troll's bane." * Black Arrow: An heirloom of the house of Girion passed down to Bard. It was his last arrow remaining when Smaug attacked Laketown and, directed by a thrush, he shot it into Smaug's left breast (a weak spot in the dragon's armour), killing him.[22] * Belthronding: Intractable Bow[23] (Sindarin/Ilkorin) A bow of black yew wood that belonged to Beleg Cśthalion. It was buried with him by Tśrin and Gwindor after the unintentional slaying of Beleg at the hands of Tśrin.[24] * Dagmor: Slayer of Darkness (speculation[25]) (Sindarin) A sword that belonged to Beren.[26] * Dailir: Meaning unknown An unerring, ever-returning arrow that belonged to Beleg Cśthalion. In the Lay of the Children of Hśrin, Dailir is described as "that feather-pinioned / snaketonguéd shaft".[27] * Dramborleg: Thudder-Sharp[28] (Sindarin) The great axe used by Tuor. After he sailed for the West, the axe was kept by his descendants and eventually became a royal heirloom of Nśmenor. It was lost in the Downfall of Nśmenor near the end of Second Age.[29] * Durin's Axe: A great heirloom of the Dwarves of Durin's folk. It was the axe of Durin I, the father of the Longbeard Dwarves. It remained in Khazad-dūm after it was deserted in T.A. 1981. In T.A. 2989 it was found again by Balin's expedition, and lost again in T.A. 2994 when the Dwarf-colony was destroyed.[30] * Glamdring: Foe-hammer[31] (Sindarin) A sword forged for the Elven King Turgon in the First Age. For several thousand years it went missing, until Gandalf (and company) found it (along with the knife Sting and the sword Orcrist) in a troll cave in The Hobbit and claimed it for himself. Like Orcrist and Sting, Glamdring glowed blue in the presence of Orcs (goblins). Glamdring, along with Orcrist, its mate, are described in The Hobbit as having "beautiful scabbards and jewelled hilts", and are inscribed with runes which Gandalf cannot read. However he immediately recognizes that "they are not made by any troll, nor by any smith among men in these parts and days." Later, Elrond of Rivendell deciphers the runes, and explains the swords' purpose and origin - crafted by the Elves of Gondolin for the "Goblin-wars". Elrond calls Glamdring "Foe-hammer that the king of Gondolin once wore". The Goblins call it "Beater". Gandalf continued to use Glamdring through the events of The Lord of the Rings. He most probably took the sword with him to the Undying Lands at the end of the Third Age.[32] In Unfinished Tales, one of the footnotes to the story "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin" mentions that the sword of Turgon was "…white and gold…in a ruel-bone (ivory) sheath,..." While Glamdring is not mentioned by name, it is reasonable to assume that the same sword is described, as this work was written well after The Hobbit, when Tolkien was consciously writing to reconcile his stories of the First Age with those contained in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. * Grond: Club[33] (Sindarin) (1) In the First Age, Grond was the great mace of Morgoth Bauglķr, the first Dark Lord, who wielded it when he fought with Fingolfin, High King of the Noldor. With every blow from the hammer that struck the ground, a crater was formed "from whence smoke and fire darted". Morgoth managed to kill the High King, but not without receiving seven wounds himself. (nine, if counting the foot and face). The mace was also known as the Hammer of the Underworld.[34] (2) During the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the name was used for a great battering ram. A hundred feet long with a head shaped like a snarling wolf, it was used in the siege of Minas Tirith. Aided by spells laid on it by the Witch-king[citation needed], and the spells cast upon it during its forging in Mordor, Grond destroyed the formidable gate of Minas Tirith in just three blows.[35] * Gurthang: Iron of Death[36] (Sindarin) See also: Anglachel The name of Anglachel after being reforged by the expert smithies at Nargothrond. It was renamed by Tśrin, who began to wield it after the death of Beleg. The orcs and elves called the weapon, and Tśrin, Mormegil, which means Black Sword. When Tśrin discovered that his wife Nķniel was in fact his sister and that she had killed herself, in despair he fell upon his sword. The fate of Gurthang after the death of Tśrin was that it was found broken under him and was laid in his mound beside him.[37] Gurthang was capable of speaking, at least to its wielder, and was apparently intelligent, able to resent the men unjustly slain at its edge by Tśrin. * Gśthwinė: Battle Friend[38] (Old English) A sword that belonged to Éomer. It was borne by him at the Battle of the Hornburg.[39] * Herugrim: Fierce Sword[40] (Old English) A sword that belonged to Théoden. He had entrusted the blade to Grķma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but Grķma hid it away and allowed it to rust. When Gandalf restored Théoden to power, the sword was renewed as well.[41] * Helm of Hador: A magical helm bore by the rulers of Dor-lómin. Also called the Dragon-helm due to its design. Tolkien describes the Helm in "Narn i Chīn Hśrin", found in Unfinished Tales: That helm was made of grey steel adorned with gold, and on it were graven runes of victory. A power was in it that guarded any who wore it from wound or death, for the sword that hewed it was broken, and the dart that smote it sprang aside. It had a visor (after the manner of those that the Dwarves used in their forges for the shielding of their eyes), and the face of one that wore it struck fear into the hearts of all beholders, but was itself guarded from dart and fire. Upon its crest was set in defiance a gilded image of the head of Glaurung the dragon; for it had been made soon after he first issued from the gates of Morgoth. It was forged by the Dwarf Telchar of Nogrod, originally made for Azaghāl, Lord of Belegost. Azaghāl gave the helm to Maedhros as "guerdon for the saving of his life and treasure" when he was ambushed by orcs. Maedhros gave it as gift to Fingon in remembrance of his defeat of Glaurung (at his first appearance). No Elf under Fingon could be found strong enough to bear the helm, so Fingon gave it to Hador when he received the lordship of Dor-lómin. Hador was strong enough to wear the helm comfortably, and often wore it in battle. Hador was slain in the Dagor Bragollach along with his son Gundor; it is not clear whether he was wearing the helm at that time. Hador’s son Galdor the Tall wore the helm also, but Galdor was slain by an arrow during an attack on Eithel Sirion when not wearing the helm. Hśrin, son of Galdor, did not use the helm. He was of lesser stature than his fathers and did not wear it comfortably, and he preferred to look on his enemies with his own eyes. Thus the Helm remained in Dor-lómin when Hśrin went to the Unnumbered Tears and was captured by Morgoth. Morwen, Hśrin’s wife, sent the Helm to Tśrin, Hśrin’s son in Doriath and he eventually began to use it in war at various times. After the death of Tśrin the helm’s fate is not clear; it seems to have been left on Amon Rūdh. * Mithril-shirt Main article: Mithril#The mithril-coat A shirt of mail (armour) forged from mithril given by Thorin Oakenshield to Bilbo Baggins. Bilbo gave it in turn to his kinsman Frodo Baggins, and it saved him from harm several times. It came with a small helm, but that was apparently lost by Bilbo. * Morgul-blade: A magical poisoned dagger used by the Nazgūl. At Weathertop, during his journey to Rivendell with the One Ring, the Hobbit Frodo Baggins was stabbed with a Morgul-blade by the Witch-king. A fragment of the blade remained within the wound, working its way toward his heart and threatening to turn Frodo into a wraith. Elrond was able to remove the shard and heal the wound, but each year on the anniversary of his stabbing Frodo became seriously ill. Only his eventual departure to Eldamar offered a permanent cure. Athelas (or kingsfoil) is known to slow the poisonous effect of Morgul-blades. Another victim of a Morgul-blade was Boromir, the eleventh Steward of Gondor (not the Boromir of Frodo's company). He eventually died of his wound but did not become a wraith.[42] * Narsil: The name contains the elements nar "fire" and thil "white light" thus Red and White Flame[43] (Sindarin) See also: Andśril The sword of King Elendil of the Dśnedain. It was forged during the First Age by the Dwarf Telchar, making it a cousin to the blade Angrist which cut a Silmaril from the crown of Morgoth. Elendil used Narsil in the Siege of Barad-dūr and, being slain in combat with Sauron, fell over it and broke it. His son Isildur took it up and used the broken sword to cut the One Ring from the hand of Sauron. After Isildur was killed in T.A. 2, the shards were rescued by Ohtar, esquire of Isildur. The Shards of Narsil were one of the heirlooms of the Kings of Arnor, and after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed they remained an heirloom of the Rangers of the North, although it was not reforged until the War of the Ring.[44] * Orcrist: Goblin-cleaver[45] (Sindarin) A noted sword of the Dwarf-lord Thorin Oakenshield from The Hobbit. Like the knife Sting and the sword Glamdring, it was crafted by the Elves of Gondolin for use against the forces of Morgoth in the "Goblin-wars" (i.e. the War of the Jewels). These blades could detect the presence of Goblins by glowing blue. The Goblins called the sword "Biter". It is discovered together with Sting and Glamdring by Thorin's party in a Troll-hoard. It is confiscated from Thorin by Wood-elves when he is captured in Mirkwood. Thorin uses an axe instead in the Battle of Five Armies, where he is mortally wounded. After his death Orcrist is placed upon Thorin's tomb, where, Tolkien writes, it "gleamed ever in the dark if foes approached".[46] * Red Arrow: An arrow used by Gondor to summon its allies in time of need. Its flights were black and its barbs were made of steel, and it took its name from a mark of red painted on the arrow's tip, standing for blood to show the situation was serious. The black flights resembled those found on the arrows of Orcs. First mention of the Red Arrow is when Borondir of Gondor and five other messengers rode north along Anduin to seek out Gondor's old allies, the Éothéod, when Gondor was being overrun by Easterlings, in T.A. 2509 Borondir was the only survivor, and presented the Red Arrow to the Éothéod King Eorl the Young. Later it became a summons for the Rohirrim. The Red Arrow was presented to Rohan by Hirgon in the War of the Ring, and Théoden King rode out with the Muster of Rohan to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.[47] * Ringil: Cold Star (speculation[48]) (Sindarin) The sword of Fingolfin, High-King of the Noldor. It bit with chilling cold, and glittered like ice.[49] Fingolfin wielded it to great effect against Morgoth, wounding him seven times and hewing Morgoth's right foot. However, Fingolfin was eventually slain by Morgoth.[50] * Sting: An Elvish knife made in Gondolin in the First Age. Sting was named and used as a sword by Bilbo, who found it in a troll-hoard together with the swords Glamdring and Orcrist. Although it was only a dagger by the standard of Men or Elves, it made a handy short sword for a hobbit. Bilbo named the blade after fighting giant spiders in Mirkwood. The spiders themselves referred to it as his "sting." The weapon glows blue in the presence of Orcs (goblins); this was a common property of First Age Elven blades, particularly those forged in Gondolin. Bilbo gave Sting to Frodo just before the Fellowship of the Ring sets off from Rivendell. When Frodo was betrayed at the pass of Cirith Ungol, Samwise Gamgee saved it from being captured, but later returned the weapon to Frodo. Gollum, who disliked anything made by Elves, was afraid of Sting. This fear helped Bilbo when he confronted Gollum under the Misty Mountains in The Hobbit. It also helped Frodo to tame Gollum temporarily in The Lord of the Rings. Sting was exceptionally sharp. Bilbo manages to thrust it without effort deep into a wooden beam at Rivendell. Frodo also wounds a troll in Moria, after Boromir strikes at it with his own sword to no avail. He also cuts Shelob's webs easily with it; they seem to melt at its touch, whereas Sam finds it nearly impossible to cut them with his Barrow-blade.[51] * The Witch-king's weapons: In The Fellowship of the Ring, the Lord of the Nazgūl wields a sword, as do the other Nazgūl, as well as the Morgul-blade with which he stabs Frodo. In The Return of the King, his sword bursts into flame (presumably at his will through sorcery) during his confrontation with Gandalf at the Gate of Minas Tirith. In his duel with Éowyn, he uses a mace" That's just the weapons.
Mock26 04-28-08, 09:32 PM	Note folks, we have many DMs here saying they like to RUN LM games. No players (or maybe Johnathan_Vagabond?) saying they enjoy playing in one. Think about it. Two things. First: I did in fact state in an earlier post that I enjoy both DMing and playing in the occasional low magic setting. Second: On these forums there seems to be a decided lack of people openly cross-posting on the Player's and DM's sections of these forums. I have noticed that people who post in both sections tend to don the appropriate hat when they step into either the Player's section or the DM's section and they tend to leave that hat on. I rarely see anyone in these forums in the Player's section posting as a DM and vice versa. Of course, most people don't come right out and say, "DM speaking as a player here...." but it seems to me that when posting in the player's section people post as players and vice versa.
StruckingFuggle 04-28-08, 09:45 PM	[Rant] I run a low magic campaign not because I'm "a power tripping ego maniac who wants to effectively neuter his players", but because: I think real life is difficult. Difficult choices. Dealing with difficult people, tough situations, random luck, fate, what have you. The girl you liked that didn't like you. The girl you liked that you messed up the approach, she wrote you off. The girl you liked, married, then found her shacked up with someone else, when you come back from deployment. The friend of yours that this happened to, bound and determined to blow her head off, convincing him, past his ego, to press on, and get a regular divorce. Real people, dramatic situations of love, loss, and life. To me, a character's life is full of challenge, of rigorous testing, to even survive. Combat, and social / political situations. Fine. Real life is like this. Real life is one big feces-hole. D&D is a game, not a reality show. I play to have fun, not sort out the DM's angst against the world. I want to play where I can grab by sword, bash the bad guys, and save the world, not go begging to the DM to boost his ego for scraps, I mean make Diplomacy checks just to get a weapon and end up with a brick. There are no brownie points for playing dirt poor beggars either. I think the issue that some of us - especially, it seems, me - have with some of these arguments is these things are not fundamentally tied to the presence of magic. You can have low magic light-hearted bashfests (... supposedly) and you can have a high-magic dramatic life-sucks crapfest where you're pressed for survival, and world that makes George R.R. Martin go "dude, that's rough", and still have it stuffed to the gills with magic. I think that's one problem other people than me have with Low Magic DMs - the (arrogant? uninformed?) assumption(?) - the idea that low magic has a stranglehold on difficulty or grit. It's annoying.
Mock26 04-28-08, 09:49 PM	The list that you linked to is NOT a list of magical items. It is a list of named items. Tolkien used named items to give a depth of history in his works and used them to tie the various ages together. The Spear of Gil-Galad is not mentioned as being magical. Narsil is not mentioned as being magical. Anglachel and Anguirel were crafted from the metal of a meteorite and are not mentioned as being magical. Angrist is not mentioned as being magical. Aranrśth is not mentioned as being magical. The blades found in the barrow downs are mentioned as being magical. The Black Arrow was not mentioned as being magical, just lucky. Belthronding is not mentioned as being magical. Dagmor is not mentioned as being magical. Dailir is not menioned as being magical. The "ever-returning" describes how Beleg always recovered it after he fired it. There is no mention that it magically returned to him. Dramborleg is not mentioned as being magical. Durin's axe is not mentioned as being magical. Glamdring is not mentioned as being magical but it does have the magic-like ability to glow in the presence of orcs. I take that to be a magical property. Grond (the mace) is not mentioned as being magical. It was, however, wielded by a god. Grone (the battering ram) was mentioned as being magical. Gurthang is not mentioned as being magical. Gśthwinė is not mentioned as being magical. Herugrim is not mentioned as being magical. Helm of Hador is not mentioned as being magical. Bilbo's/Frodo's Mithril-shirt is not mentioned as being magical. The Morgul-blade is mentioned as being magical. Narsil is not mentioned as being magical. Orcrist is not mentioned as being magical. The Red Arrow is not mentioned as being magical. (It is merely an arrow that is physically sent via messenger to allies to summon them to the aid of Gondor.) Ringil is not mentioned as being magical. Sting is mentioned as being magical. The Witch-king's weapons may or may not be magical. Some sources assume that the sword bursting into flame because of the being wielding it, a being that is a minor deity. As you can see, most of those weapons listed are not described as being magical in nature. Some of the items (such as the spear of Gil Galad) are sometimes perceived as being magical because they glowed with a light but a lot of people believe that that is the not from the weapon but a nature of those elves (the calaquendi) who had seen the light of the two trees. As for some of other items, the staves of the Istari may or may not be magical. They were wielded by beings of a divine nature (in essence minor deities) and it is hard to know how much power they truly have. The rings (the 1, the 3, the 7, and the 9) are magical. The doors of Khazad-dūm have magical runes on them, but the doors themselves are not mentioned as being magical in nature. While Pippin thinks that the cloaks given to them are magical, there is no mention that they are in fact magical. Remember that they were crafted by master craftsmen who have literally thousands of years of experience behind them. Galadriel herself was over 10,000 years old! The palantiri are magical. The phial of Galadriel appears to be magical in nature but it is not specifically mentioned as being magical (I consider it to be magical). The mirror of Galadriel may or may not be magical. Some scholars believe that it is the power of Galadriel that gives it the pereption of being magical. I admit that my use of the phrase "virtually no mention" was a poor choice of words. I was comparing it to D&D type fantasy worlds.
danielinthewolvesden 04-28-08, 09:55 PM	Sting, Glamdring, and Narsil are not described as being magical in nature. They are merely VERY old and of extremely high quality. The same is true of the blades recovered from the tomb of the barrow wights. There is no mention of an unbreakable bowstring in the Lord of the Rings trilogy of books. . Sting and Glamdring glowed magically. "These blades could detect the presence of Goblins by glowing blue." Sting could be thrut into an oak beam by the power of a aged hobbits arm. That's magic, even tho Tolkien did not say "they were+3 items with these qualities".:P Galadrial gave Legolas the bowstring. The barrow blades = "The blades are also said to be "wound with spells for the bane of Mordor" . "Wound with spells"= magic.
iserith 04-28-08, 10:00 PM	I think the issue that some of us - especially, it seems, me - have with some of these arguments is these things are not fundamentally tied to the presence of magic. You can have low magic light-hearted bashfests (... supposedly) and you can have a high-magic dramatic life-sucks crapfest where you're pressed for survival, and world that makes George R.R. Martin go "dude, that's rough", and still have it stuffed to the gills with magic. I think that's one problem other people than me have with Low Magic DMs - the (arrogant? uninformed?) assumption(?) - the idea that low magic has a stranglehold on difficulty or grit. It's annoying. There's no denying your argument. While I don't find it annoying per se, I do understand what these guys are talking about. However, if you're familiar with settings like Dark Sun and Midnight, you will know that a lot of the flavor and feel of the campaign is due to a lack of magic and the manner in which the society copes to deal with it. I would not consider either of these settings to be "low power" either. If you stuck Eberron's level of magic into Midnight, it would probably be interesting - maybe like a techno-fascist Big Brother kind of place - but it wouldn't be Midnight anymore.
weepingminotaur 04-28-08, 10:01 PM	weepingminotaur "Why do people assume that a DM expressing a preference, any preference, about the campaign he's running is somehow unacceptable? " It isn't. I have said may times that D&D is a game and all should enjoy it. But that's *ALL*. Why not consult your players? When I DM, it's my campaign. If I'm a good DM, I go out of my way to create a campaign that is suitable and enjoyable for my players. But that has to happen on MY terms. The amount of time and prep work I put into an adventure I DM dwarfs my players' prep time. My players understand this, are respectful of the time and energy it takes to DM, and as such, they acknowledge that -- point blank -- my vote counts for more, because I'm the one running the damn thing. And whenever I play in a friend's campaign, I give him (the DM) the same respect. If he's running a low-magic campaign, I am not going to pretend that I have some sort of inalienable right to talk him out of it simply because i happen to be one of his players. I'll accept his campaign and work with him to make my gaming experience enjoyable within the stated parameters. Good DMing is hard work, and quite frankly, that is hard work I'm not interested in performing if all I'm going to be is a slave to the whims and tastes of my players. If I despite running high-magic campaigns but all my players unequivocally want to play a high-magic campaign, then someone else will have to DM, because I sure as hell won't waste my time doing something I hate during what is supposed to be enjoyable hobby time. It's also worth noting that in my gaming circle, we have never had a situation where a player did not understand that the DM's vote counted for more.
Dash Branaghan 04-28-08, 10:07 PM	I'm not seeing this alleged benefits. Put another way... OBJECTION! :rofl: Overruled. :P With that said I still don't do it nearly as often as some do, because I don't have The Big Plot already drawn out to shove them into. The point is, you do it. And you know it. So hey, the next step down the road will be you running a low-magic campaign. Welcome aboard, my brother...it's a slippery slope. :D Not really. High magic benefits the weakest classes the most. It's a balancing mechanism. Casters will be gods either way. This lets everyone else contribute somewhat. Oh, you're going to have to go a long way to convince me of that. Adding magic items to an unbalanced system does not strike me as maintaining balance in any way, shape or form unless you're only tossing out magic items for the exclusive use of the weakest classes in the party, at which point your other players in your high magic campaign are going to be crying and whining because Joe Monk got the Bracers or Monkly Godhood complete with the Shuriken and Lajatang of Monkly Destruction and the boots of Monkly Ass-Kicking and they got nothing, or at best a +1 dagger because it maintains balance. *chuckle* Do you really think the mage in a high magic campaign is going to go "Well yeah, I realize I kick ass and take names, so key all your magic items to the wretches beneath me who simply helped me survive until such point as I could take over the world without their help?" You want to talk about railroading... Stupidity is independent of magic. No, stupidity can be independant of magic - huge difference. Many players with magic items tend to view their characters as that much more superior and are prone to do stupid things relying on their "magic" to save them. Seen it for many years, hell, done it myself (note: Kender with rings of 5% magic resistance against a Prismatic Wall...hey, I got the first four layers down...). Stupidity is independent of magic. And considering losing a mid power magic item is literally a fate worse than death... can you blame em? Try not sending Sundertards after them. That's about as adversial as it gets. Who said anything about Sundertards? What if the PCs, thinking they are Gods with magic items, take on a challenge they can't possibly beat, get captured, and have to settle for escaping with their lives and not their magic items? You show me a single campaign where the PCs walk away from their magic items without so much as a second thought or comment about it, high or low magic, and I'll give you a box of cookies - because invariably the PCs will sit outside that bandit camp or wherever and plot how they are going to sneak in and get their items back. And if they realize their current situation is hopeless, then they go off on a power seeking tangent so they can get the necessary gear to go back to that camp and get their stuff. You don't need to send sundertards after them to nerf them of magic - plot and/or PC consequences may dictate it (as a side note here, I run a free-style game, similar to yours from the sounds of it, so for me, it would be more a result of PC consequences than plot per se). That's nice. Still doesn't change the fact the system demands it, and any other system would grant the same benefit without that drawback. Ahhh...speaking of unproven opinions here - the system demands it? Have to say I disagree. Because in the end, a GOOD DM can run the game the way he chooses independant of what the system supposedly demands, make it work, and have fun doing it. And that is what counts. The DM has fun without feeling like he's toadying to a bunch of prima-donna players, the players have fun, and the game overall is a success. As I said earlier...objection overruled. :D Can't wait for your next set of great counterarguments...haven't had this much fun since I decided that low-magic campaigns were the way to go. :P
Dash Branaghan 04-28-08, 10:12 PM	Only one of those are a benefit of a LOW Magic Campaign. The rest are benefits of a Low POWER campaign. Interesting assessment, possibly correct. But tell me DITWD, how do you make a low power game in D&D? What is the actual difference between low power and low magic? I need a clarification before I can respond appropriately, if I can respond at all. But agan, you have the fallacy of thinking your players enjoy your game because it is LM, not because it is well run. I have played in a VERY enjoyable Tunnels & Trolls game, about the most stupid system there is-all because of a great DM. How do you know that your players would not enjoy your good DMing combined with a moderate level of magic even MORE? I would agree that I have that fallacy if my players didn't also run low magic campaigns subsequently...and two of them run games in FR. So based on that, I would argue that it isn't my DMing that makes the game enjoyable to them, but a combination at the very least of my DMing and Low Magic. Note folks, we have many DMs here saying they like to RUN LM games. No players (or maybe Johnathan_Vagabond?) saying they enjoy playing in one. Think about it. I can tell you right now that as a player, I prefer playing Low - No magic games. Unfortunately I rarely get to play because I'm primarily behind the screen.
ZorkFan 04-28-08, 10:33 PM	The thing is that - Low Magic or Low Power - the players having fun depends on the ability of all people to roleplay their characters and the fairness of the DM. If the players are underpowered, just weaken the encounters while leaving exp the same. As a DM I have run any combination of high/low-power/magic games you can think of, and it all comes down to reacting. Fighter playing against undead toting a metagamed holy, bane, disrupting mace of ownage into the crypt? Hope it helps against the graverobbers sporting invisibility/nondetection gear who hope to claim its treasures for themselves. First level Alaghi with 19 str/21 muscle specializing in punching getting two 2d6+10 fist attacks with natural AC 4 (equivalent of +6) and 26 HP (this is second edition) feling cocky and thinking hes going to wreck some level one face? Just imagine his surprise when the kingdom he is sent to happens to be a deeply racist society, or maybe the populice has been sitting on a psionic hotspot for years and even the lowliest peasant can mind thrust him into being stunned. On the other side, low-magic Joe getting shut down by the evil lord because he can't bypass the lord's magic defenses? Have the lord send him into the pits to fight for entertainment instead of killing him. Joe now has no *need* for magic items and gets a some time to level and power up before planning his escape for a second try. In other words, as long as players and DMs can react to eachother, any level of power is fine. EDIT: Low-magic and low-power are related, but not the same. Low-magic is less magical wealth than the DMG wealth table (or severely restricting what items may be purchased), and low-power is when characters are created to be less optimal than they could be taken to the extreme. Characters who accept flawed stats, suboptimal feats for flavor, or poor class choices are low-power. Low-magic can lead to low power if the characters were already average.
Mock26 04-28-08, 10:36 PM	Sting and Glamdring glowed magically. "These blades could detect the presence of Goblins by glowing blue." Sting could be thrut into an oak beam by the power of a aged hobbits arm. That's magic, even tho Tolkien did not say "they were+3 items with these qualities".:P Galadrial gave Legolas the bowstring. The barrow blades = "The blades are also said to be "wound with spells for the bane of Mordor" . "Wound with spells"= magic. I mispoke about the two blades and the barrow blades. As for Sting, being able to thrust it into an oak beam by an old hobbit is not definitely a magical property. Remember that it was crafted by some of the best craftsman that the world had ever seen. It could just be an incredibly high quality item. It was made by a craftsman who was basically immortal. As for the bowstring of Legolas, "To Legolas she gave a bow such as the Galadrin used, longer and stouter than the bows of Mirkwood, and strung with a string of elf-hair. With it went a quiver and arrows." It was not mentioned as being unbreakable.
Dragoncat 04-28-08, 10:45 PM	To each their own. I've never played a good low magic game, I'm sad to say. They might exist, but I have yet to see them. My experience, though, it limited, and so I can't say the small sample dictates the norm. So yes, I've seen an artifact handed to a 1st level party of nonmages and been told to protect it, I've been level 10 and my most expensive item was my masterwork shortsword from level 2, I've seen a single psion destroy a game because he had the audacity to know how to teleport. And it didn't feel more special, either. We just rested a lot, and shook our heads when an NPC caster danced around in glee. A good campaign, though, might exist in low magic, but it would require one thing; consistency. If the DM says low magic, and starts throwing mage guilds at the party(been there), or says low power and sends demonic hoards teleporting after the group(done that), it's a problem. If the DM is willing to tone down his NPCs in kind, as well as ensure the party is itself balanced, it might work. ..............And don't send the party halfway around the world through a portal when they don't have access to teleportation magic, and then "have the portal shut down after a sentient being passes through it." Especially when there's time sensitive missions going on. .....But I'm not bitter.
Dash Branaghan 04-28-08, 10:49 PM	EDIT: Low-magic and low-power are related, but not the same. Low-magic is less magical wealth than the DMG wealth table (or severely restricting what items may be purchased), and low-power is when characters are created to be less optimal than they could be taken to the extreme. Characters who accept flawed stats, suboptimal feats for flavor, or poor class choices are low-power. Low-magic can lead to low power if the characters were already average. Thanks Zorkfan - now, assuming this is what DITWD means... Daniel - I can tell you quite heartily that my games are not LOW POWER - the Players still optimize and have high powered stats rolls...but they are definitely low magic. So maybe in your experiences those results are from low-power, but not in my games. These are a result of being low magic. I will not, however, deny the possibility that a low-power campaign can have this effect too, and the fact that it isn't the cause of it in my game does not in any way change the validity of your argument.
Etarnon 04-29-08, 12:07 AM	I'll go on record here as saying I prefer playing in low magic, no magic games over those with high magic / superpowered, assuming equal DM skill for both. If there is a high magic game as the only one going, and I'm not in the mood to run my own, I'll play. But I'll play a character that tithes away 84% of the stuff he gets to a temple, usually. StruckingFuggle Wrote: I think that's one problem other people than me have with Low Magic DMs - the (arrogant? uninformed?) assumption(?) - the idea that low magic has a stranglehold on difficulty or grit. It's annoying. It doesn't have a stranglehold on difficulty. Difficulty is set by the DM. High magic games can be gritty, and difficult, if you make the challenges appropriate. So a low magic game has a dragon. A high magic game needs an army of dragons. I just prefer games with little to no magic items, typically skill focused, or a skill-based game design (As opposed to level based), which doesn't rely on Gear Inventory-as-character. But I think we've seen threads where DMs are running games for 15th level PCs with all the WBL trimmings and an army of dragons no longer suffices as a daily challenge. So the DMs post here, on these forums, and when they try to rein in the magic horse (too late), players used to it, accustomed to it, bail. For another DM who goes Monty Haul. Who hasn't seen this? I'll also say that there is a certain kind of DM that wants a low magic party in a moderate to high magic world, just to frustrate the players. So I know what people are talking about. I also know, there are many low magic games I've seen that work, and are fun, and enjoyable. I also agree, a low magic game has to be consistent with itself. Rare magic items, no bands of sorcerers. no artifacts, I've never said anything to the contrary. Iserith said it right, generalizations damage the whole issue. but people not hearing the evidence does too.
navar100 04-29-08, 12:12 AM	I think the issue that some of us - especially, it seems, me - have with some of these arguments is these things are not fundamentally tied to the presence of magic. You can have low magic light-hearted bashfests (... supposedly) and you can have a high-magic dramatic life-sucks crapfest where you're pressed for survival, and world that makes George R.R. Martin go "dude, that's rough", and still have it stuffed to the gills with magic. I think that's one problem other people than me have with Low Magic DMs - the (arrogant? uninformed?) assumption(?) - the idea that low magic has a stranglehold on difficulty or grit. It's annoying. That's my problem with low magic games. It's not the fact that it's low magic; it's the why the DM is running a low magic game. That makes all the difference. I've seen and read time and again that DMs who boast (my word) on running a low magic world do so precisely to rein in what they see as an overabundance of "player power", calling them "munchkins". They hate their players. It's not about the setting, trying to mimic Lord of the Rings or Conan or 90's tv Hercules, or talking with the players on what type of game they want. It's how dare players Teleport or Fly or deal 75 damage on a charge or be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day or multiclass fighter/cleric instead of playing a paladin and not even being Lawful Good. It's the DM's campaign, but it's the players' game too.
navar100 04-29-08, 12:19 AM	To each their own. I've never played a good low magic game, I'm sad to say. They might exist, but I have yet to see them. My experience, though, it limited, and so I can't say the small sample dictates the norm. So yes, I've seen an artifact handed to a 1st level party of nonmages and been told to protect it, I've been level 10 and my most expensive item was my masterwork shortsword from level 2, I've seen a single psion destroy a game because he had the audacity to know how to teleport. And it didn't feel more special, either. We just rested a lot, and shook our heads when an NPC caster danced around in glee. A good campaign, though, might exist in low magic, but it would require one thing; consistency. If the DM says low magic, and starts throwing mage guilds at the party(been there), or says low power and sends demonic hoards teleporting after the group(done that), it's a problem. If the DM is willing to tone down his NPCs in kind, as well as ensure the party is itself balanced, it might work. ..............And don't send the party halfway around the world through a portal when they don't have access to teleportation magic, and then "have the portal shut down after a sentient being passes through it." Especially when there's time sensitive missions going on. .....But I'm not bitter. I've seen this too, another aspect of a DM hating his players. Only NPCs get to do the cool stuff. It's why I don't like Iron Heroes. I accept it's purposely low magic. I agree the character classes are the bomb. However, it's not really low magic. Monsters can use all the magic they want without the drawback a player character would have if one still chose to play the spellcaster. The DM is free to do whatever he wants with magic for NPCs. The book pretty much tells him so because magic is not for mortals. It's not an equal fairness of rules.
Dash Branaghan 04-29-08, 12:23 AM	It's how dare players Teleport or Fly or deal 75 damage on a charge or be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day or multiclass fighter/cleric instead of playing a paladin and not even being Lawful Good. It's the DM's campaign, but it's the players' game too. And as Etarnon has pointed out, you will see far more messages on these boards from DMs who have overdone magic and that is the result and now they want to rein in their players. You criticize DMs who run low magic campaigns because of their reasons for it, yet you fail to even note that high-magic DMs often resort to sending in the Sundersauraus or Rust Monsters or high level thieves/bandits to compensate for their overdoing magic. Which to me is FAR more of an issue (at least one on these boards). I rarely if ever see DMs complaining about the problems they face running a low-no magic campaign - I do, however, see a great many DMs complaining about the end result of too much magic. In the end, it isn't the world - it's the DM. Whether it's low magic, no magic, or PCs gearing themselves up at the tree of Magical Goodliness and Never Ending Stock Supply, the DM makes the difference. Don't criticize the Low Magic because of certain DMs that run it - criticize the DMs. Because inversely the same can be said about high magic games.
navar100 04-29-08, 12:27 AM	I will say high magic games are no panacea either. They are not immune to having DMs who hate their players; it's just more obvious such a DM exists in a hypothetical game. Allowing the player characters to be Uberoverlord is their excuse for the NPCs to be Ultrauberoverlord and wipe the floor with them. Instead of controlling the party under their rule of omnipotence, they go for TPKs under their rule of life and death.
StruckingFuggle 04-29-08, 12:30 AM	If there is a high magic game as the only one going, and I'm not in the mood to run my own, I'll play. But I'll play a character that tithes away 84% of the stuff he gets to a temple, usually. And throw a lot more work onto the shoulders of your DM who needs to create weirdly skewed encounters so you can contribute? So a low magic game has a dragon. A high magic game needs an army of dragons. ... one or two should be sufficient. I just prefer games with little to no magic items, typically skill focused, or a skill-based game design (As opposed to level based), which doesn't rely on Gear Inventory-as-character. Can you phrase that in a way that doesn't make it sound like having many magic items means there's no focus on some sort of skill? (maybe I'm just reading it poorly) But I think we've seen threads where DMs are running games for 15th level PCs with all the WBL trimmings and an army of dragons no longer suffices as a daily challenge. Maybe the problem is with them being a 'bad' DM. Or just playing on too low a level, either willingly or by not knowing how to play more challengingly.
navar100 04-29-08, 12:31 AM	And as Etarnon has pointed out, you will see far more messages on these boards from DMs who have overdone magic and that is the result and now they want to rein in their players. You criticize DMs who run low magic campaigns because of their reasons for it, yet you fail to even note that high-magic DMs often resort to sending in the Sundersauraus or Rust Monsters or high level thieves/bandits to compensate for their overdoing magic. Which to me is FAR more of an issue (at least one on these boards). I rarely if ever see DMs complaining about the problems they face running a low-no magic campaign - I do, however, see a great many DMs complaining about the end result of too much magic. In the end, it isn't the world - it's the DM. Whether it's low magic, no magic, or PCs gearing themselves up at the tree of Magical Goodliness and Never Ending Stock Supply, the DM makes the difference. Don't criticize the Low Magic because of certain DMs that run it - criticize the DMs. Because inversely the same can be said about high magic games. That's fine, but then don't criticize high magic campaigns as saying players are not cooperative with each other, don't understand the value of retreating, and they care nothing of roleplaying.
Dash Branaghan 04-29-08, 12:37 AM	That's fine, but then don't criticize high magic campaigns as saying players are not cooperative with each other, don't understand the value of retreating, and they care nothing of roleplaying. Ah, but I'm not. I'm counterpointing all the nay-saying and poo-poohing of Low Magic campaigns by pointing out the logical inconsistencies used to decry it can just as readily apply to High Magic games (with the exception that I couch my arguments using modality, rather than making sweeping universal statements). I personally don't care if you run High Magic games - to each their own. But then again, my preference is the one being attacked here with rather specious reasoning and over-generalizations. And when I point out the by-products of the low magic campaigns I run, I never once said that these by-products were the exclusive hallmark of low-magic campaigns. But these are features that I find are far more present in Low Magic than high magic, and they also make the game a lot more fun for me and my players.
sblaxman 04-29-08, 12:41 AM	A good campaign, though, might exist in low magic, but it would require one thing; consistency. If the DM says low magic, and starts throwing mage guilds at the party(been there), or says low power and sends demonic hoards teleporting after the group(done that), it's a problem. I'm pretty sure you've got the problem w/ a bad DM, not a problem w/ low power :) Ok, I joined this thread late, been mostly derailed, but I'll try to answer the OP... I do prefer lower magic campaigns. I don't like no magic, I do like some mystery to exist in my games, but not high power arch mages around every corner. I'd say I aim at about 63.42% of the "default" level of magic. And "low magic" applied to all forms (arcane/divine/psionic) In my campaigns, low level (1-4) magic is not uncommon. There may be many casters in these ranges. However, it must be noted that most NPCs (even major ones) are in this range. A king is probably a lvl 0 commoner, just as is the farmer down the road. A warrior king that took the thrown by force, he'll have some class levels, but a king that inherited the thrown will not. Most priests at the temple are not divine casters, and those that are most likely are not high level. Level distribution typically takes the shape of a 1/x^2 curve. This said, a standard 3.x level magic campaign can be fun for sure. I prefer lower. I use alchemy for potions in place of magic, and allow for lower level creation of potions of magic nature. Some low power charms/items are not completely uncommon, but higher power items are rare, and treasures when found. Darksun and Dragonlance were two examples of low magic that I loved... in darksun, gods did not exist, instead clerics chose an element to worship, and had restricted spell lists, while arcane magic users were attacked on site and had to hide their magic. In DL, the gods left and abandoned the people (no clerics). Later they returned, but there are few clerics, and even less established churches. Magic users exist, but are feared and untrusted. As for railroading; creating a campaign and telling a player that his class choice is unavailable is not railroading. A DM who tells a player how to play, or what he can/must do... absolutely. A setting in which dragons do not exist, nor do celestials.. a player to is angered for not being able to play a 1/2 dragon 1/2 celestial can surely complain, but they cannot argue railroading, they can just complain that they do not like the setting (which can be a valid argument). I make no claim (nor I doubt does eteron or other LM posters), that everyone in the world will love my game. Anyone who does is a fool. I can only make the claim that players of a similar mind as myself will enjoy them.
runestar 04-29-08, 01:35 AM	A reason why I like higher magic settings is that magic items allow me to better customize my PC's abilities. Take for example the fighter. He is never going to be able to fly, or teleport, or cast spells, or heal by himself etc. Likewise, his class abilities aren't always very exciting, and at certain thresholds (most notably the dead lvs at lv5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and 19), I don't get anything when I lv up save for +1bab and some extra hp. Magic eq at least gives me something to look forward to. Wings of flying let me well, fly. MIC introduces a bucketload of cool new magic items like the belt of healing, belt of battle, amulet of heartseeking, bracers of counterstrike, as well as a host of new, exciting weapon and armour properties that lets my PC be more than just "I move and attack", by allowing me access to new, custom abilities. This is why I like the warblade so much. Tons of options. You may argue that in the end, my fighter is just relying too much on magic items and less so on his natural talents. For me, I don't care. I just want a fun-filled gaming session, so I am indifferent as to where my powers are derived from.:) This is why I am not really a fan of low magic settings. I know all too well the price I have to pay.
Dragoncat 04-29-08, 01:56 AM	I'm pretty sure you've got the problem w/ a bad DM, not a problem w/ low power :) Eh, not quite so much bad, as prone to occasional moments of "What the hell, man?" But I digress. I agree, though, that the best low-magic worlds have the theme built into the very fabric of the world. Dragonlance and Darksun are great examples. In the lovely little game called 7th Sea, for another, magic runs in noble bloodlines, varies based on region, and is usually persecuted, feared, or embraced by different peoples. It impacts the world in a more subtle way, and the sword and musket make equal if not greater effect. It's a different system, roll and keep, but the idea is the same. If you have a low magic world, it needs to run in the very veins of the campaign setting. Don't expect supernatural opponents and low magic PCs to mix. Not only is the power level disrupted, but the appearance of the eldritch contrasts the low magic setting if used too frequently. Etc. But I still prefer high magic. One word. Airships. :D
sblaxman 04-29-08, 02:22 AM	Gotcha. Don't know the details in 7th Sea, but for me (as a DM), consistancy is important. If a dm just says "low magic" and doesn't flesh out WHY, it's just as bad (to me) as a player who says I want x2/y5/z13 w/o a reason HOW. I don't think any of the low magic fans (the ones I know at least) are claiming high magic is bad, we just like low (as you like high). A lot of complaints of one thing or another (alignment/dmpc/etc) seem to all break down to bad (or at least not great) dms, who abuse/misuse the system, either out of neglegence, or (as we all can agree is wrong) selfish reasons. A good dm can run a dmpc, run alignment, run low magic, high magic, etc. Most of the time (I hope, but I'm an optimist), the problems stem from neglegence, the DM didn't think something through, had a memory lapse, or just plain old messed up. It happens, but when players claim any dm who enjoys/uses said method must be wrong, they are commiting the same error. (Dragoncat: obviously you don't fall in this catagory, this was just a general statement)
Etarnon 04-29-08, 02:27 AM	And throw a lot more work onto the shoulders of your DM who needs to create weirdly skewed encounters so you can contribute? I don't seek out games where it's all about combat-as-drama and plusses for the Optimization of personal power. I have played a paladin in a Birthright game, where the paladin started his own temple and a school for the blind, and mostly used his charisma to make trade deals, and alliances, and tithed it all away. Can you phrase that in a way that doesn't make it sound like having many magic items means there's no focus on some sort of skill? (maybe I'm just reading it poorly) Skill-Based game. Traveller. GURPS, Without using GURPS:Magic, as a plugin. No levels. Very few hit points increase as a character progresses. Challenges in a level based game, focusing on skills, such as diplomacy, Stealth, or Knowledge. Not "Wade in with list of feats and pluses conveyed from items" Maybe the problem is with them being a 'bad' DM. Or just playing on too low a level, either willingly or by not knowing how to play more challengingly. This is of course a possibility.
navar100 04-29-08, 02:38 AM	Dragonlance is not low magic. It has the Towers of High Sorcery. It now has Mystics. The Knights of Solamnia have magic power. Dragonlance is about Good is always getting screwed over. There's no point defeating the current Evil World Conquerer. The next one is right around the corner, and civilization is once again destroyed. Heck, not even the strongest Good deity is immune. The Neutral gods violate their own tenet. They now have one more god than the Goods or Evils. Now the cosmos is too Neutral, thus not balanced. Hypocrites. Dark Sun is not low magic. It's high psionics, which is "magic" in the low/high magic sense. It's also a life sucks so suffer game. To be Good is to be a wuss.
Mock26 04-29-08, 02:41 AM	Dragonlance is not low magic. It has the Towers of High Sorcery. It now has Mystics. The Knights of Solamnia have magic power. Dragonlance is about Good is always getting screwed over. There's no point defeating the current Evil World Conquerer. The next one is right around the corner, and civilization is once again destroyed. Heck, not even the strongest Good deity is immune. The Neutral gods violate their own tenet. They now have one more god than the Goods or Evils. Now the cosmos is too Neutral, thus not balanced. Hypocrites. Dark Sun is not low magic. It's high psionics, which is "magic" in the low/high magic sense. It's also a life sucks so suffer game. To be Good is to be a wuss. Please. Tell us how you really feel about these two game worlds. :D
Etarnon 04-29-08, 02:54 AM	Oh yes, many D&D players encountered have said "This will never work. I don't want to play this." I just suggest a different game. And the low magic was built into the world: The Land of Etarnon is a world with a long past, at least 15,000 years of history, or so the legends say. After aeons of time, and uncounted civilizations, the world approaches the end of its existence as the power of magic is flickering and fading. Much of the old knowledge has been lost, and tales are told of a Golden Age, when men had the power to control the very world itself. But something happened. And now the old knowledge is nearly all forgotten, except in fragmentary records left in abandoned and crumbling libraries, destroyed long ago, sundered beneath the waves in a catastrophe of epic proportions that virtually destroyed civilization in the distant past, leaving ruins and corrupted patches of landscape in its wake. Now, in the days of the Last of the Wizard-Kings, The few remaining Grey Sorcerers attempt to retrieve arcane spells from lost stores of knowledge, trying to piece together the history of the Ancient Hypernians that once ruled the Land. There are 8 of these guys. If you want magic you ask therm about it or where to find it or have it made. roughly one per country. Some countries have none. Magic is flickering on and off and has wild surges in most places so it is pretty much too dangerous to use, for the low level PC. Some have tried. One Gnome Chronomancer managed to do pretty well for himself. Most people play a fighter or a ranger type or some rogue type. Clerics and paladins also exist, but they are steadily losing against encroaching evil. Many of the temples have been wiped out, due to various causes. Also it rains a LOT, and is gloomy and depressing, as an overall theme. Halfway to a call of cthulhu depressing, without the madness or tentacled things. Lots of people tried it and hated it. Healing costs too much, or it's too deadly, or it's impossible to play D&D without raise dEad or Resurrection. Oh yes. No lie. people have loathed it in those exact words. But many have praised it, because I encourage players to add to the depth. If you have a character that wants to be oriental.. boom the island of Horitsu is discovered as your PC sails from there, lands and tells people of it. I add it to the map. Characters have a sense of history of a place that they have helped build. A keep designed by a player is added. A war declared by a player results in a new chapter in the history. All low magic.
Etarnon 04-29-08, 02:58 AM	I've got both Dragonlance, every module in print and DarkSun. I love them. And Birthright, which is a low-medium magic dog eat dog there shall be only one bloodfest, of highlander meets vampiric swords, mixed with nationbuilding. Rich Baker, and Colin McComb are genius designers.
navar100 04-29-08, 07:21 AM	Please. Tell us how you really feel about these two game worlds. :D Care to guess what I think of Ravenloft and 2E's Planescape? :P Admittedly this is a different issue than low/high magic. My philosophy for a game world concept is thus: Not that I necessarily will play one, but if I did play a Lawful Good human cleric, would I have fun? Can my character do what they're suppose to do in game mechanics and will I have normal relations with NPCs. If the answer is no I hate the setting, homebrew or published. It's not so black and white for every campaign. There are gradations. For example, a Lawful Good human cleric would play alright in Eberron, but the cleric's church can be "corrupt" and people in general prefer the Hospitality Mark House than deal with "religious dogma" (my words). It wouldn't be so comfortable to roleplay the cleric. Not completely frustrating, just not so comfortable. How the DM runs the game will matter more than the official published book.
Zuggster 04-29-08, 08:29 AM	As for Sting, being able to thrust it into an oak beam by an old hobbit is not definitely a magical property. Remember that it was crafted by some of the best craftsman that the world had ever seen. It could just be an incredibly high quality item. It was made by a craftsman who was basically immortal. As for the bowstring of Legolas, "To Legolas she gave a bow such as the Galadrin used, longer and stouter than the bows of Mirkwood, and strung with a string of elf-hair. With it went a quiver and arrows." It was not mentioned as being unbreakable. As for Sting, and the fact it glowed when orcs neared....does that mean its magical or special? The fact Tolk didn't use approved D&D terms for items doesn't mean he didn't have a magic rich realm. Why would Legolas use a new bowstring, when his was working fine if he didn't gain some implied bonus from it? Why wouldn't he simply wait until hte next time his current bowstring broke before using it? If you don't want to see the magic in the world, it doesn't mean its not there. He didn't write Short Sword +2/+4 vs Orcs, he wrote a sword that glowed when Orcs approached. He RP'd the magic nature of the weapon. If you actually go through the dialog, you can see what "special" items are present. They are special for being either magical or exceptional quality. Since we know for sure (IE GLOWING MAGICAL SWORDS) that some Magic Items do exist, it foolish to say there are no other magical items out there. As for special materials being used in the creation of magical qualities, that does exist in D&D. A Meteorite would qualify in that. It made the forged item do things no other could do. Isn't that the definition for magical in nature? If Magical Items weren't overly present (only a few by your count), how did Sauron convince 19 Lords of Men, Dwarves and Elves that those Rings were Magical. Yeah, you want to give me a "magic" ring. Uh-uh, sure, go stand over there with the "magic" Snake Oil guys. The Kings got their wizards to cast Detect Magic and confirm that the rings were magical and what some of the properties were. They found the rings to be +4 Charisma with the ability to Command 3/day as per the spell. The Wizards were unable to find the cursed part of the ring (the elves were able to make their saves longer and rid themselves of the majority of the curse) and the Kings of Men had to make their Saves until they succumed to the evils of the Rings (the DCs increased over time) and turned into the 9 riders. Would you have read the story if it read that way? I wouldn't either. The way he wrote it was much better, but it still doesn't mean the items he wrote about were any less magical. If you DM in a Low Magic settings, and can convince the players to accept the "Special" nature of magical items without using block and tackle DMG lingo (Ie +2 sword vs a sword with a complete history) and can add background to the items (since there are fewer of them and all of them special) you are doing a great job as a DM. But thats not saying that the texts many of us grew up reading didn't have a great number of magical items. The Authors were just that good in not stating their obvious magical nature. Most Stories would bore down if they found the treasure, waited to cast Detect Magic and Identify everything.....
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 08:52 AM	As I stated in a previous post (more or less), this discussion will never end until both sides stop generalizing. Optimizers aren't necessarily bad roleplayers. Low magic campaigns aren't necessarily representative of a dictatorial DM desperately grasping for make-believe power. This may be your experience - and I feel sorry for the lot of you - but it isn't true of every player or every game... just Sunic. (Just kidding, Sunic. You know I love you as a man can only love another man.) :rofl: Balance through player incompetence, eh? :P "The wizard's not broken, because tue guy playing him doesn't know to do his job!" +1. One of the reasons players got used to needing a high base score, was one of the editions (1st and/or 2nd) gave an XP bonus for having a High Stat in your Prime Ability Score. So players that have been in the game long enough, got trained to have to have a high score. It isn't an element of 3rd ed in that regard. Needing High scores to make Skills useful is. But as I said, High Scores were engrained in us from prior edtions. Not quite. If you don't have at least a 15 in your primary casting attribute, you will not get 9th level spells on time. The lower you are the greater the magnitude of the delay. If you are not a caster you still need minimum 15 just to function at all. Personally, when I want to play low/no magic, I don't play D&D. *snip* +1. :cookie: Fine. Real life is like this. Real life is one big feces-hole. D&D is a game, not a reality show. I play to have fun, not sort out the DM's angst against the world. I want to play where I can grab by sword, bash the bad guys, and save the world, not go begging to the DM to boost his ego for scraps, I mean make Diplomacy checks just to get a weapon and end up with a brick. There are no brownie points for playing dirt poor beggars either. +1, and a +2. Another :cookie: as well. We have a winner! Seriously. What is the point of making fantasy close to reality? Reality does it better. The sole purpose of fantasy is to be more entertaining than reality. You see, being optional and all it's the only way it serves a purpose. If fantasy is no more interesting than reality, or less so, there is no reason for anyone to make/play/keep up with it. They'd be better off with what they're stuck with, and thereby have no reason to touch it. You can't possibly see any fun in living in a world where evil has basically won? Where if my character is seen with a weapon (much less selling one) he can be put to death on the spot by any orc constable that wanders by? Where to get things I need to survive (like food?), I have to brave the elements of a hostile world and work hard to develop relationships with others all the while trying to stay under the radar from the oppressive regime that controls the world? That was Midnight for our group. As someone who actually has had to struggle to get very basic things like food on multiple occasions, I am more than qualified to respond with a resounding hell no! There was nothing remotely interesting about it. It was simply necessary to survive. There was no glory to it, no honor, nothing remotely positive. Now if it's nothing but suck and epic fail to experience directly, why would it be any better to play out happening to someone else? I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone, barring an extremely masochistic doormat can enjoy being a meaningless pawn. Note folks, we have many DMs here saying they like to RUN LM games. No players (or maybe Johnathan_Vagabond?) saying they enjoy playing in one. Think about it. Oh, I'm noting it. Oh, you're going to have to go a long way to convince me of that. Adding magic items to an unbalanced system does not strike me as maintaining balance in any way, shape or form unless you're only tossing out magic items for the exclusive use of the weakest classes in the party, at which point your other players in your high magic campaign are going to be crying and whining because Joe Monk got the Bracers or Monkly Godhood complete with the Shuriken and Lajatang of Monkly Destruction and the boots of Monkly Ass-Kicking and they got nothing, or at best a +1 dagger because it maintains balance. Nope, that's not why it works that way. It works that way because casters have means of getting most of the obligatory +x to y stat stuff via spells. Non casters do not. In a 'low magic campaign', not only are all casters even more important simply by virtue of rarity, they still have +6 resistance to saves, ac boosts, etc. Meanwhile fighter boy is lucky to break AC 25 and is massive Power Attack bait. Oh and he might do 20 damage... woo. No cloak of resistance there, ring of protection, amulet of natural armor... No, stupidity can be independant of magic - huge difference. Many players with magic items tend to view their characters as that much more superior and are prone to do stupid things relying on their "magic" to save them. Seen it for many years, hell, done it myself (note: Kender with rings of 5% magic resistance against a Prismatic Wall...hey, I got the first four layers down...). Again, independent factors. Stupidity is independent of magic. How else do you explain players like me, who will immediately sound the alarm upon even seeing low magic that are tactically apt enough to decimate a CR 20 encounter when the group is level 15, and my character is level 13? Hint: It's not by overwhelming power of magic items. To be fair, said encounter was near killing the crusader (and thereby requiring a Heal from the druid) every round. Who said anything about Sundertards? What if the PCs, thinking they are Gods with magic items, take on a challenge they can't possibly beat, get captured, and have to settle for escaping with their lives and not their magic items? You show me a single campaign where the PCs walk away from their magic items without so much as a second thought or comment about it, high or low magic, and I'll give you a box of cookies - because invariably the PCs will sit outside that bandit camp or wherever and plot how they are going to sneak in and get their items back. And if they realize their current situation is hopeless, then they go off on a power seeking tangent so they can get the necessary gear to go back to that camp and get their stuff. You don't need to send sundertards after them to nerf them of magic - plot and/or PC consequences may dictate it (as a side note here, I run a free-style game, similar to yours from the sounds of it, so for me, it would be more a result of PC consequences than plot per se). I can't scroll back that far while posting. But it was in response to it being mentioned there. And that is an impossible request. As I said myself, losing even a single mid value magic item is quite literally a fate worse than death. I also can't blame them at all for doing that as the only other alternative is for the entire group to retire their characters and make another group as they are no longer capable of functioning. Personally I avoid being a total asshat like that. As for it coming up... if they **** off a high level NPC, they **** off a high level NPC. If a sign says 'Here there be dragons.' outside a cave, there will be dragons within said cave. With that in mind there's not gonna be some impossible capture battle. It's going to be made very clear to them they bit off more than they can chew and should reconsider their hostilities as said high level NPC isn't there to pick a fight. If they persist, TPK. Generally, pointing out how strong they look is enough, and if that fails smacking someone for nonlethal gets the point across. About the only conceivable reason for ignoring every warning would be blatant stupidity, at which point putting them out of their misery is kinder than kicking them while they're down (robbing them blind and making them have to deal with the same foes that kicked their ass before, only with far less power on their side). Ahhh...speaking of unproven opinions here - the system demands it? Have to say I disagree. Because in the end, a GOOD DM can run the game the way he chooses independant of what the system supposedly demands, make it work, and have fun doing it. And that is what counts. The DM has fun without feeling like he's toadying to a bunch of prima-donna players, the players have fun, and the game overall is a success. As I said earlier...objection overruled. :D Can't wait for your next set of great counterarguments...haven't had this much fun since I decided that low-magic campaigns were the way to go. :P Some factors are mutable. This isn't one of them. As my earlier quotes have reillustrated, there are very few players actually interested in playing such games. So clearly it doesn't work so well. Also, proving that the DM is having fun doesn't mean anyone else is. For example, I'm sure the DM with a uber plot focused DMPC is having fun. His players/sidekicks... not so much. Yeah, the DM can say he's running whatever he wants. If his players aren't interested, his choices are to run something they are interested in, hope he can find some players that are interested (and offline games don't allow for nearly the degree of selectiveness PbP games do, so this is far more difficult for most here), or... play with himself. Along the same lines, I have to wonder how many of the players that are allegedly interested are actually only doing so for lack of a better option, the same reason many tolerate plot focused DMPCs and other such critical fumbles on the DM check that compose a sizable percentage of the posts on these forums. Not everyone knows no D&D > bad D&D after all. I'm not sure if that last part is serious or not.
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 09:07 AM	Somehow I missed there was another page. More quotes. That's my problem with low magic games. It's not the fact that it's low magic; it's the why the DM is running a low magic game. That makes all the difference. I've seen and read time and again that DMs who boast (my word) on running a low magic world do so precisely to rein in what they see as an overabundance of "player power", calling them "munchkins". They hate their players. It's not about the setting, trying to mimic Lord of the Rings or Conan or 90's tv Hercules, or talking with the players on what type of game they want. It's how dare players Teleport or Fly or deal 75 damage on a charge or be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day or multiclass fighter/cleric instead of playing a paladin and not even being Lawful Good. It's the DM's campaign, but it's the players' game too. +1. :cookie: It is simply an excuse to restrain players they fear and loathe. I've seen this too, another aspect of a DM hating his players. Only NPCs get to do the cool stuff. It's why I don't like Iron Heroes. I accept it's purposely low magic. I agree the character classes are the bomb. However, it's not really low magic. Monsters can use all the magic they want without the drawback a player character would have if one still chose to play the spellcaster. The DM is free to do whatever he wants with magic for NPCs. The book pretty much tells him so because magic is not for mortals. It's not an equal fairness of rules. Now this is interesting. Didn't know that. Another point to the prosecutor (me). :D ... one or two should be sufficient. Indeed. Just need a smarter dragon. Wraithstrike and Scintillating Scales (both 2nd level spells!) should suffice. At the very least avoid Alertness and Toughness spam. That's fine, but then don't criticize high magic campaigns as saying players are not cooperative with each other, don't understand the value of retreating, and they care nothing of roleplaying. +1. And to all the people that keep mentioning Dark Sun, Traveler, and others: Aren't those the systems that strongly recommend you make multiple characters and be prepared to replace yours at any time? Characters being disposable peons is the antithesis of encouraging roleplay in the same way giving someone a puppy with terminal cancer who has a week to live is the antithesis of getting them to care for said puppy. They'll either know it doesn't have long and not get attached or even name it, or feel betrayed when you don't tell them that crucial fact and become even harder to convince.
iserith 04-29-08, 09:13 AM	:As someone who actually has had to struggle to get very basic things like food on multiple occasions, I am more than qualified to respond with a resounding hell no! There was nothing remotely interesting about it. It was simply necessary to survive. There was no glory to it, no honor, nothing remotely positive. Now if it's nothing but suck and epic fail to experience directly, why would it be any better to play out happening to someone else? I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone, barring an extremely masochistic doormat can enjoy being a meaningless pawn. Your real life struggles notwithstanding, I can assure you that when I played in a long-term Dark Sun campaign, we started out as slaves escaping a caravan that was raided by savage elves. We had to survive the desert long enough to get to a city only to find we had no money and only a few things to trade when we got there. We did some gladiator style fighting to make some cash and eventually raised an army and did some very epic stuff. We weren't pawns in any way - we helped reshape the world. The very same scenario occurred when I ran my own Dark Sun game, just not the same way. My point is that both campaigns were epic in scale (and I don't mean 20th+ level) and we determined our own destiny. We weren't just along for some ride. The same went for Midnight. We travelled the world in secret. All of us were pretty much outlaws as we had attacked some orcs in a town early on. I even killed a legate (bad cleric) and lost my hand in the process. We assisted the dwarves who were getting slaughtered by orc armies. We then travelled to the land of the elves with the secret of mithral, forming an alliance between the elves and dwarves - the only two remaining threats to the Shadow's power. We travelled to the only remaining bastion of human magic to assist the channelers there. This campaign was epic in scale and very low magic. By the way, we had one PC death in each campaign and no character trees. It's not all limitations and railroading in low-magic worlds!
Dash Branaghan 04-29-08, 10:10 AM	What is the point of making fantasy close to reality? Reality does it better. The sole purpose of fantasy is to be more entertaining than reality. You see, being optional and all it's the only way it serves a purpose. If fantasy is no more interesting than reality, or less so, there is no reason for anyone to make/play/keep up with it. They'd be better off with what they're stuck with, and thereby have no reason to touch it. Wait, magic items make the difference here? And I was dumb enough to think that free style murder in the form of killing anything that crosses paths with me was part of the fantasy...cause I know I don't do that in real life. Nor do I see trolls or unicorns or ogres (at least not without the help of intoxication or drugs). So really...the high or low presence or lack of presence of magic items is not really what I consider to be the defining point of fantasy - the Arthurian legacy is pure fantasy, and entirely low magic. Morgana and Merlin are the only spellcasters that I am aware of (and I've read Layomon's Brut in the original Middle/Old English), and the only magic items are Excalibur and scabbard and Mordred's Armour. High fantasy, low magic. Hmmmmmm. Nope, that's not why it works that way. It works that way because casters have means of getting most of the obligatory +x to y stat stuff via spells. Non casters do not. In a 'low magic campaign', not only are all casters even more important simply by virtue of rarity, they still have +6 resistance to saves, ac boosts, etc. Meanwhile fighter boy is lucky to break AC 25 and is massive Power Attack bait. Oh and he might do 20 damage... woo. No cloak of resistance there, ring of protection, amulet of natural armor... Okay, speaking of not knowing whether to laugh or vomit... You actually think that giving out magic items closes the gap in some way? Again, you have failed to explain how tossing out a bunch of magic items brings the non-spellcasters somehow on par with the spellcasters if the party divides the treasure equally - because how is magic item enhancement for both spellcasters and non going to suddenly balance things? And really...at high levels, who wastes times with the meat shields? You target the spellcasters anyway, so it really doesn't matter what beat boy's AC is until the Spellcaster is a chalk outline. Again, independent factors. Stupidity is independent of magic. Again, it can be. Since you like making generalizations based on your experiences with low magic, I will make a generalization about stupidity and magic items based on my extensive gaming experience in both high and low magic: The increase in stupid actions by a non-spellcasting character is directly proportional to the increase in the number of magic items they possess. Believe me...I've seen it enough times that it is as entirely valid as any claims you make based on your experiences. How else do you explain players like me, who will immediately sound the alarm upon even seeing low magic that are tactically apt enough to decimate a CR 20 encounter when the group is level 15, and my character is level 13? How do I explain guys like you sounding the alarm about low magic? Simple - you want to be the best and you can't do it without your shinies. Fair enough. But again, just because YOU insist on being Sir KicksAssALot doesn't in any way shape or form make low magic campaigns bad - it makes them bad for YOU. Big difference. Btw, did you guys take out the CR 20 encounter in a low or high magic game? But it was in response to it being mentioned there. And that is an impossible request. As I said myself, losing even a single mid value magic item is quite literally a fate worse than death. I never made mention of sundering weapons - in fact, I don't sunder. So you might want to recheck my post and show me specifically where I made that reference prior to you responding to me on it. I also can't blame them at all for doing that as the only other alternative is for the entire group to retire their characters and make another group as they are no longer capable of functioning. Personally I avoid being a total asshat like that. See, that to me is pathetic - "Oh, we lost our shinies, time to hang up the hat and go home boys." It strikes me as petulant beyond belief - like the boy who has to win or he takes his games home. No longer capable of functioning? Right...some heroes they are then. Tell me Sunic - you mentioned that you've struggled in your life just to find food - why didn't you just curl up and die at that point? And I'm not saying this to be insulting or derogatory but, as someone who was homeless and lived on the streets myself for nine months of my life, I find it interesting that you, who refused to throw in the towel in life, are so quick to advocate it in fantasy adversity. The great thing about fantasy is that it's a lot easier to pick up and carry on and overcome that difficulty. About the only conceivable reason for ignoring every warning would be blatant stupidity... See above comments on stupidity... Some factors are mutable. This isn't one of them. As my earlier quotes have reillustrated, there are very few players actually interested in playing such games. No, YOU are not interested in playing this kind of game. Navar is not interested in playing this kind of game. You two are the most vehement spokespeople of the anti-low-magic campaigns. But what you are forgetting is that for all your so-called reasoning and justification, it comes down to one thing and one thing only: You don't like it. Any reasoning beyond that is vanilla. Your reasons, as I have repeatedly shown, are specious in some cases, irrelevant in others, and just as applicable to high magic campaigns inversely in most of the rest. You want to shine, you want to be the guy who kills Gods in three rounds or less, and that's fine. As a player or a DM you choose your gaming style, and while it may not be my preference, I will defend to the death your right to choose it. When you take away all the BS, this is what it comes down to. So clearly it doesn't work so well. Also, proving that the DM is having fun doesn't mean anyone else is. For example, I'm sure the DM with a uber plot focused DMPC is having fun. His players/sidekicks... not so much. And where in any of the books does it say that the DM is supposed to sacrifice his enjoyment for the sake of his players? Maybe you as a player need a DM to cater to you, but I don't. Nor do my players. I would rather strike a balance here - but you seem to insist on a false binary here - that either the players have fun or the DM has fun. Tell me - any DM who ran a low magic campaign for you - was he/she diametrically opposed to all players...or just you? Yeah, the DM can say he's running whatever he wants. If his players aren't interested, his choices are to run something they are interested in, hope he can find some players that are interested (and offline games don't allow for nearly the degree of selectiveness PbP games do, so this is far more difficult for most here), or... play with himself. Along the same lines, I have to wonder how many of the players that are allegedly interested are actually only doing so for lack of a better option, the same reason many tolerate plot focused DMPCs and other such critical fumbles on the DM check that compose a sizable percentage of the posts on these forums. Not everyone knows no D&D > bad D&D after all. Ah, the old Pizza argument eh? D&D is good - even when it's bad, it's good? See Sunic, this is your problem as I see it - you just can't accept an alternative way of playing. If you are serious in your posts, then I can only conclude that you have this notion that your way of gaming is the only right way of gaming, the only possible way for people to play and enjoy it, and anyone who doesn't share your opinion is wrong. What makes it worse is when one or two or five or even ten other people agree with you. Because it confirms what you seem to know all along - that is that you're right. It doesn't matter if 50 people disagree with you. We're idiots or asshats or the by-product of brain damage or just poor misguided fools and our opinions are beyond irrelevant. But in the end, as I pointed out to Navar, this is a choice and every single problem you have with low magic is spurred by your inability to play the game without shinies - and, I might add, every problem you have with low magic I can counter with one for high magic. I'm not wasting a lot of time doing it because unlike you I don't have a rabid hate-on for for the style of game I don't play, just a happy preference for low magic. I'm not sure if that last part is serious or not. It was...not so sure what to expect now. But tell you what - you give me valid objective reasons why low magic is bad that cannot in any way correlate to an equally valid reason why high magic games are bad, and we can continue this debate. If you're just going to tell me how much you hate this style of game by citing reasons that are simply in effect extensions of ways in which it hampers you as a player, then spare me. I get the point - you don't like the game style. But until it goes beyond your opinion and your generalizations based on your experiences (and remember something here Sunic - generalizations ALWAYS break down in the face of specific examples), then the argument is moot. You're not going to convince me this is bad because for every bad experience you've had, my gaming group can probably cite 2 or 3 experiences that are good. And that's my current group - nevermind my previous groups. It is simply an excuse to restrain players they fear and loathe. I'm so glad this applies to everyone. Maybe your DMs fear and loathe you and that is why they try to curtail you with those campaigns. But spare me or Etarnon or anyone else who runs a low campaign such an ignorant claim. Trust me - I can restrain you just as easily in a high magic campaign as I can in a low magic campaign.
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 10:33 AM	Wait, magic items make the difference here? And I was dumb enough to think that free style murder in the form of killing anything that crosses paths with me was part of the fantasy...cause I know I don't do that in real life. Nor do I see trolls or unicorns or ogres (at least not without the help of intoxication or drugs). So really...the high or low presence or lack of presence of magic items is not really what I consider to be the defining point of fantasy - the Arthurian legacy is pure fantasy, and entirely low magic. Morgana and Merlin are the only spellcasters that I am aware of (and I've read Layomon's Brut in the original Middle/Old English), and the only magic items are Excalibur and scabbard and Mordred's Armour. High fantasy, low magic. Hmmmmmm. Magic is the primary difference. Spells, items... The whole homicidal bit can be easily marked as historical reality. It doesn't happen today often, but did a lot more in the past. As for the degree of magic in those worlds... I like the rebukes posted by others. They covered the bases quite nicely, so refer to those. Okay, speaking of not knowing whether to laugh or vomit... You actually think that giving out magic items closes the gap in some way? Again, you have failed to explain how tossing out a bunch of magic items brings the non-spellcasters somehow on par with the spellcasters if the party divides the treasure equally - because how is magic item enhancement for both spellcasters and non going to suddenly balance things? And really...at high levels, who wastes times with the meat shields? You target the spellcasters anyway, so it really doesn't matter what beat boy's AC is until the Spellcaster is a chalk outline. It balances things because in low magic the caster has most of the stuff he has to have anyways due to spells duplicating the +x to y stat stuff, the melee guy does not. Therefore, the gap is widened. In mid magic both have the pluses they're supposed to have. In high magic both have the pluses they're supposed to have, and the non magic guy can cover utility stuff as well reliably such as dealing with fliers, being stuck in a Forcecage, and so forth. How do I explain guys like you sounding the alarm about low magic? Simple - you want to be the best and you can't do it without your shinies. Fair enough. But again, just because YOU insist on being Sir KicksAssALot doesn't in any way shape or form make low magic campaigns bad - it makes them bad for YOU. Big difference. Btw, did you guys take out the CR 20 encounter in a low or high magic game? If I wanted to be the best in a low magic game I'd just make a caster. At which point I'd be even more awesome, both compared to every non caster in the world battle wise and more important flavor wise due to being rarer. Oh and I could craft my own items, so I'd probably have a normal wealth level compared to everyone else's low wealth. Because I like being able to play non top tier classes without sucking horribly, I gravitate towards games that encourage this, or at least don't actively discourage it. Low magic shafts non magical classes the hardest. The CR 20 was taken out in a standard (mid magic) game. The opposition included a half dozen druids, along with various summons/lackeys/etc. See, that to me is pathetic - "Oh, we lost our shinies, time to hang up the hat and go home boys." It strikes me as petulant beyond belief - like the boy who has to win or he takes his games home. Drawing comparisons to the real world is moot. You don't need what translates into millions of dollars in personal equipment to function there. You do need such, to adventure at high levels (and at lower levels, scale the price down). Without it, you cannot adventure and therefore retire. Unless for some reason you want to roleplay the mundaneness of rotting away due to old age or something, that means time to move to another character. No longer capable of functioning? Right...some heroes they are then. Tell me Sunic - you mentioned that you've struggled in your life just to find food - why didn't you just curl up and die at that point? And I'm not saying this to be insulting or derogatory but, as someone who was homeless and lived on the streets myself for nine months of my life, I find it interesting that you, who refused to throw in the towel in life, are so quick to advocate it in fantasy adversity. Because in the real world, you don't have the option to retire and live another life. You're stuck with it. In D&D the character is stuck with their bad lot in life. The player is not. So the character endures... or not. But their story is no longer interesting, so you play another. That's the difference optionalness makes. Also, the worst thing that can happen to you in the real world, barring a life of nothing but suffering is death. It is not cheaper to be brought back to life than it is to purchase (or lose/have stolen/have broken) a medium power magic item. It isn't even an option. And before you come back with a 'if the world has no res magic and doesn't let you reroll, would you think differently?' the obvious answer is yes, but since the fantasy is coming too close to reality I also wouldn't be interested in playing it, making the point moot. No, YOU are not interested in playing this kind of game. Navar is not interested in playing this kind of game. You two are the most vehement spokespeople of the anti-low-magic campaigns. But what you are forgetting is that for all your so-called reasoning and justification, it comes down to one thing and one thing only: You don't like it. Any reasoning beyond that is vanilla. Your reasons, as I have repeatedly shown, are specious in some cases, irrelevant in others, and just as applicable to high magic campaigns inversely in most of the rest. You want to shine, you want to be the guy who kills Gods in three rounds or less, and that's fine. As a player or a DM you choose your gaming style, and while it may not be my preference, I will defend to the death your right to choose it. When you take away all the BS, this is what it comes down to. Incorrect, strawman, and all that jazz. And where in any of the books does it say that the DM is supposed to sacrifice his enjoyment for the sake of his players? Maybe you as a player need a DM to cater to you, but I don't. Nor do my players. I would rather strike a balance here - but you seem to insist on a false binary here - that either the players have fun or the DM has fun. Tell me - any DM who ran a low magic campaign for you - was he/she diametrically opposed to all players...or just you? I don't need a DM to cater to me. I browse the selection and find one that already has goals in line with my own, and go with that. No adjustment needed or wanted, because it's better to go with something you already agree with than to have to argue it to get it to adapt. I'm not insisting on a false binary. It sounds kinda like you are. As for the DM and low magic... I've seen several that were just power tripping on everyone more or less equally. I've seen one that died without warning a few weeks in. Haven't seen any that singled me out. Haven't seen any that worked well either. Ah, the old Pizza argument eh? D&D is good - even when it's bad, it's good? See Sunic, this is your problem as I see it - you just can't accept an alternative way of playing. If you are serious in your posts, then I can only conclude that you have this notion that your way of gaming is the only right way of gaming, the only possible way for people to play and enjoy it, and anyone who doesn't share your opinion is wrong. What makes it worse is when one or two or five or even ten other people agree with you. Because it confirms what you seem to know all along - that is that you're right. It doesn't matter if 50 people disagree with you. We're idiots or asshats or the by-product of brain damage or just poor misguided fools and our opinions are beyond irrelevant. But in the end, as I pointed out to Navar, this is a choice and every single problem you have with low magic is spurred by your inability to play the game without shinies - and, I might add, every problem you have with low magic I can counter with one for high magic. I'm not wasting a lot of time doing it because unlike you I don't have a rabid hate-on for for the style of game I don't play, just a happy preference for low magic. I argue facts. If it is just a stylistic difference I don't argue it. You don't see me bashing other systems, just about all of which are low magic by default do you? No - because the fact they are designed for it means they actually work there. I don't play said systems but the reasons come down to stylistic preference instead of objective facts. Often they don't even have to do with low magic. Instead, I won't play them because of some other major flaw, or simply because I have no desire to learn an entirely new system for one game. More effort than its worth.
Midnight_v 04-29-08, 10:40 AM	Trust me - I can restrain you just as easily in a high magic campaign as I can in a low magic campaign. No. Not just as easily. Thats a falsehood. The most basic way to put this is. "You'll have to do more" Direct example: Restraints In a low magic campaign you can "chain everyone up", in a high magic campaign You have to "chain everyone up, gag everyone, in an "anti-magic" (read: bs) corridor and make sure that your pc's dont' have access to anything or spell that lets them ignore anti-magic fields. Also a point is that the intent really isn't there, for those who run "high-magic" campaigns. Most, not all Dm's running a Low-powered campaign that I've encountered either in real life or on the boards here seem to have some strange issue with trying to "restrain" pc's power the PC's in anycase, and every so often they'll actually come out and say "I have a problem with the pc's being powerful.":eek: :rolleyes: Which is basically a "...Esau I have hated..." slap in the face for most people who play D&D 3.X from a Dm that thinks Dm = God (which it doesn't really)
Zuggster 04-29-08, 10:50 AM	the Arthurian legacy is pure fantasy, and entirely low magic. Morgana and Merlin are the only spellcasters that I am aware of (and I've read Layomon's Brut in the original Middle/Old English), and the only magic items are Excalibur and scabbard and Mordred's Armour. High fantasy, low magic. Hmmmmmm. Well #1, you're wrong. The Green Knight's Armor also protected him from physical harm (in movies it was shown as weapons passing through him). They also searched for the Holy Grail, a magical Artifact needed to help recover both Arthur's health, and the health of the land. Well that didn't take long to double the amount of magical items in the world. I'm sure we could keep going though. A trip to the past, Legends and Lore from AD&D (ie 1st ed) actually gave stats on a number of the Arthurian legends, and *gasp* decided to give several of them various magical items/weapons/armor which is not part of the actual legends, but an interesting aside. (for the record, 1st ed considered Excalibur to be a +5 Lawful Good Sword of Sharpness and the scabbard protected him frombeing cut - took 1/2 damage from Thrusting/Piercing and Slashing weapons). You want to shine, you want to be the guy who kills Gods in three rounds or less, and that's fine. I think in No/Low/Medium/High campaigns this is frequently the case. I don't think wanting a High magic campaign makes this desire any more/less present. It may make it easier to do, but the desire to do it doesn't. Conan had those feelings when he cursed his own God, and that is normally viewed as a Low/No magic campaign setting. And where in any of the books does it say that the DM is supposed to sacrifice his enjoyment for the sake of his players? Maybe you as a player need a DM to cater to you, but I don't. Nor do my players. Hehem, DMG 3.5 page 4 It's fun, but its a big responsibility. If you're the sort of person who likes to provide fun for your friends.... There's your reference. "To provide FUN for your friends" sounds like catering to the players to me. Now, does the DM have to sacrifice his fun for the sake of the players? Only if he wants to keep the players. A good group finds a middle ground of fun for the DM and fun for the players. A group thats been together long enough knows what the group likes/dislikes and how much variability there is to shift things. If the group all likes one style over the other, run with it. See Sunic, this is your problem as I see it - you just can't accept an alternative way of playing. I for one don't necasarilly agree/disagree, with him, but as I said when I want to play no/low magic I don't play D&D. Iron Heroes was a good D20 variation, that I had no qualms with playing. And btw, it didn't stop the party of 5 from assaulting a 200+ raiding party. The DM wasn't quite prepared for it to happen that way :-) Trust me - I can restrain you just as easily in a high magic campaign as I can in a low magic campaign. And there's nothing wrong with that. A good DM should be able to control his/her players to some extent. But then saying a LM campaign is better because players don't have access to everything is a poor reason. I don't believe you said that, but it was posted, and needed to be pointed out as part of the "your side" of the arguement Sunic's argueing against.
Dash Branaghan 04-29-08, 11:09 AM	No. Not just as easily. Thats a falsehood. The most basic way to put this is. "You'll have to do more" Direct example: Restraints In a low magic campaign you can "chain everyone up", in a high magic campaign You have to "chain everyone up, gag everyone, in an "anti-magic" (read: bs) corridor and make sure that your pc's dont' have access to anything or spell that lets them ignore anti-magic fields. Specious at best. What makes it so important to gag them all for a high magic campaign? Because the party mage might have metamagic feats? Take away all their gear (hell, they are captured and any numpty working as a guard for more than six months should know that you don't leave their gear with them to facilitate the escape - how ridiculously James Bond do you have to make the game?) and high magic PCs are suddenly on par with low magic PCs. Except for all the crying. Hate to point this out to you Midnight, but low magic mages may have access to the same metamagic feats as well. So restraining the PCs...pretty much the same. Your argument is beyond invalid. Most, not all Dm's running a Low-powered campaign that I've encountered either in real life or on the boards here seem to have some strange issue with trying to "restrain" pc's power the PC's in anycase, and every so often they'll actually come out and say "I have a problem with the pc's being powerful.":eek: First...thank you for the modality and limiting it to your experiences rather than making sweeping generalizations. In this discussion this is appreciated more than you can imagine. But...I tend to find that the cries for help relating to magic aren't an issue of low-power DMs, but rather high magic DMs who got carried away with giving their players too many frills and gimicks and now they aren't up to the challenge of it. This is more a by-product of high magic than low magic from what I've seen on these boards. For some of these DMs the issue is challenging the PCs without TPKing them - when you toss a Balrog at a 12th level party (commanded by master tactician Sunic Flames) that is replete with magic and they waste him in 3 rounds, the DM calling for help has more problems than simply the game he/she runs - this is not an issue strictly limited to low magic/power / high magic games. You'll see the same DMs having troubles with players like myself or Runestar who optimize with or without magic items, or powergamers. It's a by-product of the DM and how they run a particular style of game - not the style of game itself. :rolleyes: Which is basically a "...Esau I have hated..." slap in the face for most people who play D&D 3.X from a Dm that thinks Dm = God (which it doesn't really) Well, technically DM does equal God. But again, I would target the specific DMs you've played with rather than the style of gameplay. Because ultimately the style of game you play is like the world you play in or the books you allow in the game.
Winterleaf 04-29-08, 11:23 AM	Runestar, Whereas in previous incarnations, if I wanted to be a pirate, I said, "Hey guys, I'm a Fighter/Thief who lives on the sea, my Secondary Skill is Sailor (not that SS's ever made a difference in the game) and I'm going to select the following weapons to use." So back then to you pirates were nonhuman? Because that was the only way you were going to be a fighter/thief in 1st ed, unless you made some ungodly rolls. I have a basic response to most games that require rolling dice in order to determine character abilities; I generally avoid playing in them. It makes no sense to me to roll my character's attributes, then allow me to pick everything else. If you're rolling for Str/Dex/Con etc, you should roll for gender/height/weight etc. To me D&D has always been about simulating the mechanics of the fantasy genre in order to tell a series of stories. I cannot for the life of me ever imagine sitting down to write a story, reaching for dice and saying to myself, "What's my main character going to be like? Ennh, I'll just let the dice decide!" The point buy system allows for the players to create characters within a range of abilities that the DM believes to be reasonable for the type of campaign he wants. The players win. The DM wins. Random rolling? Pfft. Might as well roll for your skill points while you're at it.
iserith 04-29-08, 11:33 AM	So back then to you pirates were nonhuman? Because that was the only way you were going to be a fighter/thief in 1st ed, unless you made some ungodly rolls. I have a basic response to most games that require rolling dice in order to determine character abilities; I generally avoid playing in them. It makes no sense to me to roll my character's attributes, then allow me to pick everything else. If you're rolling for Str/Dex/Con etc, you should roll for gender/height/weight etc. To me D&D has always been about simulating the mechanics of the fantasy genre in order to tell a series of stories. I cannot for the life of me ever imagine sitting down to write a story, reaching for dice and saying to myself, "What's my main character going to be like? Ennh, I'll just let the dice decide!" The point buy system allows for the players to create characters within a range of abilities that the DM believes to be reasonable for the type of campaign he wants. The players win. The DM wins. Random rolling? Pfft. Might as well roll for your skill points while you're at it. Some people enjoy the challenge of taking what the dice hand them and turning it into a memorable character. That said, I use a "randomly assigned" 32-point buy system using the Three Dragon Ante deck sometimes. The players like it, but it's not that great for creating a standard balanced party. It has the benefit of having everyone on the same level as far as ability scores go while still having that element of randomness which can make character generation fun.
Zuggster 04-29-08, 11:38 AM	I have a basic response to most games that require rolling dice in order to determine character abilities; I generally avoid playing in them. It makes no sense to me to roll my character's attributes, then allow me to pick everything else. If you're rolling for Str/Dex/Con etc, you should roll for gender/height/weight etc. To me D&D has always been about simulating the mechanics of the fantasy genre in order to tell a series of stories. I cannot for the life of me ever imagine sitting down to write a story, reaching for dice and saying to myself, "What's my main character going to be like? Ennh, I'll just let the dice decide!" The point buy system allows for the players to create characters within a range of abilities that the DM believes to be reasonable for the type of campaign he wants. The players win. The DM wins. Random rolling? Pfft. Might as well roll for your skill points while you're at it. I'm sorry if that way offends you so. I'm sorry for 3 editions of D&D it has offended you as a way of character creation. Rolling dice in character creation is obviously wrong, and I apologize for doing it wrong for the last 23 or 24 years (has it been that long...geez). I apologize to all the DMs that I have played under, and done it their way, which while obviously wrong, I should have spoken up and had corrected. I will get my 3.5 PHB and cross out where it actually states that is how you do it. (with 4d6 even) /sarcasm
Winterleaf 04-29-08, 11:41 AM	Some people enjoy the challenge of taking what the dice hand them and turning it into a memorable character. That said, I use a "randomly assigned" 32-point buy system using the Three Dragon Ante deck sometimes. The players like it, but it's not that great for creating a standard balanced party. It has the benefit of having everyone on the same level as far as ability scores go while still having that element of randomness which can make character generation fun. We have a fundamental difference of opinion. You: Character creation + randomness = fun Me: Not. Different strokes, and which is why they have the two different types of creation systems, so people like you and I could both enjoy playing. Question: Why not randomly assign skill points too? Observation: Because i haven't yet addressed the OP, I like low magic as well as medium magic campaign settings. High magic campaign settings I am leery of, because the only ones I've encountered tend to me rather Monty Haul-ish. . .
Dash Branaghan 04-29-08, 11:43 AM	Well #1, you're wrong. The Green Knight's Armor also protected him from physical harm (in movies it was shown as weapons passing through him). They also searched for the Holy Grail, a magical Artifact needed to help recover both Arthur's health, and the health of the land. Well that didn't take long to double the amount of magical items in the world. I'm sure we could keep going though. By all means please do. Granted, I'm busted on Sir Gawain (in my defense I was running through Laymon's Brut in my head and forgot about that one :blush:), but upping the count to five magic items or even 10 doesn't really change the fact that it is high fantasy low magic. Considering that one character in FR carries more magic on them than you'll probably find even if you keep looking in the Arthurian mythos...I find it hard to accept that this invalidates my point of high fantasy with low magic. How about an even better example - Beowulf. The closest thing to a magic item would be the sword of the giants in the cave or Beowulf's armour, but those are more likely masterwork than magical (considering the sword dissolves in Grendel's blood when Beowulf severs the head). High fantasy again, low/no magic. Monsters, dragons, fighting, treasure, good vs. evil... I think in No/Low/Medium/High campaigns this is frequently the case. I don't think wanting a High magic campaign makes this desire any more/less present. It may make it easier to do, but the desire to do it doesn't. Conan had those feelings when he cursed his own God, and that is normally viewed as a Low/No magic campaign setting. Ah, see, I make characters, and I don't care if they can kill Gods in three rounds or not. Maybe I'm different. But motivation varies from character to character - and yes, I've had the Raistlin prototype before. It's fun, but its a big responsibility. If you're the sort of person who likes to provide fun for your friends.... There's your reference. "To provide FUN for your friends" sounds like catering to the players to me. This seems to be promoting a rather adversarial position in which the DM plays the role of good natured door mat to every desire the PCs have - which seems to be another mega-issue here: any DM who runs a low-magic game is automatically adversarial to the PCs. Which I don't agree with. Anymore than I agree with the DM who stacks the party with magic being adversarial because he wants to send bigger badder uglies their way and TPK them. Looking at the DMG where you cited it also points out two very important things: The fun is in your hands. The DM defines the game. I think you can argue that the DMG is suggesting that we should enjoy ourselves too - make it fun for the players certainly, but don't eliminate the fun for yourself doing it. Now, does the DM have to sacrifice his fun for the sake of the players? Only if he wants to keep the players. A good group finds a middle ground of fun for the DM and fun for the players. A group thats been together long enough knows what the group likes/dislikes and how much variability there is to shift things. If the group all likes one style over the other, run with it. Yeah, I've been saying much of this already Zuggster - and no, I don't think a DM should sacrifice his fun for the players - if that is the case, I think he should step down and let someone else do it. Because if you don't enjoy running a game, your game will suck and no one else will enjoy it. But hey, as I've pointed out consistently, the criticism on low magic has nothing to do with whether low magic is inherently good or bad - it has to do with personal preference, and any attempt to shade it otherwise is wool-pulling. Every flaw that seems to be drawing the hate-on is a by-product of the DM in question, not the gaming style. It's almost like a kind of racism here - generalizations based on limited experience and observation. I for one don't necasarilly agree/disagree, with him, but as I said when I want to play no/low magic I don't play D&D. Iron Heroes was a good D20 variation, that I had no qualms with playing. And btw, it didn't stop the party of 5 from assaulting a 200+ raiding party. The DM wasn't quite prepared for it to happen that way :-) LOL...myself, I have played other games and find that the tendency to abuse them is pretty strong. Never played Iron Heroes, but I'm thinking I might like to find it and try it. The problem is, some of the players in my group are reluctant to break away from D&D and try different systems. So we play D&D because it keeps them happy. And there's nothing wrong with that. A good DM should be able to control his/her players to some extent. But then saying a LM campaign is better because players don't have access to everything is a poor reason. I don't believe you said that, but it was posted, and needed to be pointed out as part of the "your side" of the arguement Sunic's argueing against. Thank you...because I have never once claimed that LM is the best or even better. I simply accept that it is my preferred style of play, and that the criticisms against it are more a by-product of the player's preference coupled with, from the sounds of it, poor DMing.
Winterleaf 04-29-08, 11:44 AM	I'm sorry if that way offends you so. I'm sorry for 3 editions of D&D it has offended you as a way of character creation. Rolling dice in character creation is obviously wrong, and I apologize for doing it wrong for the last 23 or 24 years (has it been that long...geez). I apologize to all the DMs that I have played under, and done it their way, which while obviously wrong, I should have spoken up and had corrected. I will get my 3.5 PHB and cross out where it actually states that is how you do it. (with 4d6 even) /sarcasm You use 4d6? Heathen. I bet you even assign them to the stats you want, instead of in the order that they were rolled. How dare you turn random into "random but improved and assigned" in order to avoid the character you were meant to play! /sarcasm I rolled my first character back in '82, back when I was too new to role-playing to realize just how silly that was. I think since '83 most of the DM's I played with agreed that it was goofy and had some sort of point buy system in place. So you don't get any points with me for the subtle "I've been playing since Christ was a corporal so you better not sass me you whippersnapper" implication. :P I'm currently in a PbP where we rolled dice. Meh on the mechanics, but I still played and created a character that i thought was interesting. Just because I think it's goofy doesn't mean i won't do it every once in a while. It is certainly NOT my preferred method of generation.
Dash Branaghan 04-29-08, 11:49 AM	So back then to you pirates were nonhuman? Because that was the only way you were going to be a fighter/thief in 1st ed, unless you made some ungodly rolls. Well, first of all, I'm extremely lucky. :D Second, no, not all pirates were nonhuman - I just had a preference for the Half-Elf. I could just as easily play a Ranger (again, assuming ungodly rolls) or a fighter or a straight rogue or a cleric of a water god or a druid (again, ungodly rolls) and make my motif out to be a pirate, human or not. The issue of race has nothing to do with being a pirate in 1ed anymore than it has anything to do with it in 3.x btw. My character is my character, and I could have him be anything I want. As far as PB system - for some reason I'm not as much a fan of it - I like it in WoD just fine, but in D&D, I like the feel of dice in my hands. I like the good rolls with the bad rolls. Sometimes I play chess and start without my Queen too. What can I say...I like a challenge. :D
iserith 04-29-08, 11:54 AM	Question: Why not randomly assign skill points too? Why does everyone always go from one extreme to the other, knowing that it makes almost no sense? Just because your ability scores are random doesn't mean everything has to be random. You get your stats. You take a look at what class and race is most suitable to those stats. Once you've decided on that, you fill in the details based on how you plan on running that particular character - including skills, feats, and the like. "Why not randomly assign skill points too?" C'mon. Really. Of course, I defend your right to use the point-buy system. I use it as well. Sometimes we don't. But I don't walk away from a game because the DM likes a bit of randomness involved at character creation. I go with it and make the best of what I get. I'll have fun no matter what character I end up with.
Zuggster 04-29-08, 12:12 PM	By all means please do. Granted, I'm busted on Sir Gawain (in my defense I was running through Laymon's Brut in my head and forgot about that one :blush:), but upping the count to five magic items or even 10 doesn't really change the fact that it is high fantasy low magic. Considering that one character in FR carries more magic on them than you'll probably find even if you keep looking in the Arthurian mythos...I find it hard to accept that this invalidates my point of high fantasy with low magic. How about an even better example - Beowulf. The closest thing to a magic item would be the sword of the giants in the cave or Beowulf's armour, but those are more likely masterwork than magical (considering the sword dissolves in Grendel's blood when Beowulf severs the head). High fantasy again, low/no magic. Monsters, dragons, fighting, treasure, good vs. evil... What I think we have here, are 3-10 Overly powerful magical items, that we can all agree are magical items. But how does one discount the possibilty that any other knight had magical weapons/armor? After all, a +1 sword, is still nothing compared to Excaliber. But in a world where you have 3-10 Super magic items, I think the possibility exists that other lessor magical items could exist. The other side to this, is this is 1 Kingdom, fairly poorly done in detail. If each Knight had their own in depth tales associated with it, I think each would have some sort of mystical item(s). Arthur, the Green Knight and Mordred are the easy Magic Item users, but Lancelot's Armor could be the reason he is injured with it on. All his injuries come without it. Perhaps his armor is also enchanted and gives a bonus similiar to Arthur's scabbard? We won't know, because we don't have enough details. As for Beowolf, I don't know it well enough to comment. I didn't care for the book when I had to read it 20+ years ago for school, and I didn't care for the movie (more of the style the movie was done in). Ah, see, I make characters, and I don't care if they can kill Gods in three rounds or not. Maybe I'm different. But motivation varies from character to character - and yes, I've had the Raistlin prototype before. No, my point was that players who play that way will always feel that way, level of magic not making a difference in that. This seems to be promoting a rather adversarial position in which the DM plays the role of good natured door mat to every desire the PCs have - which seems to be another mega-issue here: any DM who runs a low-magic game is automatically adversarial to the PCs. Which I don't agree with. Anymore than I agree with the DM who stacks the party with magic being adversarial because he wants to send bigger badder uglies their way and TPK them. Looking at the DMG where you cited it also points out two very important things: The fun is in your hands. The DM defines the game. I think you can argue that the DMG is suggesting that we should enjoy ourselves too - make it fun for the players certainly, but don't eliminate the fun for yourself doing it. Agreed. The DM and the Players should agree as to what they expect out of the campaign. If the players want High magic and the DM want Low Magic (or vice versa), a compromise needs to be done, otherwise one side won't get any fun out of it. Personally, I've played in many settings (although not so many since College) and having knowledge going in makes a difference. I prefer a good DM more than any setting. Every flaw that seems to be drawing the hate-on is a by-product of the DM in question, not the gaming style. It's almost like a kind of racism here - generalizations based on limited experience and observation. Again, agreed. LOL...myself, I have played other games and find that the tendency to abuse them is pretty strong. Never played Iron Heroes, but I'm thinking I might like to find it and try it. The problem is, some of the players in my group are reluctant to break away from D&D and try different systems. So we play D&D because it keeps them happy. It was an alright system. The person who wanted to run it hates magic, so this was his way of not dealing with eliminating D&D Magic. The game played well (if you play D&D its not hard to go to) but he hadn't run anything in 10+ years, and it showed. He was happy when I took over the DMing (although we went back to D&D and my level of magic, which is somewhere in the middle - fair amount of it, but controlled ie no open the DMG to find stuff right away) Thank you...because I have never once claimed that LM is the best or even better. I simply accept that it is my preferred style of play, and that the criticisms against it are more a by-product of the player's preference coupled with, from the sounds of it, poor DMing. And I've never claimed HM is best either. My main arguement is that most fictional sources that are claimed as low magic probably have more magic when you look into it than has been posted about.
Rosisha 04-29-08, 12:18 PM	Iserith, they go to extremes, because, for some reason, people get really touchy about this subject. Like Sunic accusing me of using sweeping generalizations (though I provided definitions of my terms in a thread), and then appologized for using them himself... but said his use of them was okay. I "use" them and I'm a horrible person, and he, as the Internetz Police has to jump on me. But if he does it, well thats okay cause he is on the side of truth, light, and apple pie. Frankly people need to learn: There are different styles of play. They are all fine. Some will prefer one form, some will prefer another. No one should smack down a style of play they don't like due to experience. Cause personal experience does not a fact make. Just avoid it yourself. If someone posts a thread saying "How do I do X?" ignore it if you don't like X. Of course, respect like that is rare on the web. And as a result, my ignore list grows loooonger and Looooooonger. Rosisha
green_yawgmoth 04-29-08, 12:40 PM	I've always viewed low magic as a crutch for DMs who can't tailor encounters to their players and/or can't figure out a basic strategy past "monster goes after the most heavily armored; keeps hitting him until dead." Or for DMs that are so afraid of things "getting out of hand" that a character with more than 3 magic items is a threat to the entire world. Conversely, I'm not really big on high-magic games, since those can suffer just the opposite but no less annoying problems. Having a +4 everything burst weapon at level 6 is a lot like having fiery put on your weapon in WoW at the same level; there's no challenge at all, to the point where you pretty much have to rile up a dragonflight just for the excitement. And before anyone says anything, yes I know these are sweeping generalizations. I'm sure everyone in this thread is an exception to one or both of the above paragraphs and are amazing DMs that manage to keep everyone involved and entertained and somehow it's just everyone else I've met that sucks. Oh well. Personally, I prefer (for both playing and running) mid-magic games. You get to have what you need, but not much else. The sorcerer will be able to get his cloak of +6 cha, the fighter will find some kind of neat armor and/or weapon, etc. etc., but the possibility of getting enough spare money to buy a city or some such is as close to nil as you can get. And if the party turns out to be more powerful than I realize, then I will just scale up everything accordingly. Life goes on, the players have their various encounters, ob-la-di, ob-la-da.
weepingminotaur 04-29-08, 01:12 PM	I am starting to get irritated by the constant refrain that DMs who prefer low-magic campaigns hate their players. As far as I can see, there is no evidence to support this assertion. I could just as easily say that players who prefer high-magic campaigns hate their DMs. We can make sweeping generalizations about things we can't possibly know for sure until the cows come home. What's the point? A low-magic campaign has a certain flavor, as does a high-magic campaign. Some DMs prefer the former, some the latter, some don't care either way.
iserith 04-29-08, 01:23 PM	I am starting to get irritated by the constant refrain that DMs who prefer low-magic campaigns hate their players. As far as I can see, there is no evidence to support this assertion. I could just as easily say that players who prefer high-magic campaigns hate their DMs. We can make sweeping generalizations about things we can't possibly know for sure until the cows come home. What's the point? A low-magic campaign has a certain flavor, as does a high-magic campaign. Some DMs prefer the former, some the latter, some don't care either way. Reasonable arguments have no place on the internets, sir. You'd do well to keep your logic and general understanding of others to yourself.
Rosisha 04-29-08, 01:26 PM	Don't get irritated! Ignore the jerks! They aren't willing to have a frank and open discussion about problems with game systems, or the benefits of X style of play. They simply state: "My way is the only way because my experiences and exposure to people is more important then your experiences and exposures. Thus I am right, and you are wrong, and I win the internetz." So I just ignore them. At that point there is simply no point in continuing a discussion. Because it is not a discussion, it is a screaming brick wall and you can either run into it, or ignore it. I ignore it. Oh and one of my players threatened to stop playing if I even open a 4e book. Now I'm worried that my players might try to railroad me into even more low magic then what I'm comfortable with! /sarcasm BUT WAIT! Players LOVE high magic and HATE low magic... so shouldn't I, as DM, be the one making ultimatums to them?! OMGWTFBBQPEWPEWPEWLAZERBEAMS! Oh dear. /end sarcasm. Rosisha
weepingminotaur 04-29-08, 01:44 PM	For the record, my D&D preference falls somewhere in the middle. I would run a low-magic campaign if I could, but I don't think D&D is set up to accommodate that style without needing a host of modifications to other aspects of the game, and frankly, I have neither the time nor the energy to make those modifications. If I go low magic on my PCs, it will make them underpowered to face the monster whose CR presumes a party equipped with a certain level and number of magic items. Which means I have to tweak the monster. And then the encounter. And possibly the whole module. Given that I'm running Red Hand of Doom right now, I'm not interested in that much rewriting. :) The best low magic campaign I played in was a LOTR campaign a few years ago, which was really enjoyable because nobody gave a damn about magic items. It wasn't important to the story, it didn't spoil our fun, and it had no impact on combat.
mplindustries 04-29-08, 01:45 PM	So, out of nowhere, I will state my case. I have always in the past, and likely always will, run low-magic style games. However, I absolutely do not want to restrain player power. I actually highly encourage optimization. I want PCs who are cinematic badasses. They are heroes (well, almost always anti-heroes, but thats what they want), and high magic settings diminish this (as far as I'm concerned...your mileage may vary). I want the characters to be the source of the awesomeness, not their stuff. Obviously, this comes with challenges, but I am more than willing to face them. For one, it means I have to custom build every encounter (sometimes on the fly), because CR as presented in the DMG and monster entries is a totally irrelevant concept. I don't totally throw out the concept of magic items, they just become very rare. I usually do only a few for the entire party, or occaisionally, one for each player. The standard argument now, is for someone to say, "But in a low magic world, spellcaster players are even more powerful than the fighter!" Well, this is usually true, but I've taken steps to curtail this. First, I eliminate Wizards. Now, I have to admit, in all 15+ years of playing D&D incarnations, I've only ever played 3 sessions with a guy who actually wanted to be a wizard, but I figure its worth mentioning. Not only are they tedious to play (again, as far as I'm concerned), they rely on me to be powerful, since I have to provide NPC wizards, spellbooks, and scrolls, etc. I'd rather wing it, so I hate Wizards. For what its worth, the same goes for Archivists. Secondly, I houserule a few spells I consider out of place in my worlds, for flavor or power reasons. For one, there are no "silly" spells. Stuff like Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Uncontrollable Dance...those go right away (though I allow non-silly variations). Then, I move spells around the schools. Mage armor and other purely protective things go to Abjuration. Healing moves back to Necromancy. Those silly Conjuration direct damage spells go to Evocation. I limit spellcasters to only two schools of magic (Just like the Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer). Lastly, I remove Transmutation (Polymorph), Conjuration (Teleportation), anything that grants a fly speed for a longer duration than rounds/level, and anything that crosses planes. Its messy, but my normal players actually prefer it that way. None of them like D&D spellcasting anyway (its tedious!), so the houserules are only really codified for new players. Anyway, even within the constraints of these houserules, my players are very powerful. So yeah, I guess the point was, Low Magic does not equal Low Power.
Zombie_Babies 04-29-08, 02:13 PM	mplindustries: The problem with magic in D&D is that it's too tedious. So to correct this you add a ton of rules to make it- more tedious? I are confoosed... But, if it works and the group likes it, you are doing it right. And I do mean that. I prefer mid magic myself. The players get their shinies by earning them from the baddies who have shinies as well. They can trade useless stuff for half price to get something else (within reason) and can even enhance items that they have grown fond of and want to keep. I like the gear. And if we're talking about low magic settings where the hero is more important than his gear, we best remember that Excalibur is pretty damned important to that little story, no? And Conan's sword. And on and on. Heroes have had special gear since there have been heroes and gear. They might have had less stuff, but the importance of the gear was still there. All levels of magic are valid ways to play and don't have anything whatsoever to do with how a DM feels about his group or vice versa. Keep in mind, however, that 3.x was designed with the idea that the players will have a certain number of items to aid them as they advance. Does this mean that LM is wrong? Nope. Just that it's more work. And if you're willing to do the work you won't have any problems.
StruckingFuggle 04-29-08, 02:16 PM	Drawing comparisons to the real world is moot. You don't need what translates into millions of dollars in personal equipment to function there. You do need such, to adventure at high levels (and at lower levels, scale the price down). Without it, you cannot adventure and therefore retire. Unless for some reason you want to roleplay the mundaneness of rotting away due to old age or something, that means time to move to another character. Well, maybe if you lose all your gear you can drop down a couple (several) CRs and get your wealth back by fighting weeeell bellow your level for a while ... ... but how much fun would that be? Hm.
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 02:18 PM	Ok first off, what is a 'Balrog'? Is it a Balor? If so a group of level 12s optimized enough might be able to take it... except they have 12 HD (maximum). Ergo, everyone within range that isn't evil gets paralyzed with no saving throw. Enter CdGs at the demon's leisure. It doesn't matter how optimized they are, they only have a chance if they can somehow surprise it and one round it before it can act. And given the whole teleportation at will bit and very high mental stats, good luck accomplishing this. This is ignoring their other abilities which could be countered with sufficient optimization at that level. And I don't know why you appear to be assuming I have issues with strong PCs. Especially given that I actively encourage them. Heroes (anti heroes/villains) should be badass. Simple as that. Second off, the roll/PB bit. Nothing wrong with rolling, though rolls may limit options. Example: 2 really good rolls, a nice one, and 3 decent ones means great SAD character, very bad MAD character. If you had your heart set on a Monk... sucks to be you. Yeah sure you could try to do it anyways, but that only magnifies the existing disadvantage from being a Monk. In other words, you'll likely not accomplish anything. I think this came up because of the 3d6 in order bit, aka playing an NPC chosen at random instead of deciding what you want in at least general terms and going from there. In other words, picking who you pick as your means of interacting with the world. As a result, I won't walk from a roll stats game. I will walk if the DM tries to take over my character creation, perhaps with a pregen. I will run at top speed if he tries to dictate what my character should be. "Oh, I think he should have (insert junk feat) instead." Randomness about starting character aside from what has been mentioned, having character choices made for me, and so forth... No.
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 02:28 PM	Well, maybe if you lose all your gear you can drop down a couple (several) CRs and get your wealth back by fighting weeeell bellow your level for a while ... ... but how much fun would that be? Hm. Largely depends on level. If they're like level 5, they lost a point or two of AC, maybe one point of damage, and one all saves. Provided they have mundane replacements of course. They aren't going to be much more hindered by it than they would if they all died and were Raised. Taking all their stuff is still a bastard move of course. Go up a few levels and the fact becomes magnified exponentially. A level 5 with level 10 gear has a fairly good chance of kicking the ass of a level 10 with level 5 gear. Having no gear at all is of course worse than having about 20% gear. Funny thing is? Level 5 is about the soonest you can start reliably finding magic items. Though said 5s won't have level 10 gear, the fact that something a full 5 levels lower than you actually has a decent chance to kill you just because you don't have your recommended allowance of shinies is quite telling. Now get to the very high levels, where if you don't have multiple AC boosting items you are Power Attack bait for anything with a half decent attack bonus, anything that can force a save will completely gib you without a cloak of resistance, and you'll have a hard time doing damage that matters without weapon properties to add to it. Don't get me started on utility items like being able to fly so you can deal with other fliers as a non magical class without having to make your one trick archery. This is easily observable by looking at any humanoid NPC - they have about one third the wealth PCs do, and as a result can't get their stats high enough to be a credible threat. Meanwhile they are literally as rich as dragons who are of course considerably more dangerous and thereby more capable of retaining such wealth. Hmmm...
StruckingFuggle 04-29-08, 02:35 PM	I'm not sure I was clear. What I meant was, say, Level 10 PCs with Level 1 wealth going after Level 5 challenges until they got enough items to go back to Level 10 challenges. "rebuild from near scratch" and all that.
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 02:41 PM	I'm not sure I was clear. What I meant was, say, Level 10 PCs with Level 1 wealth going after Level 5 challenges until they got enough items to go back to Level 10 challenges. "rebuild from near scratch" and all that. Which still illustrates them clearly being set back worse than death and having to endure at least a few sessions of drabness before they can get back to the interesting part. It gets worse of course if the DM doesn't like 'mage marts' for you to sell off unneeded low level stuff to get better stuff.
Johnathan_Vagabond 04-29-08, 03:26 PM	No players (or maybe Johnathan_Vagabond?) saying they enjoy playing in one. I get to do both :D
stupidmop 04-29-08, 03:40 PM	My campaigns integrate both high and low magic. It depends on the culture or area the PCs are in. I have one continent in my world which is very low magic, much like Middle-Earth, and I have another continent which is very high magic, something like the world in Final Fantasy IX. It works well I think because it has some variety.
ryguysolis 04-29-08, 03:46 PM	People opposed to low magic games: I'm still trying to get a handle on how exactly you view this D&D. If you wouldn't mind answering the following I think it will help me understand your side of the issue a bit better. Which of the following would you prefer, or would they be equally preferable? 1. To have the "correct" amount of magic gear and be challenged by "correct" baddies (i.e. CRs intended for the party level) 2. To have less than the "correct" amount of magic gear and face lesser monsters (i.e. CRs intended for the party level -1 or -2) Additionally, which of the following would you prefer? 3. To have the DM run all monsters by the book and challenge you based primarily on CR relative to your party level 4. To have the DM run all monsters so as to provide a challenge he/she feels is appropriate to the party at the time, using CRs and stats BtB when they coincide with his goals and re envisioning monster's capabilities when they don't
Mock26 04-29-08, 04:57 PM	As for Sting, and the fact it glowed when orcs neared....does that mean its magical or special? The fact Tolk didn't use approved D&D terms for items doesn't mean he didn't have a magic rich realm. Read his works. And, I'm not talking about just the four main books. Read the Silmarillion. Read The Book of Lost Tales I and The Book of Lost Tales II. Read the Lays of Beleriand. Read The Lost Road. Read the rest of the books in that "series" which are a collection of his various drafts of his various works, with the drafts for The Silmarillion being prominant. Read The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. Middle Earth and Tolkien's writings were not just fantasy as we now see it. He was writing what he saw would be a new mythology, a new mythology for England that could stand beside the mythology of the Romans and the Greeks and the Vikings and the Babylonians and all the other mythologies out there. He was influenced heavily by mythology in his writings and in creating a new mythology it was one that would fit in with the established mythologies of the world. As such magic was limited. Yes, magical items and such were present, but they were limited in Tolkiens works just as they were limited in the world's mythologies. Why would Legolas use a new bowstring, when his was working fine if he didn't gain some implied bonus from it? Why wouldn't he simply wait until hte next time his current bowstring broke before using it? He was NOT given just a new bow string. He was given a BOW. The bowstring mentioned was part of that bow. He used the new bow because the bows of the Galadrin (the elves of Lothlorien who followed Galadriel) were longer and stouter than the bows of Mirkwood, and Legolas was from Mirkwood. As a dark elf Legolas would naturally have great respect for any of the light elves who had lived in Valinor for a time. Such a gift, while being a superior quality bow than his own, would also be held in great reverence for someone such a Legolas. To not use it would be a dishonor to her. If you don't want to see the magic in the world, it doesn't mean its not there. He didn't write Short Sword +2/+4 vs Orcs, he wrote a sword that glowed when Orcs approached. He RP'd the magic nature of the weapon. If you actually go through the dialog, you can see what "special" items are present. They are special for being either magical or exceptional quality. Since we know for sure (IE GLOWING MAGICAL SWORDS) that some Magic Items do exist, it foolish to say there are no other magical items out there. I never said that sting was NOT magical. I merely pointed out that the ability to cleave into wood easily might not necessarily be a magical quality in Tolkien's world. As for special materials being used in the creation of magical qualities, that does exist in D&D. A Meteorite would qualify in that. It made the forged item do things no other could do. Isn't that the definition for magical in nature? Not necessarily. Go to the bronze age and present them with some forged steel weapons. They would seem magical in nature. Go back to the 1920's and present them with some titanitum itmes. They would seem magical in nature. Just because something is perceived as being different or as having qualities that do not exist elsewhere in the world at that time does not automatically mean that it is magical. If Magical Items weren't overly present (only a few by your count), how did Sauron convince 19 Lords of Men, Dwarves and Elves that those Rings were Magical. Yeah, you want to give me a "magic" ring. Uh-uh, sure, go stand over there with the "magic" Snake Oil guys. The Kings got their wizards to cast Detect Magic and confirm that the rings were magical and what some of the properties were. They found the rings to be +4 Charisma with the ability to Command 3/day as per the spell. The Wizards were unable to find the cursed part of the ring (the elves were able to make their saves longer and rid themselves of the majority of the curse) and the Kings of Men had to make their Saves until they succumed to the evils of the Rings (the DCs increased over time) and turned into the 9 riders. Well, there is the fact that Sauron is a GOD that would have something to do with it. When a god comes up and presents you with something magical then chances are you are going to believe that it is magical, even if magic wasn't overly present. Additionally, the ONLY wizards that Tolkien wrote about, the Istari, were not mortal men. Gandalf and Saruman and Radagast and the others were in fact divine beings sent by the gods themselves. Would you have read the story if it read that way? I wouldn't either. The way he wrote it was much better, but it still doesn't mean the items he wrote about were any less magical. If you DM in a Low Magic settings, and can convince the players to accept the "Special" nature of magical items without using block and tackle DMG lingo (Ie +2 sword vs a sword with a complete history) and can add background to the items (since there are fewer of them and all of them special) you are doing a great job as a DM. But thats not saying that the texts many of us grew up reading didn't have a great number of magical items. The Authors were just that good in not stating their obvious magical nature. Most Stories would bore down if they found the treasure, waited to cast Detect Magic and Identify everything..... I am not doubting that there was magic in Tolkien's worlds. But, a large number of people who play D&D and other fantasy games have a misguided tendancy to view magic that isn't there. Middle Earth was supposed to be our Earth and as such any items and magic that were present back then would still be in potentially be around today. That was not acceptable to Tolkien. Tolkien intentionally kept the number of magic items low to make his world (which is our world) more believable. The presence of lots of magical items back then would require too much explanation as to what happened to them. That is also why the elves would some day eventually all cross over the sea, because (Middle) Earth was the domain of men and there are no elves in today's world. That is also why the dwarves burrowed ever downward into the bowels of the earth. That is why halflings are shy and reclusive and those few that remain are never seen by man (much like fairies of common folklore, they exist but are almost never seen, and tose who claim to have seen them are usually doubted). If one were to view Tolkien's writings as pure fantasy in the modern sense then it is natural for one to see magic everywhere. But, to view Tolkien's writings as such is not accurate because that is not how they were written. They were written, as I said above, to be a new mythology that could stand alongside the Norse, Roman, Greek, Celt, and other mythologies.
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 04:58 PM	I'd prefer: Correct amount of magic, monsters slightly harder than what's intended. Since the CR bar is set deliberately low as it assumes players are stupid when they usually aren't, using monsters worth their CR instead of spammed up with utter crap feats and such, or treating them as a CR 1-2 lower without changing abilities would be ideal. Failing this correct magic and correct opponents. In addition I'd prefer they not run monsters by the book as that means aside from dragons, outsiders, the MM3, certain monsters advanced by HD, and a handful of other exceptions he is giving us free XP and loot. Especially humanoids, unless he really knows his opt-fu humanoids are a free dragon hoard in an easy to kill package. This doesn't mean start making up creatures though. It means give them feats that are actually useful and play them intelligently. Even non intelligent foes understand tactics to an extent. See: Wolf pack. Failing this, by the book but within the above guidelines to ensure they do in fact pose a credible threat.
Mock26 04-29-08, 05:05 PM	Ok first off, what is a 'Balrog'? By a true definition a balrog is one of the Maiar who had an affinity to fire and were corrupted by Melkor. Melkor was one of the Ainur (the "gods" and "goddesses" of Middle Earth), but the Maiar were of the same race as the Ainur, just of lesser rank (and in greater numbers). As such, a balrog is a divine being, albeit a minor divine being, but a divine being none the less. The Istari (such as Gandalf and Radagast and Saruman) were also Maiar, send by the Ainur to aid the people of Middle Earth in their struggle against Sauron, who was also a Maiar and was once the chief servant of Melkor. While the powers of individual Maiar varied they were none the less divine beings (and the main reason that Gandalf was able to defeat Saruman was because the Ainur stripped Saruman of his powers).
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 05:16 PM	By a true definition a balrog is one of the Maiar who had an affinity to fire and were corrupted by Melkor. Melkor was one of the Ainur (the "gods" and "goddesses" of Middle Earth), but the Maiar were of the same race as the Ainur, just of lesser rank (and in greater numbers). As such, a balrog is a divine being, albeit a minor divine being, but a divine being none the less. The Istari (such as Gandalf and Radagast and Saruman) were also Maiar, send by the Ainur to aid the people of Middle Earth in their struggle against Sauron, who was also a Maiar and was once the chief servant of Melkor. While the powers of individual Maiar varied they were none the less divine beings (and the main reason that Gandalf was able to defeat Saruman was because the Ainur stripped Saruman of his powers). ...In D&D terms, as that was the context in which it came up.
Aryxbez 04-29-08, 05:47 PM	I too run a low-magic Campaign, of course my reason for it is due to the events of the last campaign, as my campaigns are a series of sorts. It was done because it was a thing for a villain to do to take over a land, of course he died, so his plan was not so great, still caused the land to have less magical items. Although I'm sure out of game I've always wanted to run a low-magic game, of course I'm not even sure anymore. How it's low-magic, it might not even be so for all I know, that any items the PC's have are either legacy weapons (for Group A), and that they have limited selection of what to improve/purchase from their leaders stores/crafters For Group B. As there is two groups of PC's, pretty much Players have two characters, each of one not related to each other story, race, or class wise, at least they should be different from each other. Otherwise for Group A, which I mostly will refer to, they don't buy magical items or anything, potions can be bought, however I have them be natural, not magical, far as weapons and armor upgrades go, they buy masterwork version of the magic equivalent. That a +2 magical armor=+2 more AC, non-magical one gives a +2 Masterwork bonus to AC now just from pure craftsmanship. Same goes for weapon attack/damages for mswk & magical, Down side is that masterwork equivalents are a bit more expensive than the Magical version. Also Masterwork can't replicate them magical enchantments such as Vicious, Vorpal, Flaming, Collision (a fav of mine), and so on. That way they have something to spend their gold on, so they have a reason for a decent bundle of gold. On Iron Heroes, I am fully aware of it's existance, my store I go to doesn't have it. That and 4th edition is so close, I'm in higher preference to perhaps convert to said edition so that less magic is depended upon. As now only need 3 essential items, even then, those can be replaced pretty easily.
ryguysolis 04-29-08, 06:00 PM	I'd prefer: Correct amount of magic, monsters slightly harder than what's intended. Since the CR bar is set deliberately low as it assumes players are stupid when they usually aren't, using monsters worth their CR instead of spammed up with utter crap feats and such, or treating them as a CR 1-2 lower without changing abilities would be ideal. Failing this correct magic and correct opponents. I remain confused by your desire for the "correct" amount of magic gear. If, as you point out, the CR of a monster is "set deliberately low" when confronted by a party of adequate intelligence and equipped with the "correct" amount of magic gear, then wouldn't the same encounter be more challenging with less than the "correct" amount of gear? Do you see what I mean? If you have 4 generic units of magic gear and get through an encounter with 1/2 of your collective HP remaining, then the same encounter with 1 generic unit of magic gear should leave you with only 1/8 of your HP remaining (assuming the same level of intelligence in tactics). Therefore, surviving that encounter with 1/2 your HP despite being given less than the "correct" amount of magic gear would truly be challenging. As it seems you place a high value on combat encounters being challenging when they occur; wouldn't embracing low magic settings would be the way to go?
Sunic_Flames 04-29-08, 06:32 PM	I remain confused by your desire for the "correct" amount of magic gear. If, as you point out, the CR of a monster is "set deliberately low" when confronted by a party of adequate intelligence and equipped with the "correct" amount of magic gear, then wouldn't the same encounter be more challenging with less than the "correct" amount of gear? Do you see what I mean? If you have 4 generic units of magic gear and get through an encounter with 1/2 of your collective HP remaining, then the same encounter with 1 generic unit of magic gear should leave you with only 1/8 of your HP remaining (assuming the same level of intelligence in tactics). Therefore, surviving that encounter with 1/2 your HP despite being given less than the "correct" amount of magic gear would truly be challenging. As it seems you place a high value on combat encounters being challenging when they occur; wouldn't embracing low magic settings would be the way to go? Either your math is odd or your wording is. I'm not sure what you're getting at. As for the rest, the answer is magic makes a massive difference. Intelligence makes a moderate difference. Go ahead, try to make up a tactic to take out something 5 levels higher. Probably won't work even under ideal conditions. Now switch gear with it, and you have a fairly good success chance. The result is overcompensation, and the underlying cause is most often negative. Even if it somehow manages to avoid being directly so, cascade effect ensures there will be undesirable repercussions in several other areas.
Mock26 04-29-08, 06:45 PM	...In D&D terms, as that was the context in which it came up. There really isn't anything in D&D terms to match a balrog. Balrogs are virtually unbeatable. In tens of thousands of years of existance only a handful of people have every defeated one, and one of those was a divine being who himself died as a result of his fighting the balrog. There isn't a monster in D&D that packs that level of power.
ryguysolis 04-29-08, 06:45 PM	Either your math is odd or your wording is. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was presenting a simple ratio 4 : 1/2 = 1 : 1/8. I was attempting to isolate the importance of magic items by saying that if you had 4 magic items and ended the encounter with 1/2 your HP, then with 1 magic item you would end the encounter with 1/8 your HP. As for the rest, the answer is magic makes a massive difference. Intelligence makes a moderate difference. Go ahead, try to make up a tactic to take out something 5 levels higher. We are in agreement that magic makes a huge difference. Since my choice of wording if evidently not easily read I will try to put my thoughts into standard argument form. Premise 1: Having fewer magic items makes a combat encounter more challenging than having the "correct" number of magic items. Premise 2: Sunic_Flames likes combat encounters to be challenging (when they occur). Conclusion: Sunic_Flames likes having fewer magic items than the "correct" number. Now we just agreed that magic items make a huge difference in the difficulty of combat (see your last post). I drew the second premise from this post, which I read as indicating you like challenging combat encounters: I'd prefer: Correct amount of magic, monsters slightly harder than what's intended. Since the CR bar is set deliberately low as it assumes players are stupid when they usually aren't, using monsters worth their CR instead of spammed up with utter crap feats and such, or treating them as a CR 1-2 lower without changing abilities would be ideal. Failing this correct magic and correct opponents. In addition I'd prefer they not run monsters by the book as that means aside from dragons, outsiders, the MM3, certain monsters advanced by HD, and a handful of other exceptions he is giving us free XP and loot. Especially humanoids, unless he really knows his opt-fu humanoids are a free dragon hoard in an easy to kill package. This doesn't mean start making up creatures though. It means give them feats that are actually useful and play them intelligently. Even non intelligent foes understand tactics to an extent. See: Wolf pack. Failing this, by the book but within the above guidelines to ensure they do in fact pose a credible threat. I believe that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. On which point do you disagree (since it is certain that you do :))
iserith 04-29-08, 06:52 PM	What is the "correct" number of magic items a character should have? Is this based on the Wealth by Level charts? If it is, how does this work given that some believe the classes to be inherently imbalanced?
ryguysolis 04-29-08, 07:14 PM	I believe Sunic is basing it off of the WBL charts or something close to it. I know I was. I put "correct" in quotes because I do not believe the WBL are a good guideline for every game to follow.
Winterleaf 04-29-08, 08:43 PM	Why does everyone always go from one extreme to the other, knowing that it makes almost no sense? Just because your ability scores are random doesn't mean everything has to be random. You get your stats. You take a look at what class and race is most suitable to those stats. Once you've decided on that, you fill in the details based on how you plan on running that particular character - including skills, feats, and the like. "Why not randomly assign skill points too?" C'mon. Really. Of course, I defend your right to use the point-buy system. I use it as well. Sometimes we don't. But I don't walk away from a game because the DM likes a bit of randomness involved at character creation. I go with it and make the best of what I get. I'll have fun no matter what character I end up with. Some of us poke fun at it because randomly rolling certain aspects of your character but not others makes zero sense. I have yet to hear anyone present a clear and logical reason that players should roll any part of of the character when they are attempting to create characters that they want to play, besides "as a DM, I want to reduce player control over their character's ability scores." I want to play a human feral raised by wolves. Check. I want her to be a ranger, so she can track and simulate other aspects of outdoor proficiency. Check. I want her to be quick and strong, with a decent wisdom score so that it best simulates a perceptive person whose life in the wild has made her in tune with her surroundings and a common sense, down to earth outlook. "Oh, I'm sorry, that's forbidden. Roll for your stats." So my Str:10, Wis:8 Cha:16 ranger totters into the game, or I build a character that I didn't really have in mind anyway. . . And yet players choose their class, race, placement of skill points, and other vital statistics. What makes ability scores so sancrosanct to certain DM's that they insist that this aspect of the character creation process must be random? If you're arguing for authenticity (you don't have control over how you're born) then rolling for scores is fine, if you're also rolling for race and physical appearance. If you're arguing for reducing min/maxing, then you roll for feats, class, and all the other accoutrements. If you're rolling to reduce player grievance, I don't see how that will help, but someone may enlighten me. I generally get the feeling that most DM's insist on it because "that's the way I did it, and if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my players" and then defend that stance to the death. And I did mention that I'm in a game (pbp) where the DM had us roll and assign points. I'm willing to go for it in a game where I'm not certain just how long low the game will last. If I'm in a sit down game where I expect the game to be long-lived, then I want to play a character of my own design, not one that I've adopted because of arbitrary methods of creating characters, because over the long term I prefer playing characters that I've chosen than ones whose concepts were chosen for me.
iserith 04-29-08, 09:07 PM	Some of us poke fun at it because randomly rolling certain aspects of your character but not others makes zero sense. I have yet to hear anyone present a clear and logical reason that players should roll any part of of the character when they are attempting to create characters that they want to play, besides "as a DM, I want to reduce player control over their character's ability scores." I want to play a human feral raised by wolves. Check. I want her to be a ranger, so she can track and simulate other aspects of outdoor proficiency. Check. I want her to be quick and strong, with a decent wisdom score so that it best simulates a perceptive person whose life in the wild has made her in tune with her surroundings and a common sense, down to earth outlook. "Oh, I'm sorry, that's forbidden. Roll for your stats." So my Str:10, Wis:8 Cha:16 ranger totters into the game, or I build a character that I didn't really have in mind anyway. . . And yet players choose their class, race, placement of skill points, and other vital statistics. What makes ability scores so sancrosanct to certain DM's that they insist that this aspect of the character creation process must be random? If you're arguing for authenticity (you don't have control over how you're born) then rolling for scores is fine, if you're also rolling for race and physical appearance. If you're arguing for reducing min/maxing, then you roll for feats, class, and all the other accoutrements. If you're rolling to reduce player grievance, I don't see how that will help, but someone may enlighten me. I generally get the feeling that most DM's insist on it because "that's the way I did it, and if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my players" and then defend that stance to the death. And I did mention that I'm in a game (pbp) where the DM had us roll and assign points. I'm willing to go for it in a game where I'm not certain just how long low the game will last. If I'm in a sit down game where I expect the game to be long-lied, then I want to play a character of my own design, not one that I've adopted because of arbitrary methods of creating characters, because over the long term I prefer playing characters that I've chosen than ones whose concepts were chosen for me. I know where you're coming from. My group has used every conceivable character generation method (as far as I know). For the sake of easy auditing, we tend to stick to point buy. Now, on the other hand, here's pretty much the exact discussion prior to starting the Eberron game I finished up a few months ago (after a year of solid play): Me: What do you guys want to play this campaign? Players: Not sure, no preference. We've played it all. How about a city campaign? Me: Okay, well, what if we went with randomly assigned stats that still total up to a 32-point buy? You get what you get and you make the best out of it and we throw away the concept of a standard "balanced" party? Players: Sure, okay. That sounds like fun. Let's see what we get... We ended up with two clerics, a rogue, and an artificer. It was a brilliant campaign with HIGHLY developed characters that lasted from 2nd to 16th-level. The only difference between this and any other good campaign is that the character classes and races (as a factor of what scores fells where) were essentially determined by the dice rather than by carefully considered choices. The next campaign, we simply went with 32-point because I asked the players to come up with a typical balanced party with the main four classes represented. (I wanted to playtest Serial Hero.) My point is that nobody need be a slave to any system, nor is any one system better than the next. Sometimes it's just plain fun to work with what fate gives you, the challenge being coping with a character that might be a little wacky in some areas, but still viable. Your restatement of finding folly in rolling up stats, but not randomly rolling everything else... Just because you roll your stats doesn't mean everything else needs to be random. There's no slippery slope here. We're well off-topic now. My apologies.
danielinthewolvesden 04-29-08, 10:09 PM	Interesting assessment, possibly correct. But tell me DITWD, how do you make a low power game in D&D? What is the actual difference between low power and low magic? I need a clarification before I can respond appropriately, if I can respond at all. You can have Low Power and still full wealth by table by the followung: Lower stats. Elite array? Limits on full spellcasting classes. I made each of my players take a LA+1 race last campaign, this hurts spellcasters a bit. Limits on spells available. Interesting well thought out unique items as loot and rewards- but no "Magik Shoppes". Limits on Multiclassing or PrCs. Only Non-full-Spellcasters can take a PRC and then only for the whole way- if it's a 10 level PrC, you take it for 10 levels. Limit races. Limit Splatbooks.
danielinthewolvesden 04-29-08, 10:45 PM	And here's what many of you are missing. The OP, when he talks about "Low magic" appears to be talking about "Low magic item availability". When some folks talk about Low Magic, they include limiting spellcasters. Give any powergamer a full spellcaster, around lvl 18, with only half the magic wealth per table, and match them vs a Fighter with double wealth & gear. The wizard will win. I am not talking about an arena fight but in the ability to dominate the combats. This is why I do not toss my magic items around willy-nilly. There may well be more total party wealth than the tables indicate. But the Tanks & Skillmonkeys get more than their share, and I limit "Magik Shoppes". I do this by carefully thought out unique itesm, planned for each character. It you find a Flaming Glaive that must be used by a LG female who can do certain manuvers, then the Crusader in the party will glom on to that and the party will not sell it, as the "Magic Pawnshop" will say "Not much call for them around here, I'll give you $2000". Sure, the spellcasters get cool stuff too, just that I temper and balance the loot. (The Necropolitain Arcanist loved the amulet that gave Undead DR 5/cold iron or silver) And there is some pure cash so they can buy that odd wand or whatever. The players love finding cool unique stuff. The glaive will have a name and a history, too. Now sure, there is also a number of generic "potions of ..." and what-not. If you must lower the power level- you must limit the magic users even more than you limit the magic items. And, you can have cool loot without "Magik Shoppes" or being Monty Haul.
runestar 04-29-08, 10:46 PM	Druid20 considered low powered?;)
navar100 04-29-08, 10:48 PM	I am starting to get irritated by the constant refrain that DMs who prefer low-magic campaigns hate their players. As far as I can see, there is no evidence to support this assertion. I could just as easily say that players who prefer high-magic campaigns hate their DMs. We can make sweeping generalizations about things we can't possibly know for sure until the cows come home. What's the point? A low-magic campaign has a certain flavor, as does a high-magic campaign. Some DMs prefer the former, some the latter, some don't care either way. Since I brought up DMs "hating" their players ... If you paid attention, it's not that the game is low-magic; it's the why the game is low-magic. If everyone is gung-ho on playing Conan style or Lord of the Rings style or whatever, enjoy. The DM is not hating his players. If it's because the DM hates his life or can't stand a player character having an 18 or can't stand a 10th level party will teleport instead of taking a 3 month carriage journey where he wanted to ambush them and take their stuff, or always wants the party dirt poor so they can't buy anything, or otherwise make the party's life miserable, then yes, the DM hates his party.
Cranewings 04-29-08, 10:55 PM	You can have Low Power and still full wealth by table by the followung: Lower stats. Elite array? Limits on full spellcasting classes. I made each of my players take a LA+1 race last campaign, this hurts spellcasters a bit. Limits on spells available. Interesting well thought out unique items as loot and rewards- but no "Magik Shoppes". Limits on Multiclassing or PrCs. Only Non-full-Spellcasters can take a PRC and then only for the whole way- if it's a 10 level PrC, you take it for 10 levels. Limit races. Limit Splatbooks. This is a very good style of play to me... I like it.
navar100 04-29-08, 10:57 PM	Well, maybe if you lose all your gear you can drop down a couple (several) CRs and get your wealth back by fighting weeeell bellow your level for a while ... ... but how much fun would that be? Hm. If the DM did this by means of there was no way for players to prevent it no matter what they did, I'd be mad. He might as well have killed everyone in their sleep without a struggle since it's the same thing. If it happened as a logical consequence of events, I'd be disappointed but accept it as part of the game and would appreciate the pay-off at the end when the party is victorious. If it continually happens I'd be mad. If there's never any wealth in the first place, I'd be mad.
navar100 04-29-08, 11:15 PM	And here's what many of you are missing. The OP, when he talks about "Low magic" appears to be talking about "Low magic item availability". When some folks talk about Low Magic, they include limiting spellcasters. Give any powergamer a full spellcaster, around lvl 18, with only half the magic wealth per table, and match them vs a Fighter with double wealth & gear. The wizard will win. I am not talking about an arena fight but in the ability to dominate the combats. This is why I do not toss my magic items around willy-nilly. There may well be more total party wealth than the tables indicate. But the Tanks & Skillmonkeys get more than their share, and I limit "Magik Shoppes". I do this by carefully thought out unique itesm, planned for each character. It you find a Flaming Glaive that must be used by a LG female who can do certain manuvers, then the Crusader in the party will glom on to that and the party will not sell it, as the "Magic Pawnshop" will say "Not much call for them around here, I'll give you $2000". Sure, the spellcasters get cool stuff too, just that I temper and balance the loot. (The Necropolitain Arcanist loved the amulet that gave Undead DR 5/cold iron or silver) And there is some pure cash so they can buy that odd wand or whatever. The players love finding cool unique stuff. The glaive will have a name and a history, too. Now sure, there is also a number of generic "potions of ..." and what-not. If you must lower the power level- you must limit the magic users even more than you limit the magic items. And, you can have cool loot without "Magik Shoppes" or being Monty Haul. That's cool. Not a lot of magic items, but the magic items a character does have are actually useful and the character really wants it. Unfortunately, for the DMs who hate their players low magic games, that's not the case. A 10th level fighter has a longsword +1 and chainmail +1, the cleric a +1 mace of disruption where undead appear once every 20 adventures, the wizard a wand of Magic Missile, caster level 3, with 15 charges, and the rogue boots that give +2 to tumble and +5 to jump. The wizard has a scroll of Knock and Burning Hands. The cleric has a scroll of Detect Magic and Shield Other. The fighter has two potions of Cure Light Wounds, and the rogue has a potion of Bear's Endurance. Each character has roughly 300gp, the rogue a little more because he did side jobs during downtime, but only by about 50gp.
mplindustries 04-30-08, 12:17 AM	I was presenting a simple ratio 4 : 1/2 = 1 : 1/8. I was attempting to isolate the importance of magic items by saying that if you had 4 magic items and ended the encounter with 1/2 your HP, then with 1 magic item you would end the encounter with 1/8 your HP. The problem with that reasoning is that you are assuming each player will have 1/2 and 1/8 their HPs, rather than the party having 1/2 and 1/8 their total HPs. More often than not, when you get down to the 1/8 thing, several players have died while others are unharmed. I've been playing recently with a "standard" D&D group, far removed from the safety and comfort of my low magic settings. The GM is not me, for once, which is why I joined them, but it is so different... Anyway, it generally goes like this(Sidenote: we're all level 9 or 10): Battle starts. The 4 melee guys close in and fight. The 2 caster types hang back and blast/stun/etc. I am a binder, so I do whatever suits the situation, which generally means messing with their casters. The melee guys do some damage, I guess, assuming they can hit at all. One of them can manage 50 damage a hit. The rest usually 15-25. The casters blast (for upwards of 100), stun, or dispel depending. I can hit fairly hard, sometimes 30-40 per hit, or summon grapplers, or daze for a few rounds, or strip magic buffs. It depends. Anyway, then the enemies go. The melee gets crushed horribly, taking 50+ damage a swing with attack bonuses that make their ACs look like jokes. At least one player goes down here. Some of the enemies move around to try and hit the casters. One flies, has the highest AC in the party, and heavy energy resistances. The other has Greater Mirror Image, Invisibility, and Wings of Cover. Needless to say, the enemies make little progress on them. I likewise have excellent defenses in terms of AC, saves, resistances, DR, and miss chance. Anyway, at the end of the combat, usually all of the melee save the cleric have dropped, but the 2 casters and I have full HP. That leaves the party at about 1/3 of our total HP, but with 3-4 (of the 7) people down. Where was I going with this? Hmm, I actually lost track of what I was getting at. Anyway, I don't like playing this way, and I guess I was suggesting that more challenging from a resource loss standpoint is not more fun. mplindustries: The problem with magic in D&D is that it's too tedious. So to correct this you add a ton of rules to make it- more tedious? I are confoosed... But, if it works and the group likes it, you are doing it right. And I do mean that. Ha, yeah I guess it seems that way, but here's what really happened: My long term players, some people I've played with since 3.0 came out, some since way back with AD&D, all hate D&D spellcasting. We all agree that the per day abilities (of all classes, not just spellcasters) are tedious and annoying. There are basically two options: 1) Conserve your abilities "until you need them" at some indeterminate point in the future which never comes and then find out you've been useless for no reason. 2) Use your abilities freely and either force everyone to rest when you're out (which sucks for story flow), or just be useless the rest of the day (which sucks for obvious reasons). Now I'm sure there are people who can accurately judge when and how to use abilities, but none of us find trial and error on that front particularly fun. Psionics is a step up for us, and we like that to a degree, but until later when you have tons of Power Points floating around, its still annoying to not use your best ability every round for fear of later repercussions. Its not that none of use have ever played spellcasters, its just that if we did, we only really used "fire and forget" spells. Stuff like long term buffs we could forget about, or some debuff/blast to use every once in a while on the enemy. Always stuff that supplemented our already formidable "at will" abilities. Spells were never the primary focus. I guess when it really comes down to it, we want simplicity and reliability. We want to know that our best ability is always available. Anyway, the reason I had to codify those magic (well I guess I'll just come right out and say it) nerfs, is that I recently met some new people who play D&D, but not like we are used to. The alterations were, to be honest, an attempt to get them either to not play spellcasters, or to play them the way we had always done. It may not be pretty, but it worked, and the game is fun, and I think a few of them are coming over to the "darkside" of low magic D&D gaming. Funny thing is, I didn't actually have to do anything to stop Druids, because I give everyone awesomely high attributes and encourage X to Y stat stacking builds, so the animal forms available to druids generally have pathetically weak stats (especially AC) compared to most. I highly encourage and love the PHB2 variant actually.
ryguysolis 04-30-08, 01:59 AM	The problem with that reasoning is that you are assuming each player will have 1/2 and 1/8 their HPs, rather than the party having 1/2 and 1/8 their total HPs. More often than not, when you get down to the 1/8 thing, several players have died while others are unharmed. Actually, I meant exactly what you meant; that the party would be down to 1/8 their total HP, meaning one or more PCs would be down. If there was a problem it must have been with my phrasing or your reading :) I didn't mean to say that this kind of encounter should be run, it was merely an argumentative tool to demonstrate my point: if low magic is more challenging and challenge is fun, then low magic is fun. I did not mean to suggest that encounters which drop the party to 1/8 HP should be the norm.
Kobajagrande 04-30-08, 02:56 AM	What I find interesting here, is that I have a feeling that people who look D&D less through the perspective of numbers, math, odds, statistics, optimization and whatnot, seem to have less issues with the system than people who do. Anyone else got the same idea?
navar100 04-30-08, 03:10 AM	The problem with that reasoning is that you are assuming each player will have 1/2 and 1/8 their HPs, rather than the party having 1/2 and 1/8 their total HPs. More often than not, when you get down to the 1/8 thing, several players have died while others are unharmed. I've been playing recently with a "standard" D&D group, far removed from the safety and comfort of my low magic settings. The GM is not me, for once, which is why I joined them, but it is so different... Anyway, it generally goes like this(Sidenote: we're all level 9 or 10): Battle starts. The 4 melee guys close in and fight. The 2 caster types hang back and blast/stun/etc. I am a binder, so I do whatever suits the situation, which generally means messing with their casters. The melee guys do some damage, I guess, assuming they can hit at all. One of them can manage 50 damage a hit. The rest usually 15-25. The casters blast (for upwards of 100), stun, or dispel depending. I can hit fairly hard, sometimes 30-40 per hit, or summon grapplers, or daze for a few rounds, or strip magic buffs. It depends. Anyway, then the enemies go. The melee gets crushed horribly, taking 50+ damage a swing with attack bonuses that make their ACs look like jokes. At least one player goes down here. Some of the enemies move around to try and hit the casters. One flies, has the highest AC in the party, and heavy energy resistances. The other has Greater Mirror Image, Invisibility, and Wings of Cover. Needless to say, the enemies make little progress on them. I likewise have excellent defenses in terms of AC, saves, resistances, DR, and miss chance. Anyway, at the end of the combat, usually all of the melee save the cleric have dropped, but the 2 casters and I have full HP. That leaves the party at about 1/3 of our total HP, but with 3-4 (of the 7) people down. Where was I going with this? Hmm, I actually lost track of what I was getting at. Anyway, I don't like playing this way, and I guess I was suggesting that more challenging from a resource loss standpoint is not more fun. This is one of two situations: 1) The DM hates his players in a high magic game format, meaning he's gunning for the TPK. He's doing this on purpose. 2) The DM is overestimating the strength of the party. He knows the party is "powerful", but he's not judging accurately how much and overcompensating the bad guys. He sees their offensive capability but not their defensive capability. The DM is not doing this on purpose. Talk to the DM. Talk to the other players. If the situation does not change, then you know you have a DM who hates his players in a high magic game format. There is not supposed to be a player character death every session, regardless of magic power level.
navar100 04-30-08, 03:15 AM	What I find interesting here, is that I have a feeling that people who look D&D less through the perspective of numbers, math, odds, statistics, optimization and whatnot, seem to have less issues with the system than people who do. Anyone else got the same idea? No because I have no issues with the system at all. I have issues with DMs who hate their players. There are other issues but not in relation to this topic.
Kobajagrande 04-30-08, 03:44 AM	No because I have no issues with the system at all. I have issues with DMs who hate their players. There are other issues but not in relation to this topic. I was talking more in general the feeling I get from these boards, but it is still prevalent in this thread. For example, I'm currently running a game where the group consists of Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue and Bard. From how some people are talking around on these boards, they should be dead before they left the crib. They're level 3, about to get 4. They have absolutely no magic items, because, well, they didn't have anywhere to get them from. They are after a CR 8 creature, probably face it in a couple of sessions, about the time they get level 6. They'll have time to get their magic items afterwards, unless they obtain it during their chase after the villain. According to these boards, they're dying with every breath they take. Is it impossible to run this? Some here say that yes, it is. Can we play it like that? Yes, yes we can. Are we having fun? Yes, otherwise we wouldn't be playing at all. Now if some people say that something I see with my own eyes is impossible, how do you think I should treat their opinion?
Dash Branaghan 04-30-08, 03:54 AM	What I think we have here, are 3-10 Overly powerful magical items, that we can all agree are magical items. But how does one discount the possibilty that any other knight had magical weapons/armor? After all, a +1 sword, is still nothing compared to Excaliber. But in a world where you have 3-10 Super magic items, I think the possibility exists that other lessor magical items could exist. Even if I agree that they are super-magic items, it doesn't really strike me as overly high magic - as for the world not being fleshed out or the other characters, read Layamon's Brut as well as Malory - many of the Knights have their tales told in other way. And while you could argue that Lancelot's armour is magical, I would peg it far more as masterwork - perhaps Adamantine for the DR which may also translate into his lack of injuries. As for Beowolf, I don't know it well enough to comment. I didn't care for the book when I had to read it 20+ years ago for school, and I didn't care for the movie (more of the style the movie was done in). Beowulf scholar here - won't see the movies on account of general poopiness of text-turned-film. But I have gone over it again in my mind, and there really is no item that can be claimed as magical. So I'll stick to this example from now on. :D The DM and the Players should agree as to what they expect out of the campaign. If the players want High magic and the DM want Low Magic (or vice versa), a compromise needs to be done, otherwise one side won't get any fun out of it. Personally, I've played in many settings (although not so many since College) and having knowledge going in makes a difference. I prefer a good DM more than any setting. I agree here as well - then tendency from others in this thread is all one way with no room for compromise. My main arguement is that most fictional sources that are claimed as low magic probably have more magic when you look into it than has been posted about. Possibly - I admit the possibility you are right but at the same time hold to the view that the items may simply be masterwork or exotic materials instead of actually magic. In the end though, the association with magic items to the depth of fantasy is a misnomer, and while some of the fantasy worlds from our own history may produce magic items, you can just as easily find high fantasy - low/no magic stories too (citing Beowulf again).
Etarnon 04-30-08, 06:42 AM	Well, I don't hate my players. The thing is, the world I run is low magic for story factors. It's a fantasy setting with low magic. If it was a 1990's urban setting with gangs, it would be set in Watts, and have a prevalence of AK-47's, and Uzi's and gang violence. If it was Early Indiana Jones set in the 20s there would be no Jet Aircraft. Now this begs the question, because there are no jets; Do I hate my player who says "Gimme a freaking jet, I am special, I am a PC hear me roar?" No, I say, Dude, no jets. Find a game with a DM that allows those kind of anachronisms in his 20's game. What's really the most interesting is that the original question was: "Any DMs here prefer to run a low magic campaign? Why?" DMs showed up, who have shared the love for their favorite setting, and the ways to deal with some of the problems in running a low magic game. A few posters also showed up who obviously hate and loathe low magic games are busy as hell countering all that positive sharing of what I consider to be good info for pages on end, tearing up low magic as unfeasible, and the province of the controlling DM who "hates his players." Why? I didn't ask about "Who runs low magic to screw those players around "ooh baby", how do we inject that into games. So what is it adding to the dicussion to call basically the whole REST of the thread (Minus some more or less middle of the road neutral posts that have been incisive and helpful to the overall point), "Player hating control freaks?" My guess is that it is easier to post "I hate your game, your style, (and you all suck), rather than to point out, "Hey, I was in this and that low magic game, and I disliked it for X, and I'd really like to see one run well who has one open? Because I am not narrow minded, and I like to try nww things, and I trust the process enuogh that yes, this could work, because LOTS of people here are telling me it can." Except universally from these, "No way am I gonna try that again. I know it's gonna be bad." A breakthrough was achieved earlier in the idea: High Magic = High Challenge, High CR Low Magic = Low Challenge = Low CR Both achieve the same goal. Relative challenge to the party, such that it's fun, differing mainly in setting, and background. A low magic game needs lesser challenges than one where the party has recommended WBL. That's the whole damn point I was trying to make. Most everyone here got it. To those who didn't you never will, too prejudiced, too analytical. too closed minded to the evidence, all around, of DMs testifying about their games. If it was one or two guys saying this "I like low magic", I can see the suspicion, the probing for the "real" truth behind the curtain, the refutation of specific points from the guy trying to "hoodwink the thread" by his claims of fun for his players. But a whole thread for 5 full pages? There's no conspiracy here. The low magic games are working...Like it or not. I thank everyone for their posts. I wish some of them weren't so needllessly dismissing of the majorty, and so DMAN negative in tone, and demeanor. Proves to me that there are all kinds of alignments in the REAL world, too.
navar100 04-30-08, 07:35 AM	I was talking more in general the feeling I get from these boards, but it is still prevalent in this thread. For example, I'm currently running a game where the group consists of Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue and Bard. From how some people are talking around on these boards, they should be dead before they left the crib. They're level 3, about to get 4. They have absolutely no magic items, because, well, they didn't have anywhere to get them from. They are after a CR 8 creature, probably face it in a couple of sessions, about the time they get level 6. They'll have time to get their magic items afterwards, unless they obtain it during their chase after the villain. According to these boards, they're dying with every breath they take. Is it impossible to run this? Some here say that yes, it is. Can we play it like that? Yes, yes we can. Are we having fun? Yes, otherwise we wouldn't be playing at all. Now if some people say that something I see with my own eyes is impossible, how do you think I should treat their opinion? At this level it's not unusual (to be loved by anyone ..., sorry) they don't have magic items. Maybe a couple of potions or scrolls, but not having anything like that isn't necessarily a DM hating his players thing ;) . The party's spellcaster is a bard so they don't really have magic power of their own. It's ok if they face a spellcaster opponent, say the BBEG of a particular adventure or as the trusted lieutenant, but they shouldn't be facing a continuing onslaught of spellcasters. What matters are the foes they are facing. If they continually have to make saving throws, that's becoming a DM hating his players thing. Every once in a while from the BBEG/Lieutenant spellcaster is fine, but if it's every combat, even if it's only poison because the fighter and barbarian have good fortitude saves, then you're being a bit unfair. What would matter is the type of equipment they do have. They should have some wealth. Do they have masterwork weapons? Does the rogue have masterwork thieves' tools? Anyone with a spyglass? Does the fighter have heavy armor? If the player doesn't want heavy armor, could he have had it if he wanted? When the party does finally reach 6th level, 8th level, not having magic items they find useful is a problem. A wand for the rogue and bard, magic weapons for the fighter, barbarian, and ranger. Instead of a wand the rogue can have bracers AC 5 so that combined with his DEX he won't mind being in melee so much to sneak attack. Potions and scrolls should also exist but not of the Detect Magic or Ray of Frost type.
navar100 04-30-08, 07:51 AM	Well, I don't hate my players. The thing is, the world I run is low magic for story factors. It's a fantasy setting with low magic. If it was a 1990's urban setting with gangs, it would be set in Watts, and have a prevalence of AK-47's, and Uzi's and gang violence. If it was Early Indiana Jones set in the 20s there would be no Jet Aircraft. Now this begs the question, because there are no jets; Do I hate my player who says "Gimme a freaking jet, I am special, I am a PC hear me roar?" No, I say, Dude, no jets. Find a game with a DM that allows those kind of anachronisms in his 20's game. What's really the most interesting is that the original question was: "Any DMs here prefer to run a low magic campaign? Why?" DMs showed up, who have shared the love for their favorite setting, and the ways to deal with some of the problems in running a low magic game. A few posters also showed up who obviously hate and loathe low magic games are busy as hell countering all that positive sharing of what I consider to be good info for pages on end, tearing up low magic as unfeasible, and the province of the controlling DM who "hates his players." Why? I didn't ask about "Who runs low magic to screw those players around "ooh baby", how do we inject that into games. So what is it adding to the dicussion to call basically the whole REST of the thread (Minus some more or less middle of the road neutral posts that have been incisive and helpful to the overall point), "Player hating control freaks?" My guess is that it is easier to post "I hate your game, your style, (and you all suck), rather than to point out, "Hey, I was in this and that low magic game, and I disliked it for X, and I'd really like to see one run well who has one open? Because I am not narrow minded, and I like to try nww things, and I trust the process enuogh that yes, this could work, because LOTS of people here are telling me it can." Except universally from these, "No way am I gonna try that again. I know it's gonna be bad." A breakthrough was achieved earlier in the idea: High Magic = High Challenge, High CR Low Magic = Low Challenge = Low CR Both achieve the same goal. Relative challenge to the party, such that it's fun, differing mainly in setting, and background. A low magic game needs lesser challenges than one where the party has recommended WBL. That's the whole damn point I was trying to make. Most everyone here got it. To those who didn't you never will, too prejudiced, too analytical. too closed minded to the evidence, all around, of DMs testifying about their games. If it was one or two guys saying this "I like low magic", I can see the suspicion, the probing for the "real" truth behind the curtain, the refutation of specific points from the guy trying to "hoodwink the thread" by his claims of fun for his players. But a whole thread for 5 full pages? There's no conspiracy here. The low magic games are working...Like it or not. I thank everyone for their posts. I wish some of them weren't so needllessly dismissing of the majorty, and so DMAN negative in tone, and demeanor. Proves to me that there are all kinds of alignments in the REAL world, too. You haven't paid attention. It's not the low-magic campaign that has the DM hating his players. It's why the campaign is low-magic that determines whether or not the DM hates his players. If everyone, that is, the DM and the players want it low magic, the DM doesn't hate his players. If it's simply the world setting to duplicate Conan, Hercules, Lord of the Rings, or something like these, the DM doesn't hate his players. If it's because the DM doesn't like the party at full health the non-first combat of the day, then the DM hates his players. If it's because the DM doesn't like a party flying across a rough river too dangerous to swim or a 40ft wide 1500ft deep chasm instead of travelling a day out of the way for the nearest crossing assuming they even pick the right direction which the DM might have them pick the wrong one anyway by fiat to thow in a random encounter or two to make things "interesting", then the DM hates his players. If it's to deny, deny, deny, and forbid the party from doing things unless he specifically likes it or after they fail a couple of times then in his mercifulness finally lets it happen, then the DM hates his players. Low magic games do not have a monopoly on having a DM who is a jerk or even have a DM who is a jerk at all. A DM who is a jerk doesn't necessarily mean it's a low-magic game. However, it is often that the two go hand-in-hand. This is usually the control freak dictatorial DM jerk. This is why I don't like low magic games. Whenever I've come accross one, this is the DM. High magic games, when they do have a DM who is a jerk, usually have the killer dictatorial DM jerk who only feel a game is successful if they kill a character. Generic magic games can have either type of DM jerk. A killer DM jerk in a low magic game means NPCs and monsters get to do stuff player characters can never do. They'll often have a magic item that the party cannot use for whatever reason - only the maker who happened to be the BBEG can use it, it self-destructs, someone stole it in the middle of the night, etc. A control freak DM jerk in a high magic game means there's a DMPC or otherwise DM's favorite NPC who is even more powerful than the party. The campaign plot centers around him. Without him the party is doomed or otherwise cannot accomplish things.
Sunic_Flames 04-30-08, 08:07 AM	I was presenting a simple ratio 4 : 1/2 = 1 : 1/8. I was attempting to isolate the importance of magic items by saying that if you had 4 magic items and ended the encounter with 1/2 your HP, then with 1 magic item you would end the encounter with 1/8 your HP. That's still some odd math. And incomplete testing. You need a control group for starters. We are in agreement that magic makes a huge difference. Since my choice of wording if evidently not easily read I will try to put my thoughts into standard argument form. Premise 1: Having fewer magic items makes a combat encounter more challenging than having the "correct" number of magic items. Premise 2: Sunic_Flames likes combat encounters to be challenging (when they occur). Conclusion: Sunic_Flames likes having fewer magic items than the "correct" number. No, you are putting words in my mouth. Your statement is inherently and critically flawed in that it assumes just because I state I desire something I desire it by any and every means possible, without regard for all other relevant factors as if it existed in a vacuum. And as I have stated many, many times on many other topics regarding this matter, game balance stuff never exists in a vacuum. There is always a cascade effect, it is only a question of scale. To more exactly illustrate, here are two examples that hold up perfectly by your logic, but clearly make no sense whatsoever and therefore are not logical at all. I state I need a hundred dollars. You offer to lend it to me, and I accept. Turns out you gave me a hundred you got from a bank you had a part in robbing, and that the police were searching for the perps. They trace serial numbers, which leads them to me once I spend it. By your logic I should be happy I got the money I needed, even though I probably don't get to keep it and have to deal with being questioned about a felony I took no part in and had no knowledge of. Here's a simpler and more direct one. I state I like being warm. (fact) You state fire is warm. (understatement, but fact) You extrapolate from this I like being set on fire. (illogical and extreme conclusion) Suffice it to say if you come at me with lighter fluid and a match, we are going to have a problem. Your statement consists of a fact, an understated fact, and an illogical and extreme conclusion as well. The fluff can be interchanged with the above example without any loss of meaning. Of course, we can easily see that drawing the conclusion I would like being set on fire is quite out there at the very least. Since A = B, and B = C, A = C. Your statement is quite out there at the very least. In addition to shooting down the premise as a whole I have already touched on a few specific points regarding it. But since this will probably be a monster post regardless I'll hold off for now. Next post... This is not lower power. This is bigger unbalance. You can have Low Power and still full wealth by table by the followung: Lower stats. Elite array? Casters still have everything they need. Non casters, especially the more MAD ones are unplayable. Limits on full spellcasting classes. I made each of my players take a LA+1 race last campaign, this hurts spellcasters a bit. That hurts everyone a bit. Limits on Multiclassing or PrCs. Only Non-full-Spellcasters can take a PRC and then only for the whole way- if it's a 10 level PrC, you take it for 10 levels. Casters tend not to need PRCs. Limiting multiclassing and PRCing in that way heavily hurts non casters. See, the caster PRCs tend to either be not worth touching, or worth taking all the way with no middle ground. Just about all the non caster ones are really only good as dips... And non magic guy needs the power dipping to try to catch up. Limit races. A plain PHB human is the best race from a mechanical perspective in almost every application, with the exceptions stemming from cases where you have to be some other race to do something necessary. No effect, except to block the newbie trap that is high LA creatures. That's not low power, that's stopping them from shooting themselves in the foot. Limit Splatbooks. Translation: Druids are still awesome, other full casters aren't too far behind, everyone else gets boned for similar reasons to the multiclass/PRC bit. Now, to nip this low magic bit in the bud for good... If you knew exactly what you were doing, and invested extreme amounts of time and effort into adaption you could in theory make it work in D&D, just as you could rip out a giant tree from your yard without taking the yard with it. You'd be far better off taking a different approach which is much more efficient and effective, but as an extreme long shot it's there. However consider the result under ideal circumstances. You are getting thrashed by peons. This puts you in the same boat as Team Alertness and Toughness, who is in fact blasting off again. Moreover, if you face a normal foe, or an actually threatening one you will be annihilated. There is nothing remotely glorious or heroic about having your ass kicked around by peons. In fact it's rather humiliating. Often this is exactly what the DM intended as he is power tripping. I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't need a fantasy world to get my ass kicked by a nobody. If for some reason I actually wanted to, I need only go to the bar, and start flirting with obviously taken women that are accompanied by a strong man until I get a bite. It wouldn't take long. Such an approach, stupid as it sounds would actually be slightly more productive in that I might actually accomplish something meaningful. The purpose of fantasy is to be a badass. That means fighting normal foes who aren't that big a deal unless you get careless, and dangerous foes who are just as badass as you, or perhaps more so. In D&D said badassness is largely dependent on what stuff you have taken from those you have killed. It could be argued this means you are what you wear, but you still had to pry said equipment from the cold dead hands of its previous owner so it qualifies. In systems designed around the assumption of low magic, the badassness is more innate and direct. Therefore it still works there. D&D with less than mid magic is fantasy without the badassness. One point minus one point = no point. Optional things that have no point are well... pointless. Basic math. Someone else can cover the real world alignment bit. Lawful Evil isn't the best qualified to address that point given what he's likely looking for.
Dash Branaghan 04-30-08, 08:39 AM	The purpose of fantasy is to be a badass. Where does it say that anywhere?
Zuggster 04-30-08, 08:47 AM	Well, there is the fact that Sauron is a GOD that would have something to do with it. When a god comes up and presents you with something magical then chances are you are going to believe that it is magical, even if magic wasn't overly present. Additionally, the ONLY wizards that Tolkien wrote about, the Istari, were not mortal men. Gandalf and Saruman and Radagast and the others were in fact divine beings sent by the gods themselves. I am not doubting that there was magic in Tolkien's worlds. But, a large number of people who play D&D and other fantasy games have a misguided tendancy to view magic that isn't there. Middle Earth was supposed to be our Earth and as such any items and magic that were present back then would still be in potentially be around today. That was not acceptable to Tolkien. Tolkien intentionally kept the number of magic items low to make his world (which is our world) more believable. So Tolkien believed that a God trying to conquor the world, and Angles throughout the world helping and hurting his cause were more believable than a large amount of magical items throughout the realm? If Sauron wasn't the only God, why didn't other Gods come into play to stop him directly? The Greek and Roman Gods both had large patheons of Gods that fueded with each other. One would think someone would be breeding large groups of something to counteract him. The Greek and Roman Mythologies offhand did have a large amount of Magical Weapons including the possibilities of things made from real materials such as your steel vs bronze comparison. But Helms of Invisibility (ised by both the Gods and mortal men) don't fall into that area. I will admit, I am not familiar with his works other than the 4 main books he is known for.
Sunic_Flames 04-30-08, 08:59 AM	Where does it say that anywhere? For starters, there's the fact if you aren't it's no different than reality and the purpose of fantasy is to be different and better than reality because unlike reality, it is purely optional. If not interesting enough to get people to want to take part in it, none will. Aside from that one line, do you have any other objections?
mplindustries 04-30-08, 10:00 AM	If you knew exactly what you were doing, and invested extreme amounts of time and effort into adaption you could in theory make it work in D&D, just as you could rip out a giant tree from your yard without taking the yard with it. You'd be far better off taking a different approach which is much more efficient and effective, but as an extreme long shot it's there. However consider the result under ideal circumstances. You are getting thrashed by peons. This puts you in the same boat as Team Alertness and Toughness, who is in fact blasting off again. Moreover, if you face a normal foe, or an actually threatening one you will be annihilated. There is nothing remotely glorious or heroic about having your ass kicked around by peons. In fact it's rather humiliating. Often this is exactly what the DM intended as he is power tripping. I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't need a fantasy world to get my ass kicked by a nobody. If for some reason I actually wanted to, I need only go to the bar, and start flirting with obviously taken women that are accompanied by a strong man until I get a bite. It wouldn't take long. Such an approach, stupid as it sounds would actually be slightly more productive in that I might actually accomplish something meaningful. The purpose of fantasy is to be a badass. That means fighting normal foes who aren't that big a deal unless you get careless, and dangerous foes who are just as badass as you, or perhaps more so. In D&D said badassness is largely dependent on what stuff you have taken from those you have killed. It could be argued this means you are what you wear, but you still had to pry said equipment from the cold dead hands of its previous owner so it qualifies. In systems designed around the assumption of low magic, the badassness is more innate and direct. Therefore it still works there. D&D with less than mid magic is fantasy without the badassness. One point minus one point = no point. Optional things that have no point are well... pointless. Basic math. First, I totally agree with almost all of your points. Its this last bit that I find tough. As I mentioned earlier, I run low magic, but my games are high powered. I highly encourage my players to optimize outside of the realms of magic items and spells. Do I alter the game? Yeah, kind of a lot. But I get absolute badass characters who are badasses even without stuff. In fact, when I play a character who is only awesome because of his stuff, I feel like the opposite of a badass. I'm some peasant guy with nice stuff. I didn't even make that stuff, I just found it. No fun for me. But yeah, it does take some work. I always thought it was rather intuitive, but after seeing a few other GMs (Believe it or not, I've never actually played, only GMed for 15 years or so until this past year), and I can see how hard it is for them to use the normal challenge system, nevermind if they had to judge challenges for themselves. But, yeah, in my experience with "normal" D&D, the casters win every encounter while the melee stands there and takes it up the butt for a while. Unless the melee is a Druid. Then he wins, too.
Dash Branaghan 04-30-08, 10:05 AM	For starters, there's the fact if you aren't it's no different than reality and the purpose of fantasy is to be different and better than reality because unlike reality, it is purely optional. If not interesting enough to get people to want to take part in it, none will. Aside from that one line, do you have any other objections? I thought I would check exactly where your evidence for this is first. But lets go over all the flaws in this. #1 - It is not a fact. See the following reasons as support for why it is not a fact. #2 - Being able to kill people/creatures/monsters, even if you are severely challenged doing it makes it VERY different from reality. Unless you expect me to believe that you go out killing people/creatures/monsters on a daily or weekly basis, and the only reason you play D&D is because you can do it faster in the game. #3 - The purpose of fantasy is to be different - I object to this on the grounds that it is a definitive catch-all statement, but I do share your opinion (minus the catch-all definitiveness of it). Still, fantasy is not necessarily about being different - it can be pure escapism, but not necessarily being better. CoC strikes me as a good example of Fantasy gaming where you aren't better, you're just waiting to go crazy. Paranoia is another example. #4 - Better than reality? That seems to be far more of a personal call than an actual requirement. I will not debate the validity of it for more people may share your opinion (note: opinion, not fact), but again, this is certainly optional and for those who actually play characters who have sub-optimal stats, I think the whole "better than reality" call might be questionable in their case. #5 - Ah, but what is interesting to different people? Once again, you have a subjective (as opposed to objective) call here, and one in which you take your personal view as the proverbial Word of Gods. Some people share your opinions here Sunic...that doesn't mean everyone does. So again, the "facts" as you claim them are not actually "facts" but opinions. I think those should cover my objections at this point...:D
weepingminotaur 04-30-08, 12:05 PM	So Tolkien believed that a God trying to conquor the world, and Angles throughout the world helping and hurting his cause were more believable than a large amount of magical items throughout the realm? It's not about believability on its own, it's about the plethora of available magic items for all adventurers. In fact, it's the mere existence of scads of 15th-level characters armed to the teeth with all kinds of crazy items. That simply has no place in Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Sure, Aragorn had a crazy-good sword, but he was the heir to the throne of Gondor, not some random adventurer. If he dies, Middle-Earth is doomed, and there is no handy raise dead spell available at the local temple to bring him back to life, nor is there another adventurer waiting in the wings to take over. If Sauron wasn't the only God, why didn't other Gods come into play to stop him directly? The Greek and Roman Gods both had large patheons of Gods that fueded with each other. One would think someone would be breeding large groups of something to counteract him. Why are you assuming that Tolkien's mythology should follow Greek or Roman mythology out of hand? I don't see the connection. In any case, to answer your question, the Gods (or rather angels, since there is actually a God, Iluvatar, who is the supreme creator) didn't intervene directly because Sauron was not on the same power scale as Morgoth, his predecessor, whom mortals had zero hope of defeating without divine intervention -- to defeat Morgoth, they sent an army of angelic spirits and Vanyar to destroy his armies, lay siege to his fortress, and capture him. Sauron, on the other hand, was a Maia, a lesser angelic spirit. Therefore, the Valar (greater angelic spirits) sent five incarnated lesser angelic spirits (Maiar) in the guise of wizards. Part of the gods' strategy was having the wizards be incarnate, subject to the fears and hurts of mortals, so that they could support, tacitly organize, and inspire resistance to Sauron, rather than actively fighting Sauron on their own. Basically, it falls under the category of, "God helps those who help themselves." The wizards could advise, help, support, and give counsel, but Men and Elves and Dwarves had to do their part in overthrowing Sauron. Magic is present in Tolkien's world, but it isn't mass-produced and available on every street-corner. You can't walk into Bree and buy a +2 longsword at the local magic shop. If you aren't playing an iconic character -- such as Aragorn, Legolas, etc. -- you have the same basic, nonmagical equipment as the next sword-wielding lout. Maybe, in the course of years of adventuring, you find one decent magic item, but that's all.
Sunic_Flames 04-30-08, 12:39 PM	In the real world, you are most likely a nobody doing nobody things. Most people including myself are and while you may disagree it can only be potentially argued on a very small scale. Since you are not anywhere a world shaker and are just another random person... And in the fantasy world you are someone important it is a fact. In the real world, if you pick a fight with a non peon you will surely get your ass kicked. You'd probably have a pretty good chance of having your ass handed to you even if you pick a fight with a peon. If you look at any fantasy example you will find just about all of the main characters are quite badass, have nothing to fear from peons, and the story centers around their struggle with the real threats. The few exceptions such as Frodo for example are only remotely relevant due to what amounts to DM fiat. If Frodo were not specifically being coddled he would have no role whatsoever. Same thing here. Fact. Escapism is different by definition. If it is not different, how are you escaping from it? As for the better bit... personally I'm not a maso. Some are, and therefore enjoy systems like CoC, Paranoia etc where the whole point is to die in an amusing way. Not debating that part. Fantasy having to be better than reality is a fact. Better is partially subjective, but generally involves being just a bit more competent than you are, at the least. As I said before, if reality sucks you're stuck with it. If fantasy sucks you can simply stop playing. The optional factor requires it be good or be irrelevant. mplindustries: You are a semi rare exception. Normally, and this is one of those specific factors I mentioned before the overcompensation and overcorrectiveness ruins low magic by shifting it too far in the opposite direction. And while it is possible in theory to boost all saves by 5 without losing anything to make up for the lack of a cloak of resistance for example, the associated factors clause tends to ruin it. Generally the underlying cause of low magic is fear. Maybe he just likes being overcontrolling, maybe he couldn't handle mid/high magic, whatever. Even if this is not the case (but definitely if it is) whatever objections were made to low magic tend to be made much louder to high levels of optimization, which is what getting the requisite +x to y stat via other means involves. In other words, you're down a few critical points and when you try to make up for it the DM freaks out and stops you for being a 'munchkin' or some other such fallacious insult. That's what you're the semi rare exception to - low magic not coming hand in hand with a skewed perception and knee jerk reaction to optimization.
ryguysolis 04-30-08, 12:51 PM	That's still some odd math. And incomplete testing. You need a control group for starters. I'm sorry, but ratios are not odd math. I tutor fifth and sixth grade students in them regularly. Non-linear algebra is odd math. No, you are putting words in my mouth. Your statement is inherently and critically flawed in that it assumes just because I state I desire something I desire it by any and every means possible, without regard for all other relevant factors as if it existed in a vacuum. And as I have stated many, many times on many other topics regarding this matter, game balance stuff never exists in a vacuum. There is always a cascade effect, it is only a question of scale. I did not mean to put words in your mouth. If you read my argument closely I cited exactly where I drew my assumptions from; namely two things that you posted in this very thread. The first was a few posts before mine so I merely referenced it, the second I quoted in the body of my post so that you would know exactly what you had written that led me to my second assumption. If you think that either of those assumptions are wrong would you be kind enough to explain why? Here they are again for your reference: Premise 1: Having fewer magic items makes a combat encounter more challenging than having the "correct" number of magic items. Premise 2: Sunic_Flames likes combat encounters to be challenging (when they occur). Now if you believe either of these to be incorrect or incomplete then yes, the conclusion I made will not logically follow. Please then, if you would, correct, amend, add, delete, do whatever you need to do to correct what I falsely assumed.
Sunic_Flames 04-30-08, 01:41 PM	I'm sorry, but ratios are not odd math. I tutor fifth and sixth grade students in them regularly. Non-linear algebra is odd math. I did not mean to put words in your mouth. If you read my argument closely I cited exactly where I drew my assumptions from; namely two things that you posted in this very thread. The first was a few posts before mine so I merely referenced it, the second I quoted in the body of my post so that you would know exactly what you had written that led me to my second assumption. If you think that either of those assumptions are wrong would you be kind enough to explain why? Here they are again for your reference: Premise 1: Having fewer magic items makes a combat encounter more challenging than having the "correct" number of magic items. Premise 2: Sunic_Flames likes combat encounters to be challenging (when they occur). Now if you believe either of these to be incorrect or incomplete then yes, the conclusion I made will not logically follow. Please then, if you would, correct, amend, add, delete, do whatever you need to do to correct what I falsely assumed. You quoted it for me. Why would I need to post it when I clearly already have posted it, and you clearly are aware of it? No, you are putting words in my mouth. Your statement is inherently and critically flawed in that it assumes just because I state I desire something I desire it by any and every means possible, without regard for all other relevant factors as if it existed in a vacuum. And as I have stated many, many times on many other topics regarding this matter, game balance stuff never exists in a vacuum. There is always a cascade effect, it is only a question of scale. I then went on to elaborate exactly how the assumption was flawed by illustrating some results that could stem from such an approach. It was quite clear that there is much more to it than wanting x and getting x. What I didn't touch on is that it's more wanting x and getting xyz. As for the odd math, saying 4 items mean half and 1 means 1/8th is odd. There is no basis for either number. Nor does it follow having a quarter the magic items means finishing the fight at a quarter the health you otherwise would. Not to mention the bits others have stated where it's more likely fighter dead rogue dead wizard and cleric at quarter HP, or something.
Mock26 04-30-08, 02:51 PM	So Tolkien believed that a God trying to conquor the world, and Angles throughout the world helping and hurting his cause were more believable than a large amount of magical items throughout the realm? Yes. Because when he wrote his works (he started while in the hospital recovering from wounds during World War I) there weren't any real stories out there with magic as we know it from D&D. Before Tolkien there really wasn't all that much fantasy aside from Mythology, and most mythologies of the world are low in magic items, especially when compared to D&D. If Sauron wasn't the only God, why didn't other Gods come into play to stop him directly? The Greek and Roman Gods both had large patheons of Gods that fueded with each other. One would think someone would be breeding large groups of something to counteract him. The Greek and Roman Mythologies offhand did have a large amount of Magical Weapons including the possibilities of things made from real materials such as your steel vs bronze comparison. But Helms of Invisibility (ised by both the Gods and mortal men) don't fall into that area. I will admit, I am not familiar with his works other than the 4 main books he is known for. There were other gods and goddesses, of two ranks, the Ainur (the main gods) and the Maiar (beings of a lesser rank). The Maiar were all "allied" with a specific Ainur, and Sauron (as well as the wizards) were all Maiar. As to why the Ainur did not interfere on the behalf of man it is too long and complicated to explain here (briefly, elves betrayed their trust and men tried to invade the lands across the sea). If you liked the main four books, don't mind what some people consider a difficult read, and enjoy long epic tales I would recommend that you read The Silmarillion. I personally think that it is a much better book than the rest of them. As for Greek/Roman mythology there really weren't all that many magic items in the hands of mortals. There was a lot of divine magic and some magic items used by the gods (such as Aphrodite's girdle), but beyond that there wasn't all that much. It has been a few years since I read through most of the tales from Greek mythology, but off the top of my head the only items that come to mind are the sword, weapon, and shield of Perseus.
sblaxman 04-30-08, 03:03 PM	I'm still trying to undertand what the anti-LM crowd is trying to convince us LM-fans of... It's been made clear that all of us like LM for the flavor/setting/feel, none of us "hate our players", or want our players weak. In fact, several of us made clear that they like high powered PCs in their low magic setting. There may be DMs that hate their players, but that has NOTHING do to w/ LM/HM, they can destroy their players in either one, and it really has nothing to do w/ this thread. Make a "I hate DMs that suck" thread, and I assure you that many of us will join you bashing DMs that try to harm their players. Second point, is there is nothing that fantasy is "supposed" to be. Fantasy can be anything, low magic, high magic, no magic, space opera (read:star wars), whatever. CoC, Arthur, Beowulf (big fan of the book), Tolkein (seriously, read Silmarilion), Conan, Salvator, Weis+hickman, etc. are all fantasy, but all are different. Some have spell slingers out the wazoo, some have them barely if at all. No one setting is for everyone. I understand you don't like LM, that's completely and utterly OK! Yes, low magic is the "old way" in d&d and high magic is the "new way", but that doesn't mean the old way was wrong, and the new way is better, it's just different. Don't say "we just are stubborn and don't want to change", that's not it at all. Just because books are out on digital format doesn't mean I'm wrong for wanting to curl up w/ a book of keats and some cocoa instead of sitting in front of my computer w/ starbucks to read, they are different methods that have different target audiences.
Winterleaf 04-30-08, 04:12 PM	I'm still trying to undertand what the anti-LM crowd is trying to convince us LM-fans of... It's their inference that people who enjoy HM games don't want to be challenged because LM encounters are more challenging. Essentially they think LM proponents are accusing them of being munchkins. I'd guess a part of it is also that to many fantasy gamers magic is an integral part of fantasy, and that it's difficult for them to imagine anyone having fun playing in a game where they don't wield items of eldritch might. Many people want to be (for example) Aragorn in an age of wonder. Not Bob in a time of mundane. A lot of people see low magic as another way of making fantasy more like real life. . . and a lot of people view their RPG's as a form of escapism and entertainment. I have experimented with running low magic games; not for very long, admittedly, but I believe the players enjoyed the lack of the Magic Shoppe effect. It made whatever magic items they already possessed seem that much more special and precious. Granted, it wasn't serious low magic; they did acquire magical items, but they were less common that an average D&D game. They had fun, I had fun.
Mock26 04-30-08, 04:15 PM	Many people want to be (for example) Aragorn in an age of wonder. Not Bob in a time of mundane. A lot of people see low magic as another way of making fantasy more like real life. . . and a lot of people view their RPG's as a form of escapism and entertainment. But Aragorn didn't have or use any magic! :D
White_Whale 04-30-08, 04:26 PM	I like low magic, and by low magic I mean: -drastically reducing number and level of NPCs -gritty setting (a la LotR) -banning specific spells that I feel don't fit flavor wise and/or are too powerful (teleport and travel spell typically) -lower frequency of "exotic" monsters, and logical eco systems -no magic shops. However, I think PCs still should be able to get the items they want, either through treasure, by coincidence (bumping into a soldier that is willing to sell his Boots of Speed), searching ("after a few days of asking about you find a Headband of Intellect owned by a family of nobles"), or other ways I realize that this quite different than the vision presented in the DMG, but I notheless feel that a setting like this is more enjoyable. Those that think that the PCs can't be "someone important" in a low magic setting is wrong. In fact, I would suggest it is easier to become someone important in a low magic setting.
sblaxman 04-30-08, 05:09 PM	I'd guess a part of it is also that to many fantasy gamers magic is an integral part of fantasy, and that it's difficult for them to imagine anyone having fun playing in a game where they don't wield items of eldritch might. Many people want to be (for example) Aragorn in an age of wonder. Not Bob in a time of mundane. A lot of people see low magic as another way of making fantasy more like real life. . . and a lot of people view their RPG's as a form of escapism and entertainment. This I agree with entirely. But what I don't understand is the concept of them trying to tell me how to escape. I work in a lab, running experiments all day. High technology is common to me. For me, to escape is to play in a world where magic is rare and exiting, not common and mundane. :D
Sunic_Flames 04-30-08, 06:00 PM	Technology =/= magic. Even in settings where the magic performs similar roles to technology such as Eberron. It would stand to reason that in a job where everything has clear explanations or the point is to get one, things that aren't so clear cut aka magic would actually be the escape. :P
Zuggster 04-30-08, 06:27 PM	But Aragorn didn't have use any magic! :D <shrugs> Wielding a Sword that sliced through a God, controlled the ability to release a large number of undead from a curse, and it was described in the books as glowing. There can be no arguement, why some would view the sword that was broken, was magical. After all, if the sword wasn't magical, the dead should have sensed the bloodline without the sword. The Sword shouldn't have been able to glow. Other weapons should have been able to damage a God. While the words "This sword is magical" may not have been used, you cannot deny there is evidence that it MIGHT be magical, and people more open to magic being there, see it as such.
Mock26 04-30-08, 07:02 PM	<shrugs> Wielding a Sword that sliced through a God, controlled the ability to release a large number of undead from a curse, and it was described in the books as glowing. There can be no arguement, why some would view the sword that was broken, was magical. After all, if the sword wasn't magical, the dead should have sensed the bloodline without the sword. The Sword shouldn't have been able to glow. Other weapons should have been able to damage a God. While the words "This sword is magical" may not have been used, you cannot deny there is evidence that it MIGHT be magical, and people more open to magic being there, see it as such. Narsil is not described as glowing. It is described as having "shone" on the field of battle. Tolkien was fond of using such terms in a non-literal sense. When he talks about the sword "shining" upon the battlefield he is not talking about it actually glowing, but is instead refering to the deeds that were wrought by that sword and Elendil. He also referred to people as having "shone" on the field of battle. That doesn't mean that they were magical. As for the Paths of the Dead, that was pure creative license on the part of the people who wrote the movie. That scene is not in the books. And, in the movie, who is to say that they didn't recognize the sword that was presented to them? That sword was probably at least 6,000-8,000 years old (having been crafted by Telchar the dwarf in the First Age) and was an heirloom amongst those of Numenor. The legend of that sword only grew after Numenor fell and the survivors fled to Middle Earth and established their kingdom there. I imagine that at the time those people broke their vow that the sword was a well known sword. It is also described as one of the most reknown weapons to have ever existed in Middle Earth. A sword with that reputation doesn't need to glow or be magical to be recognized. Also, we are not talking about D&D here. We are talking about Tolkien. In Tolkien's worlds mortals (especially First Age elves and dwarves) were capable of crafting weapons of such quality and with such skill that they could cut the finger off of a god. Though one has to remember that that god, while still extremely powerful when compared to mortals, was not the same being he was when the world was formed. His powers, while still considerable, had lessened through the ages, especially after he crafted the one ring. So, by D&D standards it might be hard to imagine a masterwork sword cutting off the finger of a divine being, but in Tolkien's world it is something mortals were not only capable of doing but they actually did it. I strongly suggest that you read The Silmarillion as well as The Book of Lost Tales I & II. They give a lot of insight into the world that Tokien created and the Lost Tales books contain a lot of his notes and rough drafts.
Winterleaf 04-30-08, 08:54 PM	But Aragorn didn't have or use any magic! :D So have pc's acquire items that have "non-magical" bonuses :-) Problem solved. Of course, one of the ways to beat "low magic malaise" is to have items that mean something. Aragorn didn't go around swapping swords at a moment's notice, Gandalf wasn't about to trade in Glamdring because he found a cudgel with more plusses, Frodo and Sting went the distance. Whatever special items the players get, give them names, histories and a reason to keep them. It's one of the reasons I've come to loathe computer RPG's sometimes; the kill/loot/trade up mentality. I've never run a game long enough to implement it, but I'd like to run or play in a game where signature items "level up" with the players. Stormbringer should never wind up hanging in the window of the Sword Shoppe ("Slashing prices! Two-handed!").
sblaxman 04-30-08, 09:02 PM	This is an idea I have used with great results. One player had a knight (character, not class), whose sword was a family heirloom that went back generations. It was just a masterwork sword, but was more important than any +x sword he found. As the campaign progressed, he was able to improve the sword (once through enchantment as reward for aiding someone, later by divine intervention for heroic action in the name of his god. Same story for other players. The sword never got to "uber 1337 loot" level, but did have some decent enchantments, but the value of the item was far more than the numbers. Overall it worked well and was enjoyed by all.
Dash Branaghan 04-30-08, 10:27 PM	In the real world, you are most likely a nobody doing nobody things. Most people including myself are and while you may disagree it can only be potentially argued on a very small scale. Since you are not anywhere a world shaker and are just another random person... And in the fantasy world you are someone important it is a fact. No, in fantasy you have a greater potential to become someone important - and that does not make you a world shaker. Your importance can and often is limited to one maybe two areas. Now, if you're talking Dragonlance War of the Lance style campaigns, then yeah, you're world shakers there. But you are not taking into account something here Sunic - your character may die long before becoming important. And trust me, I can't tell you the name of very many archaeologists in this world, and they do dungeon crawls all the time. It doesn't make them world shakers either. So no, there is no "fact" to being someone important - because NOT every single PC is important within the world they operate in. They certainly don't start out important, and there is no guarantee they ever will be important. I've seen a lot of DMs throw in the towel long before their PCs get any form of recognition. In the real world, if you pick a fight with a non peon you will surely get your ass kicked. You'd probably have a pretty good chance of having your ass handed to you even if you pick a fight with a peon. If you look at any fantasy example you will find just about all of the main characters are quite badass, have nothing to fear from peons, and the story centers around their struggle with the real threats. The few exceptions such as Frodo for example are only remotely relevant due to what amounts to DM fiat. If Frodo were not specifically being coddled he would have no role whatsoever. Same thing here. Fact. Do you know what the word fact means, or do you just toss it around because it sounds good? Once again, it is not fact. It is your interpretation. The arguments about Frodo, Bilbo, Goldmoon, starting PCs, and your own confirmation that not all fantasy examples are badass (simply "just about all" as you put it) does not make it a fact. You are going to interpret the characters who do not fit your cookie-cutter mold in a way that they do, rather than accept the possibility that maybe not all players play uber characters to start. So your "fact" again is subjective interpretation and therefore fiction. Escapism is different by definition. If it is not different, how are you escaping from it? As for the better bit... personally I'm not a maso. Some are, and therefore enjoy systems like CoC, Paranoia etc where the whole point is to die in an amusing way. Not debating that part. I'm not a masochist either and I still enjoy CoC and Paranoia. Shall we do a poll of the boards to see how many other people play these games and do not describe themselves as masochists? Because maybe if more people enjoy these games, then your point about having to be Uber McBadAss, Third Earl of AssKicker might be invalidated further. Tell you what...I'll leave that to you. Fantasy having to be better than reality is a fact. Better is partially subjective, but generally involves being just a bit more competent than you are, at the least. As I said before, if reality sucks you're stuck with it. If fantasy sucks you can simply stop playing. The optional factor requires it be good or be irrelevant. How can it be a fact if you're entire argument hinges on a completely (not partially) subjective term? But this demonstrates YOUR requirement for fantasy - that it must in some way be an improvement on your life in some way, whether it's being Uber McBadAss or becoming a God. And Sunic...I am not here to tell you that you're choice of game style is wrong. It isn't. It is the style that brings you maximum pleasure, and so more power to you for playing it. What I am telling you to stop doing is making definitive catch-all statements or claiming subjective opinion is fact. It is your opinion, not the word of Gods - and while in your gaming world you may be Gods, as you've pointed out, in reality we're nobodys. But, as nobodies we are still entitled to our opinions, you and I and the others. Just stop claiming your opinion for "fact." It's not.
danielinthewolvesden 04-30-08, 10:28 PM	2) The DM is overestimating the strength of the party. He knows the party is "powerful", but he's not judging accurately how much and overcompensating the bad guys. He sees their offensive capability but not their defensive capability. The DM is not doing this on purpose. Talk to the DM. Talk to the other players. If the situation does not change, then you know you have a DM who hates his players in a high magic game format. There is not supposed to be a player character death every session, regardless of magic power level. Overestimating PC power is very VERY easy to do when the ECL's and CR assume the party has about a given amount of useful wealth.
Etarnon 04-30-08, 11:57 PM	Dash Branaghan Wrote: Do you know what the word fact means, or do you just toss it around because it sounds good? Exactly. +9 Vs. Trolls. Forge that into a blade, my friend, for it is a phrase of truth and power. Sunic_Flames Wrote: In the real world, you are most likely a nobody doing nobody things. Most people including myself are and while you may disagree it can only be potentially argued on a very small scale. Since you are not anywhere a world shaker and are just another random person... And in the fantasy world you are someone important it is a fact. Nope. Utterly wrong, and Insignificant, besides being irrelevant. Fallacious, with options on Clueless. I formally request you Cease and Desist, you're talking from your Blunt Object Area now, and it shows. So no, there is no "fact" to being someone important - because NOT every single PC is important within the world they operate in. They certainly don't start out important, and there is no guarantee they ever will be important. More truth, and Much Epic Win. Sunic_Flames Wrote: In the real world, if you pick a fight with a non peon you will surely get your ass kicked. You'd probably have a pretty good chance of having your ass handed to you even if you pick a fight with a peon. Enroll in a dojo. Sunic_Flames Wrote: If you look at any fantasy example you will find just about all of the main characters are quite badass, have nothing to fear from peons, and the story centers around their struggle with the real threats. More Stuff and nonsense. Thomas Covenant carried a white gold Ring, and had Leprosy, if I recall. Sunic_Flames Wrote: The few exceptions such as Frodo for example are only remotely relevant due to what amounts to DM fiat. If Frodo were not specifically being coddled he would have no role whatsoever. I think Family Name = Baggins is a clue. Look there. More Truth: Once again, it is not fact. It is your interpretation. The arguments about Frodo, Bilbo, Goldmoon, starting PCs, and your own confirmation that not all fantasy examples are badass (simply "just about all" as you put it) does not make it a fact. You are going to interpret the characters who do not fit your cookie-cutter mold in a way that they do, rather than accept the possibility that maybe not all players play uber characters to start. So your "fact" again is subjective interpretation and therefore fiction.
Draco_Whitewind 05-01-08, 02:22 AM	Well, my turn now. What I've DMed so far, is in general mid-magic levels. Parties can go to a metropolis on the prime (or at level 13+, another plane) and go on a shopping spree of sorts. they won't find every item, but they can definitely get a good selection if they're patient. if they paid someone, they could possibly get just about anything if they had the time, aside from Wishes. (its hard to find someone to part with that level of XP, let alone that level with it to spare) the setting carries the history of about 35,000 years, 10,000 of which has been at the mid magic level. that's a tremendous time for items to be made, and magic items never decay in any shape or form. a +3 sword pulled from the ground from a thousand years ago is going to shine and slice amazingly well. What makes it a challenge, is that when PCs look at their spells, and abilities, they soon realize the precautions needed to be taken to protect these abilities. A wealth family might know a cleric and have a diamond or two stashed away for a raise dead in case of a horrible accident. Castles being tunneled into so easily caused the invention of enhancements (stronghold builder's guidebook) to intercept, or even throw off course teleport spells, and even stop fabricates and passwalls for very sensitive areas. Players might start off small, but by the end, they get into truly epic worldsaving matters, that go beyond just one king or region (and I've added a few of those stories into the backstory of the world from then on.) Now, onto this very heated discussion. I think Sunic is getting too flamish, but he does understand what 3rd edition and 3.5 was designed with in mind. Lets face it, we can argue in circles about what we FEEL is the majority of anything. everyone on these forums is what, less than 1% of all the players and DMs in the world? Rather, lets look at the level of power proposed by 3rd edition In 3rd edition, there is almost no permanent death effects. any such is at artifact levels of power. There's no more system shock checks. you can always come back from the dead if you have at least 2 con. we roll 4d6 6 times for stats, which average out to an "elite array" typically. we get max HP at 1st level. Clerics get 9th level spells on par for power with wizard spells. Wizards can go to other planes, fly, turn invisible, make a crowd save or die, hurl meteors, open gates to other dimensions and call creatures, and in a pinch, Wish for several friends or one to come back to life, or get a moderately priced magical item INSTANTLY, and completely safe without twisting. They don't age at all for it, either. We get skills and feats. we deal more damage, are tougher, have better spells, less nasty immediate effects to kill us and can resist them better. RAW in a metropolis, thereis a 17th level wizard, cleric, sorcerer, almost every time. you can buy ANYTHING thats under 100k, from the labor to build a castle, right down to a +2 brilliant energy spiked chain or a suit of +4 Heavy fortification full plate suit of armor. (the GP limit listing in the section, says items, not just non-magic items, after all ;) ) They (WOTC) definitely had an idea with 3rd edition and 3.5 in mind, for heroic, better than your commoners by a mile style party. Sunic is probably right today, about people generally playing to play a badass. Why else was 3.0 and 3.5 made like this? WOTC does seem to pick up and try and cater to their biggest crowd, and the editions show that. And Etarnon and Sunic, Drop the baggins. You two should know better than to argue static characters written in a book from many years ago that we all probably like, but fully understand they're storybook characters, and NOT PCS IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM AND NOT VALID FOR THIS ARGUMENT, given One is on a set path determined by the author to some heroic destiny of sorts, while the PCs in a game of D&D are destined for Jack and *nnnfshh&* and could die to dire rabbits in their first random encounter by really bad luck. (Sorry for the caps, that just REALLY infuriates me because I have written stories, and then played D&D and knew the difference. )
Jaimas 05-01-08, 02:53 AM	Draco basically called it. 3.0 set a precedent, and one that can be very effectively played in a great many ways. It was set specifically so that all groups (NPC AND PC ALIKE) can have access to the same options and same capabilities. It allows, for the first time, really, for a world to have *Gasp* other adventurers around besides the PCs, and have a more flexible and believable world for it. He's also 100% accurate in pointing out that with naught but a streak of bad luck, a TPK can occur even against relatively weak foes, and I've seen it happen - many times, and in every single edition. Seriously, the "destined" transparency cheapens the whole experience. Stop with that.
Etarnon 05-01-08, 03:07 AM	He's also 100% accurate in pointing out that with naught but a streak of bad luck, a TPK can occur even against relatively weak foes, and I've seen it happen - many times, and in every single edition. Accurate certainly, but with magic to fix it, how much does it hurt?
Cranewings 05-01-08, 03:15 AM	"given One is on a set path determined by the author to some heroic destiny of sorts, while the PCs in a game of D&D are destined for Jack and *nnnfshh&* and could die to dire rabbits in their first random encounter by really bad luck." .......... that's really funny. :dancin:
Jaimas 05-01-08, 03:21 AM	No mention of Low Magic is complete without this story. Once, a long time ago, I was in a campaign with a few friends of mine back in the glory days of 3.0. It was a low magic campaign. Wizards and such were allowed to get their full power levels, and crafting feats and such even, but we didn't have a Wizard at outset; our party comprised a Barbarian (Me), Bard, Cleric, and Fighter. Against all odds, this motley crew worked, and worked pretty well. Anyway. The part that was low magic were the items. Magic gear was excrutiatingly rare and there were few spellcasters in the region we were in. Worse, the town we found ourselves in was suffering badly from a war, and supplies were scarce as hell. The DM was really skilled, and the campaign incredibly compelling - the only problem was that we were characters in the 12th level area and with a +1 Short Sword and +1 Large Steel Shield as our only currently-existing magic items, and Masterworks had been cleared out. We had neither time to head to another town (the closest one was almost 3 weeks away; a village in the mountains) nor the supplies to craft masterwork gear. All we had available were farm tools that were frankly worse than what we were using. We had, however, just leveled up, and it was during this that our party leader (me) had a plan. I had a lot of ranks in craft (weaponsmithing) - more than enough to make masterwork equipment. The Bard also had ranks in craft (Armorsmithing) since she had critically high INT and ran out of useful skills. The Cleric of ours got an idea, and grabbed craft magic arms and armor as his feat, and I proposed we make our own gear. Supplies were short, but I was certain we could improvise. ...And so we did. We salvaged everything of value from the village - carpeting, drapes, saddlebags, metal support rods from the cemetary gates, Pots and pot lids, and so on. Using our insane craft checks, we made masterwork padded armor from the drapes and carpeting, Masterwork studded leather from tack nails, saddlebags, and spare leather jerkins, masterwork longspears from a piece of the Cemetary's gate, a masterwork greatsword from the tavern sign, and a masterwork steel shield from a series of pot lids we riveted together. We gathered up our mixed gear and had it all enchanted to at least +1 status, and the DM rejoiced at how insanely clever we proved. A good time was had by all, and we upgraded our gear to normal equipment soon after, but for one lengthy assignment on the country's border, our heroes stopped a war - looking like a group of insane hobos all the while.
Cranewings 05-01-08, 03:31 AM	Jaimas, that is freaking AWESOME! :clap:
Draco_Whitewind 05-01-08, 03:32 AM	"given One is on a set path determined by the author to some heroic destiny of sorts, while the PCs in a game of D&D are destined for Jack and *nnnfshh&* and could die to dire rabbits in their first random encounter by really bad luck." .......... that's really funny. :dancin: I don't see how it is. Destiny, excludes choice. one MUST fufill an act of destiny. the PCs don't have to ever go down the epic quest of awsomeness. they could die halfway through to a TPK and that's it. they might never bite into the plot hook. A story character is written for the explicit purpose of doing that because its a tool of a writer, not some choice ridden creation. in a story, the illusion of choice merely needs to exist to seem real to the reader to make it believable. In D&D, there actually HAS to be choice, otherwise its railroading.
Kobajagrande 05-01-08, 03:36 AM	In D&D, there actually HAS to be choice, otherwise its railroading. Errr... Actually, railroading is taking choice away from the players in blatantly obvious manner. Its not playing out a general storyline. Never has been, unless you pervert the example to great lengths.
Draco_Whitewind 05-01-08, 03:44 AM	I'm confused. I think we're actually both trying to say the same thing here, except I'm speaking on the extreme ends of it. The party can end up being called heroes of destiny once after an amazing epic story, but at the same time, nothing says that they had to go down that path. That's what I mean by story characters ARE destined because the writer puts them into the situation and writes the story. the Players in a game of D&D can make choices for their characters, and end up quite dead in the middle of that same epic storyline for it from bad luck or silly tactics. That's definitely not destiny.
Kobajagrande 05-01-08, 03:49 AM	I'm confused. I think we're actually both trying to say the same thing here, except I'm speaking on the extreme ends of it Fair enough. Disagreement then comes because I strive for moderation instead of extreme in all things, hehe.
Cranewings 05-01-08, 03:51 AM	I'm confused. I think we're actually both trying to say the same thing here, except I'm speaking on the extreme ends of it. The party can end up being called heroes of destiny once after an amazing epic story, but at the same time, nothing says that they had to go down that path. That's what I mean by story characters ARE destined because the writer puts them into the situation and writes the story. the Players in a game of D&D can make choices for their characters, and end up quite dead in the middle of that same epic storyline for it from bad luck or silly tactics. That's definitely not destiny. I concider my player characters in the game I run to be destined to save the world. They are playing a good group of players. There is no such thing as magic stores or professional adventurers in my world. Almost EVERY adventurer in my game has a job or title: highwayman, noble, frontiersman, trader, trapper, hunter, explorer, scripture pilgram... So this is it: one high caliber good adventuring party in the world, one super villain: Archmage Paku, the 17th level Necromancer. The party could lose, so fate isn't written, but they were destined to come together and try and stop it. If everyone made characters that were neutral or evil and didn't want anything to do with this plot, I'd just not run the game and play Ninjas and Superspies.
Draco_Whitewind 05-01-08, 03:55 AM	I concider my player characters in the game I run to be destined to save the world. They are playing a good group of players. There is no such thing as magic stores or professional adventurers in my world. Almost EVERY adventurer in my game has a job or title: highwayman, noble, frontiersman, trader, trapper, hunter, explorer, scripture pilgram... So this is it: one high caliber good adventuring party in the world, one super villain: Archmage Paku, the 17th level Necromancer. The party could lose, so fate isn't written, but they were destined to come together and try and stop it. If everyone made characters that were neutral or evil and didn't want anything to do with this plot, I'd just not run the game and play Ninjas and Superspies. They could make a good party, but ultimately why would the necessarily go after Archmake Paku? that's what I'm getting at. That IS railroading, in all forms I know. they exist for one sole reason, and they're going to fight it because they're "good". :P when I am a player, when I usually see stuff like that come around, i try and advise my friends to board a ship to the next continent and let fate sort it out if thats what we're facing from the getgo, because its going to be long, and boring. The idea is that the players are supposed to have a certain level of choice and freedom, not fulfill your X awesome story.
navar100 05-01-08, 03:58 AM	It's possible that people have different interpretations of "low-magic campaigns". Just because there are no mage-marts doesn't mean I think the campaign is low-magic. High magic campaigns don't necessarily have them either. I do think for the most part people equate the level of magic available to the power level of the party. It's possible for this not to be directly proportional, but that is usually the case. Iron Heroes is an example where it's not. If I'm to join a D&D game and am told it's low magic, I don't automatically run away from it. I look at why it's low magic, of course. I also look at how it will be played. I look at what player characters can do. I look at the mood of the game. I apply the lawful good human cleric test which covers the treatment of lawful good, treatment of humans because I only ever play humans (long story involving 2E), and treatment of clerics separately as well as an all in one character. Treatment of clerics covers treatment of healing in case the cleric class itself doesn't exist by world setting necessity. If healing is frustrating, then I know the DM wants to kill characters no matter how much he claims otherwise, and I will run away. Denying/frustrating raising/resurrection is a major warning alarm but can be saved if healing is regularly available and character death really isn't meant to be common such as save or die/lose levels abilities also don't exist. I also look at house rules. If these house rules are all/mostly about what players cannot do, then the DM is a control freak and I run away. "Banning" is a warning word. It's not a game-breaker. I just look at what's being banned, how much is being banned, and why. Too much banning is house rules about what players cannot do, thus I run away. Teleport banning, as a common banning example, is not a game breaker, but then I expect/demand that if the party needs to travel somewhere and it takes us three weeks to get there, we don't autofail the mission or otherwise be in big bantha poodoo because we didn't arrive in two weeks. We have to meet someone I don't want to hear "Oh, you just missed him. He left two days ago."
Cranewings 05-01-08, 03:58 AM	They could make a good party, but ultimately why would the necessarily go after Archmake Paku? that's what I'm getting at. That IS railroading, in all forms I know. they exist for one sole reason, and they're going to fight it because they're "good". :P when I am a player, when I usually see stuff like that come around, i try and advise my friends to board a ship to the next continent and let fate sort it out if thats what we're facing from the getgo, because its going to be long, and boring. lol what happens in your games? Three Bad Guys, Two Abandoned Castles, One Lost Spell Book, SIX ADVENTURING TEAMS meet in a bar to sort out who goes for what. "hey guys, lets see what is tacked on the wall of the tavern. I'm not intrested in dummo the necromancer. Any bounties we can go after?"
Kobajagrande 05-01-08, 04:05 AM	They could make a good party, but ultimately why would the necessarily go after Archmake Paku? Well, I could think of several reasons me and my group does it: 1. It being the most reasonable choice. When I'm GM, I plan the sessions thinking players will pick the most reasonable choice. The party, surprisingly enough, usually picks the most reasonable choice out of all the options they have. 2. Creating characters fit for the campaign. Sometimes, I start the character creation by asking players to include some small background thing for their characters (like, having a sister that disappears and the PC gathers his friends to look for her). 3. Players-GM cooperation. Well, guess we don't have to explain this one too much. Generally, once the players are set on the plotline, they're likely to see it through till the end.
Draco_Whitewind 05-01-08, 04:09 AM	lol what happens in your games? Three Bad Guys, Two Abandoned Castles, One Lost Spell Book, SIX ADVENTURING TEAMS meet in a bar to sort out who goes for what. "hey guys, lets see what is tacked on the wall of the tavern. I'm not intrested in dummo the necromancer. Any bounties we can go after?" actually, usually that IS how a lot of the games do start. And no, there aren't three bad guys, two abandonded castles, one lost spellbook. There can be strange happenings here, help guard caravan moving from X to Y for something minor. yes, possibly an abandoned castle. an evil guy out there somewhere, but not necessarily going to end the world. it doesn't scream EPIC PLOT HOOK, but probably one of my better campaigns, as I called it "The Poisonbrew" started when the PCs decided to take a short cut home after a minor adventure, and took a bad turn. choices. i even have the basics to each adventure fleshed out. if they take the plot hook, I start to flesh out more on the ideas and try and bring it from simple to complex. (That's why I never have X super evil bad guy :P because he won't conveniently butt in to end the world, when they're having a decent time with plot hook #7. and on the Poisonbrew, they didn't even have to stay either. they actually chose to investigate. (and it was a neutral party, they even surprised me when they didn't care for a reward up front! :D )
navar100 05-01-08, 04:12 AM	Overestimating PC power is very VERY easy to do when the ECL's and CR assume the party has about a given amount of useful wealth. It's easy to fix. If the CR monsters you are continually using are continaully wasting through the party, use a lower CR. When a DM who is not out to kill the party finds the challenge he set up is more challenging than he intended, he should realize his error and fix it. The players should do their part. They should realize they're outmatched and retreat. The DM should let them. If it's the climactic battle and the party can't retreat because then everyone is doomed, presuming it was purely the DM's fault of overestimation, he needs ti improvise. Perhaps the BBEG makes a critical tactical error due to overconfidence the party can exploit. That's not an uncommon experience in stories. The players don't need to know the DM screwed up and gave them an out.
Mock26 05-01-08, 04:14 AM	snip... This doesn't have to do with low magic but your story reminded me of an incident on the first adventure of the campaign that I am currently running. The group found a hidden dungeon under some local ruins and routed all the kobolds who had snuck in there a few weeks before they got there. When everything was said and done and all the bad guys were dead I asked them what now? They looked at each other, looked at me, they all smiled and one of them said, "We remove all of the doors." They had apparently discussed this via e-mail and decided that since they were level 1 and had started out 15,000 gp in debt due to apprenticeship fees, they decided to do everything in their power to get as much money as possible. And first time out of the city it was to take the doors. There were something like 100 reinforced wooden doors. A couple of them were destroyed during the adventure, but most of them were still there. The going price on a reinforced wooden door is 25 gp. Given the number of doors involved I offered them 12 gp per door. They were ecstatic. The next adventure they were taking everything that they could find to try and sell it. At one point they had a wagon of 100 cheap kobold spears. They planned on selling the shafts as cheap firewood and selling the tips as scrap metal to a blacksmith. They were nuts for a while and they were actually a bit sad when they paid off their debt because it took the fun out of stripping the dungeons.
VioletTempest 05-01-08, 04:39 AM	Being a 3.0/3.5 girl I don't know any other way to play but with a mountain of books offering a shmorgashboard of choices. Powergamer? No, not really. High-magic lover...no. Conversly, I have never played in a low-level game (and as a new DM have obviously never run one). Honestly, I would love to try it, because I play for the fun of it. Half the fun is trying new stuff. I have only ever played in power-high games. I never made the destinction between high power and high magic. Do I optimize my characters, yes - but NOT for 20 or even 10 levels. I peruse the books until I find a class that is the base for my character idea. I never really look more than 3 or 4 levels a head. If I need to sacrifice skills or feats to have an amazing skill I will. My current character has a 23 diplomacy check and a 3 search and a 4 spot for example. Because diplomacy is her schtick - she's the face of the party. Does it mean her chances of getting what she wants are high? yes, but a good DM - and we have one - also makes sure she sometimes gets more than she bargained for. On the other hand, I also get annoyed when the guys (no offense) sit around for HOURS leveling up when I'm done in no time...:waits: (psst I believe in m********g)
Dash Branaghan 05-01-08, 04:46 AM	On the other hand, I also get annoyed when the guys (no offense) sit around for HOURS leveling up when I'm done in no time...:waits: This issue has been around for as long as I've gamed, and probably beyond that...
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 08:35 AM	No, in fantasy you have a greater potential to become someone important - and that does not make you a world shaker. Your importance can and often is limited to one maybe two areas. Now, if you're talking Dragonlance War of the Lance style campaigns, then yeah, you're world shakers there. But you are not taking into account something here Sunic - your character may die long before becoming important. And trust me, I can't tell you the name of very many archaeologists in this world, and they do dungeon crawls all the time. It doesn't make them world shakers either. So no, there is no "fact" to being someone important - because NOT every single PC is important within the world they operate in. They certainly don't start out important, and there is no guarantee they ever will be important. I've seen a lot of DMs throw in the towel long before their PCs get any form of recognition. You start out somewhat important and move towards the world shaker stage over the next dozen levels or so. Yeah, dying stops your story though pause is a more accurate word - you can come back after all. Do you know what the word fact means, or do you just toss it around because it sounds good? Course I do. I'm not a masochist either and I still enjoy CoC and Paranoia. Shall we do a poll of the boards to see how many other people play these games and do not describe themselves as masochists? Because maybe if more people enjoy these games, then your point about having to be Uber McBadAss, Third Earl of AssKicker might be invalidated further. Tell you what...I'll leave that to you. I've seen some people who played them. The focus was generally on amusing ways they were defeated aka killed. Masochistic comedy. It means they are a rip off of this group, who in turn is a parody of another group. In both cases the focus is on how they get their asses handed to them in a humiliating way at least once a session, they don't serve much else in the way of a useful purpose, and to add insult to injury the bane of their existence is so incompetent he needs DM fiat to win against just about anything else, even the weakest other opponent he could possibly face. http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4528/teamatkn5.jpg What I am telling you to stop doing is making definitive catch-all statements or claiming subjective opinion is fact. It is your opinion, not the word of Gods - and while in your gaming world you may be Gods, as you've pointed out, in reality we're nobodys. But, as nobodies we are still entitled to our opinions, you and I and the others. If it were the words of Gods, I wouldn't believe in it. :P Just stop claiming your opinion for "fact." It's not. I am not.
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 08:45 AM	Oh and that whole Archmage Paku bit touches on one of the reasons I avoid good only games. Potential excuse for laziness. Now, neutral/evil games can get bogged down in stupidity with bad players and get ruined as well, but not having that whole flawed 'you're good, you have to help these people' fallback for bad plot exposition means you, the DM can't be lazy and have to actually think about how to draw your players in and get them interested. Make it more personal. Could be done in a good game, but since it's basically forced in a neutral/evil game it's more likely. More personal = more interesting to the player. After all even if the character is obligated to do something, if the player is bored You're Doing It Wrong. I challenge anyone to attempt to argue that bolded point. And before anyone tries to jump me about some other part of it... save your breath. If that isn't a problem, it removes that objective reason. Even if it also removed the other objective reasons the subjective ones still exist, therefore it is undebatable.
Dash Branaghan 05-01-08, 09:18 AM	You start out somewhat important and move towards the world shaker stage over the next dozen levels or so. Yeah, dying stops your story though pause is a more accurate word - you can come back after all. Again, you may not start out as someone important. Maybe in video games you do, but in D&D, you can be just as unimportant as the blacksmith - hell, until you prove yourself in some way, you're probably less important than the blacksmith because at least he has a saleable skill and contributes to the community. As far as pausing - most 3rd level character deaths can be pretty final unless you DM Fiat them back into existence by implementing some clerical plot-quest in return for the spell since odds are they can't afford to have it done themselves. I've seen some people who played them. The focus was generally on...*snip* As you state, the focus was generally...so not exclusively. Some people might be part of that non-general grouping that isn't masochistic and simply playing and waiting for death. I am not. Actually you were - you persistently stated in preceding posts that things were fact when I think I've done a pretty good job of proving that they are subjective commentaries that support your opinion. After all even if the character is obligated to do something, if the player is bored You're Doing It Wrong. I challenge anyone to attempt to argue that bolded point. Challenge accepted. Are you absolutely 100% certain that the player's boredom is entirely the fault of the DM and not the fault of the player in ANY way shape or form? What if the player has ADHD? What if the player was smoking marijuana before session? What if the player isn't paying attention? What if the player's view is that D&D should be like an MMO or some other videogame, and when it doesn't match up to their expectation, they get bored? I'm sure I can keep listing reasons here, but ultimately you're making the same mistake here with definitive catch-all statements like you've been doing all along. Maybe You're NOT Doing It Wrong, Maybe Something Is Wrong With the Player. I would like to make one thing clear here - I'm not excluding the possibility of the the DM's responsibility, I'm just presenting the possibility that the Player has some part of this as well. And not to create a false binary, maybe there are other factors involved. Maybe it's a combination of the DM and Player. But hey, let me ask you the big question that this point raises: If you're doing it in such a way that three out of four or four out five players are NOT bored but in fact enjoy it, does the boredom of one player make you so certain that you're (the DM) is still doing it wrong?
The Great Alchemist 05-01-08, 10:07 AM	I want PCs who are cinematic badasses. They are heroes (well, almost always anti-heroes, but thats what they want), and high magic settings diminish this (as far as I'm concerned...your mileage may vary). I want the characters to be the source of the awesomeness, not their stuff. This is how I feel as well. Its strange to me to hear so many anti-LM people talk about how LM DM's wanting to castrate their players, when for me its the opposite. I want the player characters to be special individuals. I want their skills, abilities, prowess, etc. to set them apart from the rest of society. I don't want them to be badasses because they have magic items, especially not if anybody can pick up a +5 magic sword in any general store. In my LM settings, the NPC's and world in general get toned down more than the players do. A player in my campaign may not have as nearly as many magic items as in standard D&D, but his +2 magic sword may be unlike anyone else has in the entire kingdom he's in. A wizard in my setting may not know many spells (magic books are exceedingly rare) but even at low levels his magical power is feared because most people have never even seen a wizard - not even kings or hardened veterans. Most of the villains in my world are mundane humans who have the same constraints as the player characters and hardly ever a magical item. Magical enemies - monsters, mages, vampires, etc. are major villains who will only be fought after many game sessions of build up. In this sort of world the PC's are among the most epic heroes in the setting, even when they are still relatively low level.
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 10:16 AM	The general argument against me went from if the players are having fun you're playing the right way and if they aren't you're not regardless of what you're doing to accomplish this to no, it's not actually subjective after all, it is possible for it to be Wrong Bad Fun. It 180ed just like this: Me: Dash season! Dash: Sunic season! Me: Dash season! Dash: Sunic season! Me: Sunic season! Dash: Dash season! *rifle shot to self* This amuses me too greatly to respond further.
Clawhound 05-01-08, 11:13 AM	To many people, fair or unfair, high-magic means the following: 1. Monty Haul 2. Overpowered or extremely powerful characters. 3. Magic saturation. 4. Too much hinges on magical McGuffins. When folks say they like low magic, they are saying that they do not want any of the above. Beyond that, low-magic has lots of variations. When I say that "I like low magic," I mean the above. Equipment is reasonable, but no excessive. The characters are strong, but they can't steamroll everything. Magic is rarer than it is common. The story hinges on the actions and choices of the characters. They persevere even if they do not have the right spell, the right ability, or some easy way to solve the problem. In low magic, difficulties are a feature.
Clawhound 05-01-08, 11:31 AM	*double post*
Dash Branaghan 05-01-08, 11:42 AM	The general argument against me went from if the players are having fun you're playing the right way and if they aren't you're not regardless of what you're doing to accomplish this to no, it's not actually subjective after all, it is possible for it to be Wrong Bad Fun. It 180ed just like this. Wow...you really have missed the point, at least as far as my arguments with you have gone. My general argument against pretty much all of your claims is that you're claiming subjectivity as objectivity. Which everyone here seems to recognize. Now, you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean here because I'm failing to see how this 180'd or how I in anyway specified a right or wrong way to play. You might also consider addressing the major question that I presented to you, which I notice you've entirely dodged by making this rather spurious claim. If I've supposedly shot myself, and not in fact blown several more holes in your arguments, you might want to clarify exactly where I did it. Because I'm not seeing it. Must be the brain damage that makes me enjoy LM games. :P
ryguysolis 05-01-08, 11:43 AM	Dash, whenever you catch Sunic in an error he fails to respond to your post. It's annoying, but you must know by now that you've won the argument numerous times right?
Dash Branaghan 05-01-08, 11:45 AM	Dash, whenever you catch Sunic in an error he fails to respond to your post. It's annoying, but you must know by now that you've won the argument numerous times right? *chuckle* Just trying to see how many notches on my belt I can add...I'm seeing if I can beat his cookie count in a single thread. I think the biggest irony is that I'm doing this with no magic and still having fun. :D
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 12:36 PM	Dash, whenever you catch Sunic in an error he fails to respond to your post. It's annoying, but you must know by now that you've won the argument numerous times right? Ah, the troll squad mob strikes again. You do know a variant of the Inverse Ninjutsu Law applies there right? I've pretty much stopped with the serious replies as nearly all responses involve some combination of trolling me, moving the goal posts, or jumping to extreme and disproportional conclusions.
Cranewings 05-01-08, 12:42 PM	Oh and that whole Archmage Paku bit touches on one of the reasons I avoid good only games. Potential excuse for laziness. Now, neutral/evil games can get bogged down in stupidity with bad players and get ruined as well, but not having that whole flawed 'you're good, you have to help these people' fallback for bad plot exposition means you, the DM can't be lazy and have to actually think about how to draw your players in and get them interested. Make it more personal. Could be done in a good game, but since it's basically forced in a neutral/evil game it's more likely. More personal = more interesting to the player. After all even if the character is obligated to do something, if the player is bored You're Doing It Wrong. I challenge anyone to attempt to argue that bolded point. And before anyone tries to jump me about some other part of it... save your breath. If that isn't a problem, it removes that objective reason. Even if it also removed the other objective reasons the subjective ones still exist, therefore it is undebatable. In my defense, my players think this game is the best one they've played, and they have all been gaming for 6+ years. However, you are right, generally.
Cranewings 05-01-08, 12:51 PM	actually, usually that IS how a lot of the games do start. And no, there aren't three bad guys, two abandonded castles, one lost spellbook. There can be strange happenings here, help guard caravan moving from X to Y for something minor. yes, possibly an abandoned castle. an evil guy out there somewhere, but not necessarily going to end the world. it doesn't scream EPIC PLOT HOOK, but probably one of my better campaigns, as I called it "The Poisonbrew" started when the PCs decided to take a short cut home after a minor adventure, and took a bad turn. choices. i even have the basics to each adventure fleshed out. if they take the plot hook, I start to flesh out more on the ideas and try and bring it from simple to complex. (That's why I never have X super evil bad guy :P because he won't conveniently butt in to end the world, when they're having a decent time with plot hook #7. and on the Poisonbrew, they didn't even have to stay either. they actually chose to investigate. (and it was a neutral party, they even surprised me when they didn't care for a reward up front! :D ) I can respect that. Usually, every other game I run is epic. The non-epic games, people kinda run around and do whatever they want, rob banks, hijack treasure fleets, kill criminals, whatever. I'm hoping that in this game, they will end up taking over a city and we can pretend we are playing Birthright...
ryguysolis 05-01-08, 12:59 PM	Ah, the troll squad mob strikes again. You do know a variant of the Inverse Ninjutsu Law applies there right? I've pretty much stopped with the serious replies as nearly all responses involve some combination of trolling me, moving the goal posts, or jumping to extreme and disproportional conclusions. Whereas your responses involve some combination of trolling us, stating your opinion as fact, failing to support your opinion previously stated as fact, or being generally nonresponsive because "I already won I don't need to respond to that". Pity.
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 01:12 PM	Whereas your responses involve some combination of trolling us, stating your opinion as fact, failing to support your opinion previously stated as fact, or being generally nonresponsive because "I already won I don't need to respond to that". Pity. No, my responses involve some combination of smiting stupidity, stating facts as facts and clearly separating them from opinions yet having that used against me anyways, or refusing to repeat something I just said and is just quoted by the very same person claiming I need proof. I don't think you've made a single constructive comment yet. Your sole purpose seems to be to hitch a free ride on the bash Sunic band wagon.
StruckingFuggle 05-01-08, 01:37 PM	On the other hand, I also get annoyed when the guys (no offense) sit around for HOURS leveling up when I'm done in no time...:waits: This issue has been around for as long as I've gamed, and probably beyond that... See, that's one of the benefits of knowing what you want to do with your character and where you want them to go, mechanically (what is referred to as "having a build") - you already know how they're going to level up, so it doesn't take long at all. :)
StruckingFuggle 05-01-08, 01:37 PM	On the other hand, I also get annoyed when the guys (no offense) sit around for HOURS leveling up when I'm done in no time...:waits: This issue has been around for as long as I've gamed, and probably beyond that... See, that's one of the benefits of knowing what you want to do with your character and where you want them to go, mechanically (what is referred to as "having a build") - you already know how they're going to level up, so it doesn't take long at all. :)
ryguysolis 05-01-08, 02:34 PM	No, my responses involve some combination of smiting stupidity, stating facts as facts and clearly separating them from opinions yet having that used against me anyways, or refusing to repeat something I just said and is just quoted by the very same person claiming I need proof. I don't think you've made a single constructive comment yet. Your sole purpose seems to be to hitch a free ride on the bash Sunic band wagon. You're right, I have, for the most part, reserved my comments in this discussion for deconstructing yours. I find it a very productive use of my time as otherwise people might get the idea that yours is the only valid viewpoint simply because you insist upon it so. Also, I was hating on you before it was cool.
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 02:46 PM	Also, I was hating on you before it was cool. Proof? :P
ryguysolis 05-01-08, 03:03 PM	It's already been posted, find the thread. :rolleyes:
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 03:06 PM	It's already been posted, find the thread. :rolleyes: Ah, so you weren't serious. You're just trolling again. Gotcha. I'll be awaiting more serious replies.
weepingminotaur 05-01-08, 03:10 PM	Maybe I'm crazy, but when playing D&D, I enjoy the thrill of being heroic without having to rely on 101 magic items to get the job done. Items, to me, are not the point of roleplaying, and I am not interested in being badass in a cinematic-action-movie-type way. I'm sure that type of character appeals to many other gamers, but it doesn't appeal to me. I prefer adventures in which my character has to struggle for most anything he wants or needs, where even a low-level encounter can turn ugly if he's not careful.
Draco_Whitewind 05-01-08, 03:46 PM	I just remembered something awesome as a parallel to this style of play. I've run a low Magic game of sorts, rather were magic just wasn't the focus, but it existed. Once upon a time I ran from the 3 books that exist of it, the "Dragon Ball Z action adventure RPG" Compared to the rest of the world, the power levels for the characters were typically very high. not quite over 9000 though, (:P) But enough so that most of the world became a backdrop. its quite different on its own right when its not so much that you can't find other adventures to do usually, and that the villains can be quite tough in every fight, especially since its typically a limited number of them. There's no real consequences for being good or bad in the world from anyone lesser. Its very different when there isn't really any magic gear, but at the same time your opponent doesn't have anything beyond stats usually.
ryguysolis 05-01-08, 04:09 PM	Ah, so you weren't serious. You're just trolling again. Gotcha. I'll be awaiting more serious replies. How come when I respond in the exact same manner you have you find me not serious? I'm so confused right now by the way your mind works.
Cranewings 05-01-08, 04:55 PM	I just remembered something awesome as a parallel to this style of play. I've run a low Magic game of sorts, rather were magic just wasn't the focus, but it existed. Once upon a time I ran from the 3 books that exist of it, the "Dragon Ball Z action adventure RPG" Compared to the rest of the world, the power levels for the characters were typically very high. not quite over 9000 though, (:P) But enough so that most of the world became a backdrop. its quite different on its own right when its not so much that you can't find other adventures to do usually, and that the villains can be quite tough in every fight, especially since its typically a limited number of them. There's no real consequences for being good or bad in the world from anyone lesser. Its very different when there isn't really any magic gear, but at the same time your opponent doesn't have anything beyond stats usually. God... I read the rule book for that game. "We recommend that you make the power level of the main enemy equal to the power level of all the player characters added together." I so wanted to play it.
navar100 05-01-08, 06:01 PM	Fair is fair. People harp on my "DM hating his players"; I'm going to harp on the anti-high magic. High magic does not mean characters are running around with 101 magic items. High magic does not mean characters can buy a +5 sword at Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. High magic does not mean a character's abilities are superfluous to his magic items. High magic does not mean characters easily steamroll through obstacles or otherwise don't engage in heroic efforts. High magic means no spell is "banned". High magic means a high level dedicated warrior, say level 15, will find a +5 sword as part of a treasure hoard after the party defeats the BBEG who was party level CR+2. More likely it's only +2 in enhancement with +3 in other abilities or +2 enhancement with + X,000gp effect. High magic means it's unlikely a character has an 8 in one of his scores, will have a 22+ in one ability score by level 12, and the rest of his scores will range from 10-18 depending upon if that particular character chose to utilize ability score enhancement items. It does not mean his scores are, in numerical order, 18, 18, 18, 20, 26, 30. Level 20 or Epic, maybe, but definitely not even at level 15 let alone 4. High magic means a level 1 party's patron will sometimes give the party a couple of potions of Cure Light Wounds, caster level 1, for free, but by level 2 the fighter will not be wearing platemail +2 and the wizard will not have a wand of stoneskin. High magic means teleporting is just a means to get where the actual adventure is taking place instead of the DM taking a few seconds to say "You travel a couple of weeks where nothing special happens" for the hundredth time. High magic means the party, on the 4th or 5th real world once a week game night since this particular adventure started, will finally be able to confront the dragon, kill it in a tough fight with a couple of party members in death's door, rescue the princess (warrior gets his +5 sword from dragon hoard), and save the kingdom. High magic does not mean the party kills the tarrasque at level 7.
ravenshrike 05-01-08, 06:16 PM	#8 - I simply cannot rationalize a bunch of people mass-producing magic items at high personal cost. I know few Players who make characters that do that sort of thing - why should I mass produce NPCs to fill in their shortcomings? As a game, Magic Items and Awesome Inventory would suck. As a way to make money and as a job, you can bet your ass there would be people doing this if they had the ability. There are plenty of people who, if the D&D world was real, even if they were exceptional, would not take up their magic abilities to vanquish monsters but would instead turn to crafting items.
sblaxman 05-01-08, 06:57 PM	Navar... That's good and all, but none of us are anti-high-magic, some of us are pro-HM, just also pro-LM. There are some people that are obviously anti-LM, some that say "I am pro-HM, but not anti-LM", but I don't think any of us are anti-HM. Plus, LM does not mean that that it's any more likely for a player to have an 8 in a stat or any less likely to have a 22, that's high power vs low power, a different issue. Us pro-LM people know what HM is, we just prefer to play LM, we aren't bashing HM, just sharing why we like LM.
ravenshrike 05-01-08, 07:10 PM	After all even if the character is obligated to do something, if the player is bored You're Doing It Wrong. I challenge anyone to attempt to argue that bolded point. The player could be a Steve.
green_yawgmoth 05-01-08, 07:49 PM	The player could be a Steve. I think it was assumed that the Player is not intentionally trying to be an ass or otherwise attempting to have fun by ruining everyone else's. Also, I endorse navar's statement 100%.
Sunic_Flames 05-01-08, 08:02 PM	Fair is fair. People harp on my "DM hating his players"; I'm going to harp on the anti-high magic. High magic does not mean characters are running around with 101 magic items. High magic does not mean characters can buy a +5 sword at Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. High magic does not mean a character's abilities are superfluous to his magic items. High magic does not mean characters easily steamroll through obstacles or otherwise don't engage in heroic efforts. High magic means no spell is "banned". High magic means a high level dedicated warrior, say level 15, will find a +5 sword as part of a treasure hoard after the party defeats the BBEG who was party level CR+2. More likely it's only +2 in enhancement with +3 in other abilities or +2 enhancement with + X,000gp effect. High magic means it's unlikely a character has an 8 in one of his scores, will have a 22+ in one ability score by level 12, and the rest of his scores will range from 10-18 depending upon if that particular character chose to utilize ability score enhancement items. It does not mean his scores are, in numerical order, 18, 18, 18, 20, 26, 30. Level 20 or Epic, maybe, but definitely not even at level 15 let alone 4. High magic means a level 1 party's patron will sometimes give the party a couple of potions of Cure Light Wounds, caster level 1, for free, but by level 2 the fighter will not be wearing platemail +2 and the wizard will not have a wand of stoneskin. High magic means teleporting is just a means to get where the actual adventure is taking place instead of the DM taking a few seconds to say "You travel a couple of weeks where nothing special happens" for the hundredth time. High magic means the party, on the 4th or 5th real world once a week game night since this particular adventure started, will finally be able to confront the dragon, kill it in a tough fight with a couple of party members in death's door, rescue the princess (warrior gets his +5 sword from dragon hoard), and save the kingdom. High magic does not mean the party kills the tarrasque at level 7. QFT! :cookie:
Etarnon 05-01-08, 08:18 PM	I like, and prefer low magic. Everyone else, run their own game how they like. Don't tell me how to run mine, or that it's broken. The purpose of the thread was to find out how many like and prefer low magic. Nothing more. Anyone seeking a pulpit, preach to your players, or start your own thread. Thanks, Gentlemen.
The Great Alchemist 05-01-08, 08:25 PM	I like, and prefer low magic. Everyone else, run their own game how they like. Don't tell me how to run mine, or that it's broken. The purpose of the thread was to find out how many like and prefer low magic. Nothing more. Anyone seeking a pulpit, preach to your players, or start your own thread. Thanks, Gentlemen. So, to change the subject (from fighting) a little bit, let me ask you how low do you like the magic in your setting Etarnon? How common are magic items, spell users, monsters, etc.?
Anansi 05-01-08, 08:28 PM	Navar... That's good and all, but none of us are anti-high-magic, some of us are pro-HM, just also pro-LM. There are some people that are obviously anti-LM, some that say "I am pro-HM, but not anti-LM", but I don't think any of us are anti-HM. Plus, LM does not mean that that it's any more likely for a player to have an 8 in a stat or any less likely to have a 22, that's high power vs low power, a different issue. Us pro-LM people know what HM is, we just prefer to play LM, we aren't bashing HM, just sharing why we like LM. Actually, I recall several posts in this thread bashing high magic campaigns. So far it looks as though either everyone loves low magic and hates high magic, loves high magic and hates low magic or doesn't care and will play in either (provided the DM and other players aren't a bunch of clowns). Etarnon - You've done your share of preaching in this thread.
green_yawgmoth 05-01-08, 08:30 PM	I like, and prefer low magic. Everyone else, run their own game how they like. Don't tell me how to run mine, or that it's broken. The purpose of the thread was to find out how many like and prefer low magic. Nothing more. Anyone seeking a pulpit, preach to your players, or start your own thread. Thanks, Gentlemen. That way you have fun is WRONG! :rant:
Anansi 05-01-08, 09:28 PM	That way you have fun is WRONG! :rant: You tell them varmints, Earl! To stay on topic, I'd be interested in hearing from DMs who favour low-magic settings on the topic of spellcasters and encounters. Specifically, I'm interested in finding out how you were able to limit the power of spellcasters without rendering them unplayable. Also... slbaxman mentioned something like this earlier but I'd like to find out how many other Low Magic DMs do this as well: unique magical items or methods of enchantment. Specifically, when magical items do appear in your campaign do you give them additional properties (and I mean unusual or unique ones based on the item's history) in order to compensate the PCs somewhat for the lack of magical items in general? Finally: encounters. I know that you can simply throw lower CR monsters at the party, but I was wondering how you dealt with creatures that had damage reduction that can only be penetrated by magical weapons (including aligned weapons) as well as those with supernatural powers, particularly ones with high save DCs. Without access to save enhancing equipment, the players are at a significant disadvantage. Are magical creatures rarer or even unique individuals in your campaigns? Or do the players simply have to deal with challenges they are extremely hard-pressed to overcome or may even be incapable of overcoming? The reason I ask is that I am considering running a low-magic campaign and these are the biggest issues I've faced thus far regarding planning.
navar100 05-01-08, 09:33 PM	Navar... That's good and all, but none of us are anti-high-magic, some of us are pro-HM, just also pro-LM. There are some people that are obviously anti-LM, some that say "I am pro-HM, but not anti-LM", but I don't think any of us are anti-HM. Plus, LM does not mean that that it's any more likely for a player to have an 8 in a stat or any less likely to have a 22, that's high power vs low power, a different issue. Us pro-LM people know what HM is, we just prefer to play LM, we aren't bashing HM, just sharing why we like LM. Yet there have been posts, just before mine, chastising characters with "101 magic items" or "buying a +5 sword from a magic shop". That's what prompted my posting in the first place.
navar100 05-01-08, 10:00 PM	You tell them varmints, Earl! To stay on topic, I'd be interested in hearing from DMs who favour low-magic settings on the topic of spellcasters and encounters. Specifically, I'm interested in finding out how you were able to limit the power of spellcasters without rendering them unplayable. Also... slbaxman mentioned something like this earlier but I'd like to find out how many other Low Magic DMs do this as well: unique magical items or methods of enchantment. Specifically, when magical items do appear in your campaign do you give them additional properties (and I mean unusual or unique ones based on the item's history) in order to compensate the PCs somewhat for the lack of magical items in general? Finally: encounters. I know that you can simply throw lower CR monsters at the party, but I was wondering how you dealt with creatures that had damage reduction that can only be penetrated by magical weapons (including aligned weapons) as well as those with supernatural powers, particularly ones with high save DCs. Without access to save enhancing equipment, the players are at a significant disadvantage. Are magical creatures rarer or even unique individuals in your campaigns? Or do the players simply have to deal with challenges they are extremely hard-pressed to overcome or may even be incapable of overcoming? The reason I ask is that I am considering running a low-magic campaign and these are the biggest issues I've faced thus far regarding planning. I can tell you from a player's perspective it is not fun to face monsters of DR no one in the party can overcome on a constant basis. I'd rather they don't exist at all until finally the DM lets the party have such a weapon. However, if you are to have one, it should be only one. Consider its CR at least +1. It should either be the BBEG or the Mcguffin creature that needs to be killed. The DR value should not be more than 5. It should never be a random encounter or otherwise have nothing to do with the plot. It should have a low to mid AC so that the dedicated warriors can Power Attack comfortably. It must be susceptible to critical hits and sneak attack. If a spellcaster can cast a spell to overcome the DR, such as Magic Weapon or Align Weapon, at some point before the combat the player needs to know he'll need to prepare that spell. The AC can be a bit higher if this happens but not too much. Any magic item a character does have should be useful and something the character wants. A Quaal's feather token of a tree or boat, while they do have their uses and imaginative players can find more, just ain't it. A scroll of Detect Magic is an expensive sheet of toilet paper. A warrior in platemail would appreciate boots that increase his speed by 10ft, maybe even 20ft. A cleric might appreciate a magical holy symbol that becomes a tattoo on his body, that can be hidden if necessary, that acts as a divine focus for his spells and provides the benefit of Eschew Materials feat as well as is the equivalent of any focus component of a spell of at most 100gp in value, i.e. the cleric can cast Shield Other without the physical 50gp rings.
arjomanes 05-01-08, 10:03 PM	As a game, Magic Items and Awesome Inventory would suck. As a way to make money and as a job, you can bet your ass there would be people doing this if they had the ability. There are plenty of people who, if the D&D world was real, even if they were exceptional, would not take up their magic abilities to vanquish monsters but would instead turn to crafting items. That's why it was cool that Eberron included magewrights and artificers. I think it's a good example of a high-magic campaign world. In my opinion, Eberron makes a better case for a high-magic world than Forgotten Realms does; even though the power level over-all in the world is lower.
danielinthewolvesden 05-01-08, 10:07 PM	It's easy to fix. If the CR monsters you are continually using are continaully wasting through the party, use a lower CR. . Sure, but in the meantime, maybe one of the players has lost a PC that he really liked and did scads of works on the background and everything. No fun to die as the DM was cheap.
danielinthewolvesden 05-01-08, 10:13 PM	To many people, fair or unfair, high-magic means the following: 1. Monty Haul 2. Overpowered or extremely powerful characters. 3. Magic saturation. 4. Too much hinges on magical McGuffins. When folks say they like low magic, they are saying that they do not want any of the above. .... When I say that "I like low magic," I mean the above. Equipment is reasonable, but no excessive. The characters are strong, but they can't steamroll everything. Magic is rarer than it is common. The story hinges on the actions and choices of the characters. They persevere even if they do not have the right spell, the right ability, or some easy way to solve the problem. In low magic, difficulties are a feature. That is not really "low magic" that's the RAW or "playing the game by the guidelines".:P
The Great Alchemist 05-01-08, 10:18 PM	You tell them varmints, Earl! To stay on topic, I'd be interested in hearing from DMs who favour low-magic settings on the topic of spellcasters and encounters. Specifically, I'm interested in finding out how you were able to limit the power of spellcasters without rendering them unplayable. Well, the gaming group I play with uses a lot of house rules that change the balance somewhat. That combined with the low magic is going to make the dynamic a bit different. For example, we give all classes an AC bonus equal to their base attack bonus, so a 10th level Fighter has +10 to AC while a 10th level wizard has +5 to AC. We let armor give damage reduction equal to the AC bonus it would normally give, so chain mail would give 5 points of damage reduction instead of +5 AC. There are other changes as well. Anyway, we haven't usually had too much trouble with magic users being too powerful. For wizards in the setting its usually hard to acquire new spells, and those they do get access to are usually selected by the DM. Balance between players in a game is always a tricky thing and the DM needs to be vigilant of balance issues regardless of whether or not its a game with RAW or heavily house ruled. The idea that only LM or house ruled settings cause imbalances is patently untrue. Having too much violence hinders the social character, having too much social encounters hurts the Charisma dump character. Also, in our setting magic users are often feared and despised by the public. Like witches in medieval times. This makes magic using characters reluctant to use their powers in public, and since our games have a lot of human interaction it becomes a big issue. When a magic user unleashes his power it can sometimes be devastating but it can have big consequences. There has even been inner party conflict over spell use and its evils. Also... slbaxman mentioned something like this earlier but I'd like to find out how many other Low Magic DMs do this as well: unique magical items or methods of enchantment. Specifically, when magical items do appear in your campaign do you give them additional properties (and I mean unusual or unique ones based on the item's history) in order to compensate the PCs somewhat for the lack of magical items in general? Well, for our games magic items often have different origins than they do in standard D&D. They are very seldom just made by some magic user for the sake of having a cool item, they usually arise through special circumstances. A sword is used to slay a mighty dragon and from then on its blade is more deadly from the dragon's poisonous blood. A family heirloom is passed down from father to son for generations and gives the great great great great grandson good luck when he carries it into battle. Maybe the bone of a great saint who gave his life for the good of others confers protection against evil forces. In many ways in our games the magic that exists can be more vulnerable as well. Evil creatures can be harmed by holy water, by holy items brandished by those of pure heart, even by folk superstitions or good luck charms. One nation is ruled by a single church with a leader not unlike a pope. During a special ritual he blesses a weapon at which point it becomes a +1 holy weapon in the hands of the faithful. Finally: encounters. I know that you can simply throw lower CR monsters at the party, but I was wondering how you dealt with creatures that had damage reduction that can only be penetrated by magical weapons (including aligned weapons) as well as those with supernatural powers, particularly ones with high save DCs. Without access to save enhancing equipment, the players are at a significant disadvantage. Are magical creatures rarer or even unique individuals in your campaigns? Or do the players simply have to deal with challenges they are extremely hard-pressed to overcome or may even be incapable of overcoming? Usually in our game such encounters are very rare. Most enemies are mortal human enemies. Evil kings, corrupt guardsmen, bandits, enemy soldiers, etc. When powerful magic enemies do appear, its something special and important. I'd never throw an unbeatable enemy at players unless it was part of an overarching plot in which case the players would be able to defeat the enemy later or under the right circumstances. As for creatures with special immunities, they often appear in literature all the time and they are hardly ever defeated by just using a magic weapon - which I think kinda cheapens the invulnerability. Basically for a high level character, there is no difference between a creature with a special immunity and one without. A magic weapon in always handy. For invulnerable creatures special measures are needed but often well within the character's reach. Silver weapons, blessed weapons, holy water, a stake through the heart, attacking when its daytime and the vampire is weak, performing and exorcism, laying the bones to rest, hitting the one vulnerable spot on its body, chaining it up and dropping it in the ocean, saying its true name backwards, or any number of other unusual methods. Much more interesting in my opinion than just pulling out your +5 chop-o-matic. The reason I ask is that I am considering running a low-magic campaign and these are the biggest issues I've faced thus far regarding planning. Good luck :D
WizO_Kwai_Chang 05-01-08, 10:23 PM	Everyone: Please keep all posts polite, respectful, and on-topic. Thank you.
sblaxman 05-01-08, 11:08 PM	Navar: This is a long thread, if there were some people actually bashing High magic as being BAD (as opposed to being just unliked by them), then I apologize on behalf of them. Some posters did get get overly defensive in reaction to the LM-attacks, and may have made what seemed to be attacks on HM, but I do think, that for the most part, most of us are not saying it is bad, but that it can have problems too, in response to people saying the LM is always bad and HM is always good. When some posters (named unmentioned) get overly aggressive, then some others retaliate in kind. It would be nice if flame wars never got started, once they do they are hard to put out. Seems to have gone up and down a bit here. On topic, Re: making low magic w/o nerfing spell casters I've played with different methods, each worked in their own way. One method, was similar to the 2e "sphere" concept for magic, where spell casters (divine and arcane) are limited to spells from specific spheres. A given caster is still powerful, more so than a non caster, but is not all powerful. Another method which I prefer is a social reason. Casters have full spells available, but the setting has certain reasons for them not being around much. The world could be overly suspicious of casters, and any caster must hide who they are to get by in cities, etc. This does not restrict the player from being a caster, but they need to take care. In addition, spells must be researched or taken from others spell books, they can't just buy scrolls. In this type, I have divine spells "learned" as well, similar to arcane. This provides a setting that is much lower in magic then a 'standard' setting. I've often changed around spell lists, changing spell levels to match the setting (making some higher, some lower). As for DR resistances in enemies, I'd either change the DR to match the setting, or in other cases just not use the enemies. The point is never to kill or hurt the players. Why would I put a creature against my players that I know they cannot kill? Unless it is supposed to be out of their range (which is easy enough to do in LM or HM), there is no reason to create an encounter they cannot overcome.
Dash Branaghan 05-01-08, 11:23 PM	To stay on topic, I'd be interested in hearing from DMs who favour low-magic settings on the topic of spellcasters and encounters. Specifically, I'm interested in finding out how you were able to limit the power of spellcasters without rendering them unplayable. For me, I do not nerf spells beyond Wish and [/i]Miracle[/i]. I find the tendency to abuse them are pretty high, even with a personal cost, and to be honest, my response is usually to subvert them in some way. This hearkens back to watching episodes of the Twilight Zone when I was younger where wishes had a dark side just as readily as a positive side (think "Monkey's Paw"). So they do not exist, beyond artifacts or absolute dire consequences (read: cleric RPing damn good who may get a Miracle granted by his deity). I may limit other spells on a case by case basis (ie. when a new book comes out) noting that no one has them or no one has made them. It really depends on the spell to be honest. But I don't like nerfing the spells so much. Also... slbaxman mentioned something like this earlier but I'd like to find out how many other Low Magic DMs do this as well: unique magical items or methods of enchantment. Specifically, when magical items do appear in your campaign do you give them additional properties (and I mean unusual or unique ones based on the item's history) in order to compensate the PCs somewhat for the lack of magical items in general? For me, I like to offset the XP expenditure among my players by letting them use special ingredients to make items. This is also an opportunity for them to have someone else craft something, if they can find a craftsmen. The time it takes to get these things done though is considerable and the players will usually have the sword crafted, go on an adventure, return for sword, find mage, give mage item, mage gives ingredient list, PCs adventure for ingredients, come back, mage needs time, PCs adventure, return for magic item. This promotes the PCs taking an active interest in obtaining magic items, but also puts limits on them. As far as pre-existing campaign items - they usually have a backstory if they are powerful enough, or might simply be a simple +1 sword with the family name etched into the blade, and the PCs, if spotted carrying it, may be asked to return it to the family in question by family members. Whether they do or not is up to them, but it can cause bitterness knowing some stranger is toting around the family heirloomd (read: new antagonists). Finally: encounters. I know that you can simply throw lower CR monsters at the party, but I was wondering how you dealt with creatures that had damage reduction that can only be penetrated by magical weapons (including aligned weapons) as well as those with supernatural powers, particularly ones with high save DCs. Without access to save enhancing equipment, the players are at a significant disadvantage. Are magical creatures rarer or even unique individuals in your campaigns? Or do the players simply have to deal with challenges they are extremely hard-pressed to overcome or may even be incapable of overcoming? In my games, I tend to stick to a mostly humanoid and animal/vermin antagonists. Undead do crop up as well, but the PCs generally have to go looking for either the Undead (tombs and crypts for example) or the source (necromancer, Cleric of Undeath, etc). Random encounters might yield magical beasts, but I might change the frequency as well. Suffice to say you won't see a lot of magical beasts in the city limits without good cause. Once the players take themselves outside of the city, it all depends on where they go that determines the likelihood of running into fantastic creatures (read: dragons, aberrations, undead, giants), and if the PCs aren't smart enough to get information on the region first (which I usually give them as they chat with people) then wo-betide them. The fights they do get into in these occasions are either challenging with a win or the PCs will flee outright to avoid what might be too much for them. The reason I ask is that I am considering running a low-magic campaign and these are the biggest issues I've faced thus far regarding planning. Going back to a combination of questions 2 and 3 - since the players require special items if they want to obtain the ingredients, and the ingredients invariably come from fantastic creatures, I usually have the mage in question provide them with some sort of aid - for example, for a flaming sword, they may have to capture a part of a fire elemental (say, a 10HD FE) in a magic gem - the caster will provide the gem and command words and may give them specific knowledge on Fire Elementals to help them combat it tactically (assuming they don't have magic to deal with it). The PCs can then gear up to take on the creature knowing how to exploit the weaknesses inherent in it (who knows, the Mage might provide them with a Decanter of Endless Water which they need to return with the gem). This is also knowledge that the PCs get to keep (I usually have them note Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge: Nature or whatever relevant knowledge with a +1 Fire Elementals or +1 Dragon for example). Giving out random skill points tends to help them cope a little better with the world they live in (and decreases meta-gaming surprisingly enough).
sblaxman 05-02-08, 01:33 AM	Dash, in a way, that hearkens back to 1e, where you needed certain monster parts to make potions (horn of gargoyle for stone skin, troll blood for regen)... I always liked bringing in some alchemy to my games. One idea I remember loving from the Baldur's Gate PC game (the thrown of bhall expansion I think) was the ability to upgrade certain items (through your perky little imp pal Cespanar). While those items were defiantly in the High Magic range (+6 Holy avenger, etc) the idea was usable at any level. Just got an idea for an item that I might use... a weapon that can be "infused" with power. By spending 2 hours performing a specific incantation, the power of certain items can be infused into the blade. This process can only be performed once per week, but the effect is permanent. If a second incantation is performed, the standing effect in the blade is removed. If the incantation is interrupted, the sword is simply a masterwork sword. Examples of infusions: -a 1000 gp diamond: DR/3 -Blood of a salamander: +1d6 fire damage -Giant's Hair: +1 STR Hmm, that could be interesting... I'll have to play around w/ that and see where it goes
Dash Branaghan 05-02-08, 02:47 AM	Dash, in a way, that hearkens back to 1e, where you needed certain monster parts to make potions (horn of gargoyle for stone skin, troll blood for regen)... I always liked bringing in some alchemy to my games. I am very much a throwback to 1ed in this sense...one of my favourite (and most often overlooked sections) in the 1ed DMG is the section on herbs and flowers and their properties For PCs who want to create potions, they require these ingredients to "hold" or be "imbued" with the particular magic spell - in other words, if you want to create a potion of restoration, you need herbs of some kind that are basically infused with the magic into a liquid or oil form. As far as your idea of weapon infusions - that would certainly be something that (had I thought of it) I would have in my game (but which I may steal now and plug into my game). It makes magic items that much more interesting and customizable on the fly.
Dash Branaghan 05-02-08, 02:58 AM	Anansi, One other thing that I think is important for LM campaigns that you didn't bring up and I only thought of addressing just now. NPCs. The monster issue I think I covered (at least as far as how I do it), but for NPCs - well, I'm an optimizer based on character - in other words, I figure out what sort of character I want, then how best to make it. One of the ways to take the edge off spellcasters I find is to specialize them into some field or other (ie. PrCs). This allows them to be specialized (ie. Master of Many Forms) and I find it tones them down (de-optimizes in favour of flavour) a bit - at least enough that the non-spellcasting members can still challenge them without a lot of shinies. Particularly if you take PrCs that do not add +1 to existing caster level at every turn. Optimizing in this sense can also allow your NPCs to shine without the need for shinies themselves, which also helps keep the challenge but lower the risk to the PCs. At least, it seems to work that way in my experience. Most cases, the PCs come up with something that absolutely crushes one of my characters, which is good - it shows that even making a CR+2 or CR+3 encounter for them is not overkill or going to result in a TPK.
sblaxman 05-02-08, 03:13 AM	Go for it. I do agree on the 1e DMG.. I absolutely LOVE that section on herbalism, and on the traits assosiated w/ gemstones...
Etarnon 05-02-08, 03:36 AM	I was asked about how much magic in my game is low. Here it is, roughly. 1/2 WBL table, roughly. But it varies. Might be more, might be less. A PC or NPC will typically have an item of Level / 3 As a + to hit. Items in number will be Level /3, more or less. So a 15th level whoever might have a +5 sword, +4 armor, +3 Shield, +2 Cloak and a +1 Dagger. But it depends on story factors, too. If the PC has a hobby of collecting ancient magical swords of at least +3, he'll have more. If the PC is a Cleric with a vow of poverty, he might have robes and a quarterstaff. I don't use CR, not as it is listed in the book. I do three to 5 adventures per level, and award XP accordingly. Doesn't matter what the players fought. I just don't go there on that kind of adherence to 3.5. Players want levels, they get them. Players want cash and magic, they can get it. Just not as much as the so called average by the RAW campaign. There's a lot less combat than the averafge adventure, I'm pretty sure. I like diplomatic plots, and building a power base and attacking cites and bandit hunts. Not a lot of magical creatures. Outside the main areas of the campaign center there are bears, goblins, ginant spiders, gnolls and such. Most of the enmity comes from hostile lords / armies in adjacent countries. There are vampires in a country to the southwest, plus lots of undead, but mainly there. Dragons left the land. The land's magic s dying and flickering. People that want to play a magic user don't typically bother because of spell components, and wild magic, and spells are really really hard to find, except common scrolls like light and magic missile. So people seeking "balanced classes" and such don't apply to my game, or once they've read the briefing, tell me It won't work, and don't press on, or that "This is not D&D." I don't care about balance between classes. I'm very old school in that way. If you want to be a wizard, it's tough, takes a long time, and is for the flavor of the role, not because you want to be the medieval artillery delivery system. Most of the PCs are fighters, rangers, rogues, clerics, some paladins. A few evil sorcerers (Which are always evil aligned) used to play, but after they started whacking kids in towns (for XP), I got rid of those players. Likewise Evil Clerics have gone through the campaign, they too invaded good towns, and tried to PVP a few rangers. So no more evil PCs. No magic stores, like racks of swords for sale. There are a few potion vendors, and the elves make bows, boots, and cloaks, and the dwarves make hammers, and armor and such. Some humans make swords, and things like rings, and scrolls. Most of the magic found is in the old ruins of the cities destroyed long ago, during the age of what is called the Sundering. And there are mongrelmen. But most of it is about human vs human plots or dwarf clan A is taking on Dwarf clan B or goblins or Orcs vs Humanity. There are druids, they keep to themselves in one area. Most swords and such or suits of armor are named and unique, made by specific crafters. So it's not "A selection of +1 swords" it is go to this crafter, bring him the ingredients, and he'll make it for you for X gold, or trade or a favor. It's not designed to be everyon'es "Any PC I want to make will fit in here." It is designed to be it's own flavor, religions, and culture, and history. I'm designing a better one this year to replace the old, (thatI will run via openRPG) because people have done spinoff campaigns of it, and I want to get back to the raw creation of the original process, rather than trying to integrate campaign histories of three DMs into one narrative. Plus I want to integrate the Birthright rules into the game, directly, not just as a sideline for inter-country politics.
Kobajagrande 05-02-08, 04:56 AM	Someone said earlier that the problem here is different concepts on what "high/low magic" is. It seems that some people here see it as a setting thing, while others as more of a power level thing. Low magic for me is completely a setting thing. World is more mundane-looking on the surface. Fantastic creatures are rare. Magic items and spells are in the hands of the very powerful individuals or groups. And note, the PCs are going to become one of such groups. Of course, there are exceptions. Campaign I run right now is about a very magical world, filled with fantastic things - a spirit in every tree, brook, or a bush, magical creatures abound, and yet the civilization is held in isolated enclaves kept ignorant of the wider world around them. The thing some people argue here is about character power level. The way I see it, high power level is where optimization is downright required, otherwise people find themselves with inefficient characters. Low power level is where players can pick up whatever they want, because in the end - it doesn't mean that you will be playing a cripple. Skill focus? Be my guest. Is it necessary to have a score of 22 by level 12? No, of course it is not. Of course, the low power level requires a somewhat different way of challenging the players, reducing encounter levels etc. Just as high power level requires yet another different way of challenging the players. Now, in this area, me and my group definitely prefer lower power level - something between low and default D&D game by guidelines. Most of it comes from our experience with previous edition - when you feel that the power level of the party compared to what they're going against is starting to drop, you add some, and the game goes on.
Etarnon 05-02-08, 04:59 AM	Kobajagrande, I like the idea of your world, spirits everywhere. Yeah I see it that my own place is like you are saying, more mundane. Not historical, but that dark ages flavor plus some magic, and a lot of wildly different setting than standard "Medieval Europe" but close enough to be recognizable.
Cranewings 05-03-08, 01:43 AM	Dungeons and Dragons? Disney or Darkage? With all the flying castles, happy commoners, a well known trade language, honorable guards, rareness of plague, the ability of massive armies to form without illness, the existance of helpful (instead of fearsome) elves, and the ability of cities to stay clean and sanitary without either sewers or aquaducts, the dnd world is MUCH CLOSER to Disney than anything in the real world. So what if there are magic stores and awesome wizards? Dnd "jumped the shark" a long time ago.
Kobajagrande 05-03-08, 02:47 AM	Dungeons and Dragons? Disney or Darkage? With all the flying castles, happy commoners, a well known trade language, honorable guards, rareness of plague, the ability of massive armies to form without illness, the existance of helpful (instead of fearsome) elves, and the ability of cities to stay clean and sanitary without either sewers or aquaducts, the dnd world is MUCH CLOSER to Disney than anything in the real world. So what if there are magic stores and awesome wizards? Dnd "jumped the shark" a long time ago. And yet, it all depends on setting, which, as seen by FR, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun or Spelljammer, can vary widely.
The Great Alchemist 05-03-08, 03:30 AM	Dungeons and Dragons? Disney or Darkage? With all the flying castles, happy commoners, a well known trade language, honorable guards, rareness of plague, the ability of massive armies to form without illness, the existance of helpful (instead of fearsome) elves, and the ability of cities to stay clean and sanitary without either sewers or aquaducts, the dnd world is MUCH CLOSER to Disney than anything in the real world. So what if there are magic stores and awesome wizards? Dnd "jumped the shark" a long time ago. Personally I prefer my D&D to have discontent or suffering peasants, massive language barriers including the lack of a common language, plagues, infections, famines, logistical concerns, sanitation and irrigation concerns, and very rare elves. Along with lots of other real world concerns that you didn't mention - like religious bigotry, sexism and gender roles, human vs human racism, bad science and false assumptions, ignorance and illiteracy, etc.
Cranewings 05-03-08, 12:34 PM	Koba, we have a running joke in my dnd game about FR. Two of the characters just got teleported there (the party is split up). They plan on meeting useless library mages that are higher level than their world's bbeg, spend some gold at a magic shop, see how the people of waterdeep feed themselves with no farmland or infrastructure (the citizens of that city eat nothing but fish every day). Alchemist, that sounds more like my game.
Kearif 05-03-08, 01:03 PM	When I do Iron Kingdoms games, I tend to go for NPC magic. Which means that i don't allow caster classes for PC use, but that magic items exist and the party can meet NPC sorcerers, wizards, cleric, etc. It gives magic a more mysterious feel to it but doesn't prevent the character from getting cool equipment. That is how I do low-magic. Cranewings - If you feel that D&D has jumped the shark, than maybe you can do us a favor and stop posting on the forums! some of us actually LIKE this game. In answer to your question "Dungeons and Dragons? Disney or Darkage?" the answer is European Renaissance without guns and with magic, monsters, and questing adventurers. There are sewers, aquaducts, farmland, and infrastructure. Plagues are small, and famines are rare but when they do happen they are normally caused by magic or monsters and questing adventurers normally come by to save the day. Now stay on Topic!
Cranewings 05-03-08, 01:08 PM	Kearif, that is very Conan / Aurthurian.
Kearif 05-03-08, 01:15 PM	I prefer to think of it as very Iron Kingdoms
Mock26 05-03-08, 01:27 PM	Who is to say that there isn't any farmland around Waterdeep? Just because it does not explicitly state that there is farmland does not preclude it's existance. Unless, of course, one lacks an imagination and is unable to flesh out their campaign.
Cranewings 05-03-08, 01:41 PM	Who is to say that there isn't any farmland around Waterdeep? Just because it does not explicitly state that there is farmland does not preclude it's existance. Unless, of course, one lacks an imagination and is unable to flesh out their campaign. Mock, I had the very clear idea about Waterdeep that there were bandits on the roads, monsters in the woods and underground, and nothing or real value beyond the walls. I mean, MAYBE there are farms, but I don't think the writters intended it. I imagined they had a group of clerics cast summon dinner every day to feed everyone... that, or the people in the market are all clerics and demons, able to summon meals from the abyss. Maybe one of the 8 or 9 18th level wizards cast Wish to fill the market up with people selling food... "Summon Meijers."
Kobajagrande 05-03-08, 06:26 PM	Koba, we have a running joke in my dnd game about FR. Two of the characters just got teleported there (the party is split up). They plan on meeting useless library mages that are higher level than their world's bbeg, spend some gold at a magic shop, see how the people of waterdeep feed themselves with no farmland or infrastructure (the citizens of that city eat nothing but fish every day). Just tell them to make sure they don't cause any trouble, otherwise the king, or possibly a local tavernkeeper, will come and beat them up by himself. Because he can. Personally, on topic, our standard campaign setting (not the one I mentioned earlier) magic is generally rare - a solo mage here and there, court magicians, number of which usually depends on size and power of region - too rare to make an impact on the world, and common enough to be readily used by PCs when needed. Mainly the idea came out when we started discussing how widespread and obtainable resurrection magic should be. Shortly later we gave a nice explanation for the resurrection to suit our needs, and kept the philosophy for the entire amount of magic in the world. It has worked so well for us that now its our general presumption about what a generic campaign setting should be.
navar100 05-03-08, 08:25 PM	Personally I prefer my D&D to have discontent or suffering peasants, massive language barriers including the lack of a common language, plagues, infections, famines, logistical concerns, sanitation and irrigation concerns, and very rare elves. Along with lots of other real world concerns that you didn't mention - like religious bigotry, sexism and gender roles, human vs human racism, bad science and false assumptions, ignorance and illiteracy, etc. In other words, you want to play what you do the 4-8 hours you aren't playing D&D. :P ;) :)
Cranewings 05-03-08, 10:36 PM	Just tell them to make sure they don't cause any trouble, otherwise the king, or possibly a local tavernkeeper, will come and beat them up by himself. Because he can. Personally, on topic, our standard campaign setting (not the one I mentioned earlier) magic is generally rare - a solo mage here and there, court magicians, number of which usually depends on size and power of region - too rare to make an impact on the world, and common enough to be readily used by PCs when needed. Mainly the idea came out when we started discussing how widespread and obtainable resurrection magic should be. Shortly later we gave a nice explanation for the resurrection to suit our needs, and kept the philosophy for the entire amount of magic in the world. It has worked so well for us that now its our general presumption about what a generic campaign setting should be. Koba, your game sounds a lot like mine. My game is set in a darkage style world, so that the country of 3 or so million only has 5 cities, the largest of which only has 20,000 people. Everyone else is completely rural. Each city has a court mage or two. There levels: 17, 16, 10, 7, and 5. The two highest level mages have a couple of mid level wizards under them. Clerics are just about as rare. There are MORE of them, but their average level is much lower and a lot of them stay in the rural areas. One thing that kind of became a big deal was how much impact a wizard can have on a seige. A fireball or stone to mud spell can have HUGE affects on a battle, making the world a kind of delicate power play between the feuding wizards. Turns out, if you make magic rare enough it becomes a lot more important. Any thoughts about that sort of thing, about how wizards can have a bigger impact individually when there are less of them?
Cranewings 05-03-08, 10:41 PM	I just saw this. Cranewings - If you feel that D&D has jumped the shark, than maybe you can do us a favor and stop posting on the forums! some of us actually LIKE this game. In answer to your question "Dungeons and Dragons? Disney or Darkage?" the answer is European Renaissance without guns and with magic, monsters, and questing adventurers. There are sewers, aquaducts, farmland, and infrastructure. Plagues are small, and famines are rare but when they do happen they are normally caused by magic or monsters and questing adventurers normally come by to save the day. Now stay on Topic! From wiki - "Bubonic plague is thought to have returned to Europe every generation with varying virulence and mortalities until the 1700s.[12] During this period, more than 100 plague epidemics swept across Europe.[13] On its return in 1603, the plague killed 38,000 Londoners.[14] Other notable 17th century outbreaks were the Italian Plague of 1629-1631, the Great Plague of Seville (1647-1652), the Great Plague of London (1665–1666),[15] the Great Plague of Vienna (1679). There is some controversy over the identity of the disease, but in its virulent form, after the Great Plague of Marseille in 1720–1722[16] and the 1771 plague in Moscow it seems to have disappeared from Europe in the 19th century." Also from wiki - "The Renaissance (from French Renaissance, meaning "rebirth"; Italian: Rinascimento, from re- "again" and nascere "be born"[1]) was a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th through the 17th century, beginning in Italy in the late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of western Europe. It encompassed a revival of learning based on classical sources, the development of linear perspective in painting, and educational reform. The Renaissance saw developments in most intellectual pursuits, but is perhaps best known for its artistic aspect and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who have inspired the term "Renaissance men".[2][3]" The fact that there are SO MANY CLERICS casting cure disease all the time to prevent these things from happening is what makes it high magic, not the number of +1 swords and rods of destruction avalable for sale under the king's nose.
The Great Alchemist 05-03-08, 11:00 PM	In other words, you want to play what you do the 4-8 hours you aren't playing D&D. :P ;) :) Yeah, when I'm not playing D&D I'm a peasant who works on the land of an oppressive noble lord - don't tell him I told you that. Things have been particularly hard at work lately due to the famine, I haven't had more than a bowl of gruel to eat all week. What makes matters worse is that so many of my fellow peasant farmers have died from small pox that I have to do twice the work I used to and if I slack off the lord horse whips me. I had the pox myself for a while, but the local barber bled me and I eventually got better. Not that my life is all bad, I live up wind from our village's sewage ditch and I only have to walk a few hundred feet to the river to get water. Sometimes D&D can be boring because its so much like my everyday life on the farm, but I have fun doing other things too - just last week I got to bring my wife and 8 kids to see a heretic get hanged in the town square. Posting on the forum is fun too, not that I know how to read, but I got the local priest (he's the only person in town who can read) to post for me and to read the replies. Maybe D&D would be more fun if it was different than my normal life - if people in the game world had all the food they could eat, if they had all sorts of wondrous devices to make their life easier, if the common people had rights, if so many people didn't die of the plague. If I could, I would play in a setting like that, but the lord says that we lowly peasants are allowed to play in low magic settings. I think its because he likes for us to suffer.
sblaxman 05-04-08, 01:11 AM	I was soooo tempted... thanks for saying it for me alchemist
Rosisha 05-04-08, 02:32 AM	*Here's that someone might be typing in his realm* Back peasants! Back to work! *brandishes a whip* Of course I only encourage LM/LP because I want the peasants to suffer! I hate them! So back to work! *whips The Great Alchemist and sblaxman until they return to the oppressive fields* Bwahahahaha I am not only an Evil Lord of the Land, but also a HORRIBLE AND EVIL LM/LP DM CONTROL FREAK! You will all BOW TO ME! Rosisha
Cranewings 05-04-08, 03:32 AM	...
Cranewings 05-04-08, 03:37 AM	...
StruckingFuggle 05-04-08, 04:00 AM	Usually low magic, in my experiance, is for people trying to tell a story. Correction: For people who don't want to tell a high-magic story.
Cranewings 05-04-08, 04:07 AM	Its late and both of my other posts were stupid so I'm vanishing them.
Kobajagrande 05-04-08, 04:22 AM	Any thoughts about that sort of thing, about how wizards can have a bigger impact individually when there are less of them? Oh, I completely agree. I figured that abundance of magic wielders on the battlefield makes the medieval large-scale battle practically impossible, with all the healing and fireballs flying around. On the other hand, having one powerful mage on each side tends to allow you to run such a battle, with him wreaking havoc upon the battlefield.
StruckingFuggle 05-04-08, 04:23 AM	Oh, I completely agree. I figured that abundance of magic wielders on the battlefield makes the medieval large-scale battle practically impossible, with all the healing and fireballs flying around. On the other hand, having one powerful mage on each side tends to allow you to run such a battle, with him wreaking havoc upon the battlefield. ...and that's a bigger impact? One turns the tide of battle, six dozen evaporate the ocean, and turning the tides is a bigger impact? I'm confused.
Kobajagrande 05-04-08, 04:26 AM	...and that's a bigger impact? One turns the tide of battle, six dozen evaporate the ocean, and turning the tides is a bigger impact? I'm confused. six dozen make something impossible. With one, you can actually do it.
StruckingFuggle 05-04-08, 04:31 AM	Yeeeah, and I'd say that redefining a whole concept of war by making "how it was done before" utterly inviable is a larger impact on the world than just determining who wins a particular war. How can you not? ... ah, I see. You mean relatively? An individual wizard has more of an impact relative to other classes, not the size of the impact of the presence of wizards on the battlefield in general?
Kobajagrande 05-04-08, 04:42 AM	... ah, I see. You mean relatively? An individual wizard has more of an impact relative to other classes, not the size of the impact of the presence of wizards on the battlefield in general? I see it as more of a story impact. If six dozen mages completely stop large-scale battles from happening, that's definately a large impact on the world - but it pretty much behind the scenes thing, far less important than a scene that plays out in front of the players. A lone mage, on the other hand - you can actually see the effect a wizard has on the battlefield. That makes it much more valuable story element for me.
Sunic_Flames 05-04-08, 08:45 AM	I have found that 'telling a story' often means the same thing as 'read your lines' or 'shut up and listen', among other similar statements. As opposed to 'making a story', in which the PCs not only participate but are influencing events by their actions, and you're just setting the scene.
Kobajagrande 05-04-08, 09:21 AM	I have found it is far more natural for most people to say "telling a story" rather than "making a story" even when they are the ones who create the story.
Cranewings 05-04-08, 11:11 AM	I see it as more of a story impact. If six dozen mages completely stop large-scale battles from happening, that's definately a large impact on the world - but it pretty much behind the scenes thing, far less important than a scene that plays out in front of the players. A lone mage, on the other hand - you can actually see the effect a wizard has on the battlefield. That makes it much more valuable story element for me. It makes the Court Mage into a kind of King Piece. If both sides have a similar wizard, they can spy on one another, poke around in each other's labs, and counter spell one another into a coma. If one of them is held, bound, assassinated, or vanished before a major battle, than his king has a MAJOR problem on his hands.
Sunic_Flames 05-04-08, 11:49 AM	I have found it is far more natural for most people to say "telling a story" rather than "making a story" even when they are the ones who create the story. Maybe. But the word 'story teller' has proven itself a red flag via direct observation and experience.
StruckingFuggle 05-04-08, 01:36 PM	I see it as more of a story impact. If six dozen mages completely stop large-scale battles from happening, that's definately a large impact on the world - but it pretty much behind the scenes thing, far less important than a scene that plays out in front of the players. A lone mage, on the other hand - you can actually see the effect a wizard has on the battlefield. That makes it much more valuable story element for me. Eeeeh. I guess. I'll admit it makes for a more overtly dramatic cutscene. I guess I see your point but don't share its importance or even agree that it's a bigger story impact, just a more overt and 'dramatic' one.
sblaxman 05-04-08, 04:45 PM	I kinda agree with both of you there. I think the key is "relative" impact (as fuggle said)... Two armies w/ 20 mages on each side, the impact on the world is much bigger (they can wipe the kingdoms off the face of the planet). One or two on each side, the impact each spell has becomes more important because it is a rare thing. You take out that mage and the tide of the battle can change. Each spell in the 20 v 20 situation is not important. You can add 2, take away 4, and not much changes in the long term. You're both correct, just seeing it from different sides
Kobajagrande 05-05-08, 02:24 PM	Eeeeh. I guess. I'll admit it makes for a more overtly dramatic cutscene. I guess I see your point but don't share its importance or even agree that it's a bigger story impact, just a more overt and 'dramatic' one. Fair enough. One of the things I like as a GM is to imagine a movie-like scene which then plays out in game, so you'll understand importance of dramatics to me. Other way to see it is what Cranewings and sblaxman mentioned; due to their powers, in a world where wizards are rare, each presents a stronger plot device on their own.
RainerNader 05-06-08, 09:10 PM	I don't know how late to the party I am, but I've noticed high-magic campaigns, or at least things like magic shops, get players to care about D&D in between sessions. Whenever I pass out "magic item shop" lists, the players will look at it in between sessions and figure out just what items they want their characters to buy. In another campaign, the PCs belonged to an organization that had a high level wizard who could basically craft any item that had prerequisites of any arcane spell 6th level or lower. I had some players literally spend hours looking through the Magic Item Compendium and consider their options. In low-magic campaigns, you have less choice. Maybe too much choice is a bad thing for players, maybe some players would feel overwhelmed with so much choice, but anything that gets players invested in the game even between game sessions is good in my book.
Sunic_Flames 05-07-08, 08:28 AM	I don't know how late to the party I am, but I've noticed high-magic campaigns, or at least things like magic shops, get players to care about D&D in between sessions. Whenever I pass out "magic item shop" lists, the players will look at it in between sessions and figure out just what items they want their characters to buy. In another campaign, the PCs belonged to an organization that had a high level wizard who could basically craft any item that had prerequisites of any arcane spell 6th level or lower. I had some players literally spend hours looking through the Magic Item Compendium and consider their options. In low-magic campaigns, you have less choice. Maybe too much choice is a bad thing for players, maybe some players would feel overwhelmed with so much choice, but anything that gets players invested in the game even between game sessions is good in my book. Indeed. Choice keeps players interested. Especially if they would have few choices otherwise. The same group of character types that do are also the ones that are the most item dependent. Hmmm...