Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ravenwillow 03-24-06, 04:03 PM	This was brought up in the 'Whats a DM to do?' forum. There's some discussion going on about low-magic campaigns, and there various merits/flaws. Let me say that I both run, and prefer to play *IN* a low-magic campaign. I like encountering a werebeast, and getting my ass *HANDED* to me the first time around, and having to find a way to take 'em out. (Silver weapons are rare, and noone would carry them around unless they *EXPECTED* to be hunting were-critters and the like, especially since they don't hold an edge worth crap). I like truly appreciating a new magic item I get, and knowing its well worth my while to preserve those charges in the magic item, or hold back my potions for when I *REALLY* need them. I like having to think my way through an encounter, rather than trying to figure magic item I need from my bag of holding to neutralize threat B. I like that 20th level evil necromancer to be TRULY FRIGHTENING both due to his vileness, and his army of undead, many of which I can't hurt with my normal weapon, and thus need to hunt down a weapon to deal with them with, or think of ways around them to their creator. Basically - Give me the challenge, make me think, make the scary monsters scary again. I've had parties in my old 'normal magic' D&D campaigns walk through an encounter with Werebeasties, without even knowing they were fighting anything special. (Admittedly, I could've handled those better, and do now)... Being raised by a cleric if my character dies is no longer an 'assumption', nor is the availability of items from the local magic store. So do you play in a low-magic campaign? Do you like it? Why?
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-24-06, 04:29 PM	I'm not a big fan of low magic games, though the idea of them can be appealing. I admit I'm biased though, the DM I've played low magic with doesn't really understand low magic - his idea of low magic is, the PCs can't do anything magical and can't get magic weapons, but every NPC and his brother has at least 10 levels of a full caster class and magic goodies out the wazoo, which promptly explode or dissolve if the PCs somehow manage to kill the NPC. And every monster is at very least a magical beast, with fun abilities like turning you to stone if they touch you or if you touch them, even if you touch them indirectly like poking them with a melee weapon. :rolleye2: The idea of an actually low magic world, though, that's kinda cool. It'd free me up to play the big front line warrior (my favorite sort of character) and remain effective throughout my career, rather than being outpaced and smoked by the silly mages beyond about 5th level. I couldn't play low magic all the time, though. Every once in awhile I get a really appealing magic-user idea and it'd drive me nuts to never ever get the chance to try them.
ellshep 03-24-06, 04:37 PM	In my opinion, it's always nice to try to find the midpoint between too much and too little. Too much magic can make the game less challenging, which effectively reduces the fun factor which is never good. Too little magic can make us PC's think we aren't being rewarded properly for our hardships. This can also lower the fun factor. If i were to choose between the two extremes. I would probably rather play in a low magic campaign I think. You would never get the "invincible" feeling which can actually save you from doing stupid things and dying. (although I usually end up doing stupid things and dying reguardless :P) And when you do in fact get your hands on something magical, it is much more rewarding.
OravennasBrother 03-24-06, 05:30 PM	The trick to running a low magic campaign is to throw out the EL's and rework your experience system. Then you have to carefully gague the abilities of monsters to see if they are a suitable challenge for the party. In some campaigns (such as those I run) a suitable challenge CAN include an opponent with whom one must negotiate or face utter destruction. (Why yes I know that your party level is 5th, and yes the lord of the castle was 9th level and you were outnumbered by his six close allies, all in the 6th to 8th level range, and the seventy troops - 1st to 3rd level warriors did not help matters, but all you were supposed to do was attend dinner before going on your way in the morning. Yeesh) Certainly you must resist the temptation in low magic settings to have some NPC wizard with "nifty" abilities, but low magic does not equate with "PC's are going to overrun all the people they encounter."
ressurrector 03-24-06, 05:35 PM	I play in 3 worlds, one of them is FR (high-magic) the other two are signifigantly less magical. One is a homebrew working off of the greyhawk maps, and it's pretty much as the setting is described. Many small towns, and one or two large cities in any region. Mages have a guild, but the mages aren't that high of a level. The last is the most interesting, there are the human lands, and the other lands (usually lying near a border to a plane of some kind, earth, air, etc...) Some lands are about as magical as greyhawk, some are as magical as FR, and the human lands just have fairy tales and legends about magic. The magical peoples in the human lands are either low level clerics or hide their magical nature in an attempt to fit in. Personally I like the setting of the third group the most, as it has more diversity. There can be magical and non-magical regions fairly easily in any campaign setting.
Almast 03-24-06, 05:38 PM	I recommend "Iron Heroes" for those who like low magic, but still like playing characters who are good at what they do. The emphasis on the characters abilities, not their gear, makes the game a lot of fun, and magic items are at the same time so tempting, yet so dangerous, as to make most characters stick with their good old "masterwork longsword" until the situation gets most dire. Totally divorcing wealth from power makes the system a fun one, AND it's d20.
StruckingFuggle 03-24-06, 05:56 PM	Ravenwillow ... I'm curious, how many of the virtues you listed of a low-magic campaign, things like being challenged, and being made to think, and being afraid for your life, are default characteristics of low magic games, and somehow cannot exist in a high-magic world? (well, okay, when you get to 8th and 9th level spells...) ... but being challenged and asked to think? I'm afraid I don't see how that's unique to a low-magic world. If you're not fighting for your life and valuing every resources you can get in a high magic world, I'd say that's not a fault of the magic level so much as it is a failure for a DM to properly construct an adventure and tax your resources and challenge your skills.
Lincoln Hills 03-24-06, 06:33 PM	Why do I prefer campaigns in which magical items and newly found spells are an unexpected bonus rather than an inevitable result of random homicides? What is there to like about a setting in which my skills and feats are more important than the contents of my pack? Is there any point in playing a game where teleportation is not as common as public transit, or a world in which a character's death is significant - rather than a temporary, annoying condition? Why would anybody want to run a character whose choices define him, when he could be maintaining inventory on a walking magical warehouse? Y'know, I don't know why. I just do.
Terraneaux 03-24-06, 07:19 PM	DMing a low magic game does require a lot of self-control. I've seen many DMs with great ideas for new worlds that are low-magic fall into the classic dm trap of pet NPCs and power that is dangled within the PCs reach but is unattainable by them. Of course, this happens in other campaigns as well, but in a low-magic world the symptoms of this become much more apparent.
shadowfox628 03-24-06, 07:36 PM	I've kind of DMed and played in low magic campains. Magical/supernatural happenings? Yes. Magical items avalible or in the possessions of the characters? No. Personally, it is a challange not to have, say, Gloves of Dexterity +2 (I didn't know they existed until a week ago). But, I usually play as Rogues, and I see them more as item users than ability users. Not the best way to put it, but I've done a few neat things with some items, but that's in my opinion. You see, I wish for high magic campains, too. It allows you to do the supernatural with ease. I WANT to be able to pass that Balance DC of 90 to walk on water (Epic Level Handbook). I'd be the next Jesus!
solbergb 03-24-06, 07:57 PM	Low magic only works if the players cooperate. Ie, don't play primary spellcasters. If you withold equipment, what happens is the spellcasters oustrip the nonspellcasters in power. Or they craft equipment for their poorly-outfitted teammates. It works fine if the ground rules are clear at the beginning, and if PC magic is restricted to at best "eldritch knight" or "arcane trickster" levels (or possibly even paladin/ranger levels). Even a bard can throw things off...a bard built as a primary caster has nearly the power of a sorc, within the limits of his spells..he just doesn't have the endurance..he runs dry quick.
ressurrector 03-24-06, 10:37 PM	Everything that the Posters here complain about High- or Medium- magic worlds lacking can easily be remedied with a good DM, or specific rules about the world. Dead characters come back too easily? Pull an Eberron and have certain circumstances (and possibly a quest) that must be met before a character can be resurrected (Eberron requires a certain planar alignment IIRC). Characters have too many items? So what, if they have alot of items, they most likely don't have very many good ones. It's quality vs. quantity folks. Most people I have seen playing in high-magic worlds only have 1-2 magical weapons. Insert houserules for required and hard-to-find ingredients, or for certain ingredients which will enhance the item or reduce the cost/time/xp cost of making it. This will make PC item-creators spend less time making items, and more time adventuring so they can make items. Most of you seem to be complaining about how many players in high-magic worlds don't roleplay, and think that somehow low-magic worlds somehow create better roleplaying. This is false, it all comes down to the players and the DM.
Vlorich San'cheh 03-24-06, 11:10 PM	i actually LOVE low magic campaigns. I've played in two with two different DMs. In the first, there were not many magic items to buy b/c the really strong wizards had monopolies in all the cities, so if you needed a magic wpn, you took the feat to kmake it yourself. I knew this going into the campaign and thus became the parties magic making maniac. I was a Wiz3/Clr3/Mystic Theurge 4, with 4 item creation feats (including craft construct). It was fun though. In the second, the DM had my character (insane) captured by pirates. Well i was another pirate but also a rogue. so while i was captive i told them i tried to sneak stuff from the cabins and hide it on my person. After two weeks we reached port (i had stolen some string, about 1 ft of rope and a rusty silver spoon). A few sessions later we met a wizard, and he had had some wierd goop (i.e. food) in a floating bowl and the following insued... Trig(me): I eat it. DM: How? you dont have a spoon. Trig: ..Aha, but I do (lift rusty spoon) DM: (SHOCK) I guess what i'm trying to say is that in a low magic campaign, your chars have far more opportunities for MacGuyver-esque actions to be significant. In a high magic, i might have had a robe of useful things by then. In a later session, i stabbed a were-jellyfish (dont ask) with the aforementioned silver spoon.
Solikawa 03-25-06, 10:09 AM	tagged for later, I have to go to work in mid thought ;/
ShadowDragon8685 03-25-06, 11:59 AM	Now that we've heard from Low Magic Lovers not-anonamous, let's hear from the other side, shall we? I despise low-magic. I loathe it. It makes the DM work harder to aciheve the same result (balanced and fun encounters,) it often annoys the players who wind up getting no new swag forever. Face it guys, players love swag. Not nessessarily Diablo-II style swag, but there's only so many times you can be granted X acres of land each for your heroic deeds before you flip out and shove a sword under the king's throat and tell him that if he tries to "reward" you with more hard work, like monster-infested swamps, you're going to take his head and his crown. (And when you're high enough level, siezing a throne by force is quite within the chips.) Also, spellcasters. It's a well-documented fact that many of the same players and DMs who complain about spellcasters outstripping the nonspellcasters have non-spellcasters who are not equipped with enough gear. Now, you COULD try and tinker with spellcasters to power them down to the point that they're balanced against fighters without magic gear, but then nobody wants to play a primary spellcaster. Plus, there's the whole flavor of it. I despise low-magic, "gritty" worlds. I loathe them. You've got f'nuckin' MAGIC, do something with it! Don't have ignorant peasents working the ground and lords and serfs and all that other jazz that if I wanted that, I'd go and play Chainmail. I want magic. I want a lot of magic. I want a magical world, where the evidence of magic is everywhere. Like the FR, or maybe Ebberon, if I ever get around to trying it. I want magical wal-mart, where you can waltz in and buy potions and scrolls and wands off-the-rack, and have your +2 Cutlass of Sea-monster-slaying comissioned. And as for those "problems" mentioned... I like encountering a werebeast, and getting my ass *HANDED* to me the first time around, and having to find a way to take 'em out. (Silver weapons are rare, and noone would carry them around unless they *EXPECTED* to be hunting were-critters and the like, especially since they don't hold an edge worth crap). Well, I don't. First of all, it's called "Alchemical Silver", not regular silver. Regular silver does jack to a werebeastie, as you would know if you had read the description of alchemical silver, instead of just assuming that silver was silver. Anything else is a houserule, which are okay (My DM houserules that a weapon made of Mithril is "Mithril Silver", and works on werebeasties too, without losing -1 damage.) Secondly, getting your ass handed to sucks. In most cases it means that half the party or more is dead, and the survivors are infected with lycanthropy. In other parlance, we call that a "Total Party Kill". I like truly appreciating a new magic item I get, and knowing its well worth my while to preserve those charges in the magic item, or hold back my potions for when I *REALLY* need them. Who says you don't appreciate a new magic item, just because it's high-magic? I'm certainly glad for every magical piece of swag we get our hands on. And charges are consumables, meant to be used or losed. Most charged items are not "Appreciables", they're "Tools". Uncharged items are the ones to appreciate and love. I like having to think my way through an encounter, rather than trying to figure magic item I need from my bag of holding to neutralize threat B. How is "Okay, this slime monster is tough, but I have a wand of elemental-shifted Ice Fireballs in my bag of holding. We can do this." any different from some super-complicated plan involving dropping chandeliers at the right time? Your idea of "Thinking your way through an encounter" being somehow more "noble" than neutralizing a threat will a well-placed burst from a magic item and moving onto more important things is, frankly, bullhockey. I like that 20th level evil necromancer to be TRULY FRIGHTENING both due to his vileness, and his army of undead, many of which I can't hurt with my normal weapon, and thus need to hunt down a weapon to deal with them with, or think of ways around them to their creator. 20th level necromancers are already plenty frightening without most of his minions being all but invincible to your attacks. In a low-magic game, the necromancer alone is almost garunteed to be a TPK. Save or die spells, anyone? Basically - Give me the challenge, make me think, make the scary monsters scary again. I've had parties in my old 'normal magic' D&D campaigns walk through an encounter with Werebeasties, without even knowing they were fighting anything special. (Admittedly, I could've handled those better, and do now)... That's because this isen't Vampire:the Masquerade. Werewolves are nothing special after about 8th level or so. A pack of them, maybe, but not a lone werewolf. If you want a fight to be special and memorable, pick a monster/encounter of the player's CR, or maybe a few above it. Then make it memorable with the description, not because you've thrown an uberbaddie at the PCs who can rip their asses up. Being raised by a cleric if my character dies is no longer an 'assumption', nor is the availability of items from the local magic store. And there is the worst part of low-magic. This is D&D. Not a story. In a story, the author has complete control, and the protagonists never die unless it is beneficial to the story for them to do so. (IE: Boromir's Favorite Orc.) But this is D&D. In D&D, protagonists can die from anything from a flubbed save to the DM making a mistake. These problems are more pronounced in a low-magic game, and without east access to ressurection, the characters are nothing. They contributed nothing to the story, they were not fun to play. Here is how it goes in low-magic. Day 1: Set out from Moondoggle to Sundoggle. Party consists of elven ranger, human cleric, halfling rogue, human mind-warrior. Morale high, but halfling won't stop eating mind-warrior's rations. Suspect may have a beating happening. Day 3: Attacked by kobolds. Halfling dead; looted his gold and heaved him in a ditch. Warrior injured. Day 5: New halfling. This one also a ranger. May be some competition there. Day 7: Nope. Elf dead, fell into a pit trap while searching for food. Day 9: Mind-warrior dead. He didn't see the log trap in time. New elf - rogue this time. Day 11: Cleric dead. Cleaved in half by an ordinary orc. Reached Sundoggle. Why are we here, anyway? None of us were given the original quest. Or, you can have a story that includes heroic (or accidental) deaths, and bringing back to life of your lost companions, so they can continue to have a meaningful story. So do you play in a low-magic campaign? Do you like it? Why? Once. Hated it, absoloutely and unequivically. Will never play low-magic again.
Doopliss 03-25-06, 12:00 PM	My campaigns usually have enough cantrips and alchemy, but high-level casters are pretty rare. A Cleric/Paladin will have a tough, but not impossible time getting an atonement spell, it takes an adventure devoted to raising a partner if you want to, and magic items are better crafted than found. Still, high-level magic is well heard of and it's quite possible for wizards to learn new spells by finding writings. On a side-note, how do you all feel about caster PCs in low-magic settings? Sorcerors don't get many spells and Wizards have a rotten time finding new spells. It could be interesting, and it would help balance Sorcerors. Yes, I like to play Sorcs. ;)
Good Agnostic 03-25-06, 12:31 PM	I recommend "Iron Heroes" for those who like low magic, but still like playing characters who are good at what they do. The emphasis on the characters abilities, not their gear, makes the game a lot of fun, and magic items are at the same time so tempting, yet so dangerous, as to make most characters stick with their good old "masterwork longsword" until the situation gets most dire. Totally divorcing wealth from power makes the system a fun one, AND it's d20. I second this post! IH is a fantastic system if you are interested in a low magic campaign.
Encard 03-25-06, 07:25 PM	I second this post! IH is a fantastic system if you are interested in a low magic campaign. And I third it... Iron Heroes is a great system for a low-magic but not low-power game. Low-magic games can be fun. However, in my experience, they tend toward being rather low-power. The removal of magic items also decreases the level of customization you can pull off with a character and the number of options in combat. As I rather enjoy character building and higher-powered games, most low-magic settings just don't work well for me. It doesn't help that many DMs can't seem to adjust for the lack of magic items, leading to numerous untintentional beatings for the party from random monsters. Iron Heroes (not to dwell on it for too long) changes a lot of that - it rewrites and rebalances the classes for their lack of magic items, plus it adds a number of new combat options for these characters. It also carries the feeling of many low-magic literary settings better than simply stripping the itemsw from D&D.
danielinthewolvesden 03-26-06, 01:37 PM	Let me say that I both run, and prefer to play *IN* a low-magic campaign. I like encountering a werebeast, and getting my ass *HANDED* to me the first time around, and having to find a way to take 'em out. (Silver weapons are rare, and noone would carry them around unless they *EXPECTED* to be hunting were-critters and the like, especially since they don't hold an edge worth crap). And, this is normal. You'll find few Players that like LM games, but many DM's who do. Some of the DM's just are shocked by what Munchkins can do in a "normal magic" game, and some are just "control-phreaks" who can't stand the idea of the players doing something outside his carefully thought-out story. This last is very common, and those players often don't enjoy the train ride much, either. However, many of these DM's are deep in "a major river in Egypt" as I know full well that DM's are hard to find, and players will put up with a lot before leaving. And that's what usually happens- rather than complaining, the player just doesn't show up one nite, having found a game more to his liking. The DM just keeps on, and since his players are having fun (maybe not as much fun as in a "normal game" but still better than nothing) and not complaining, he assumes that "my players LOOOOOVE my LM game!" (DM's are also often often in denial about running DMPC's with the party). But LM games are a regular source of complaint threads here in this forum. Next- silver weapons should be just as common in a LM game, and the fact that you think they aren't is a problem. In fact, since the PC's should still be getting rewards and since the rewards aren't magic, silver weapons should be an extremely commonplace item in any LM warriors arsenal. The fact that you think they shouldn't be there in a LM campaign is a strong indication that you are mixing up a LOW MAGIC game with a "cheap*ss" game, where the DM controls the PC's by being very cheap in handing out ANY rewards. I don't like LM campaigns and they seem to fall into two categories: 1. All magic is rare. Thus Cure spells are rare, thus a one week ride between two locations goes like this: Day one, no encounters Day two, some bandits. PC's are wounded. They need to rest on the spot, wasting a day. In a "normal game, the party should be able to take on 4 "equal' encounters before resting. In this sort of LM game, it's only a single encounter. Day 3, rest & heal.Day 3 nite, random nite-time encounter, requiring another day of rest. Day4, rest & heal Day 5 back on the road. Day 6- wild animal encounter. Two PC's badly hurt, but decide to press on, having lost two days. Day 7- orc encounter. One of the PC's who was never got a chance to fully heal up from yesterdays encounter dies, the other is into negative HP. Thus, we decide to rest. Day 8 rest & heal Day 9 rest & heal. Random nite encounter, requiring more rest. Day 10 rest & heal Day 11 back on road. Day12, arrive at destination. And, since the encounters were low ECL (since the DM doesn't know enough to seriously increase the ECL rewards due to each encounter being that much harder and taking up that much more of the parties resources) not too many eps higher. Fun. :allalone: :noway: :bored: :nonono: LM game tpe 2. Only magic items are restricted, only source of items is the party. Cheap-*ss DM, with few rewards. As we all known, in a "normal game" the warrior types turn into "meat shields" around level 11 or 13. In this sort of LM game, however, the warriors are the only one really restricted. It becomes "meat shield time' around level 5. :allalone: :yuck: :bored: D&D is not designed or balanced for LM campaigns. DM's who force their players into them should know this. Now, there's always GURPs and this new "Iron heroes" D20 varient looks good. If you want to do a LM campiagn, try that! But I don't think most of the LM DM's will try that. They don't really want a "low magic' campaign, what they really want is complete control over what their players can do, so they "stick to the story". :rolleye2: :rant:
Bort333 03-26-06, 01:38 PM	I'm DMing a "low magic" game, and by that I mean magical items are rare and costly. To start with all magical items are doubled in price, and its more difficult to find someone selling them. Furthermore magic is more unique, ie you don't have a +1 rapier, you have a rapier that does +2 damage if your flanking someone. You don't have a +3 Lance, you have a +1 Lance that 1/day you can re-roll an attack roll. Things like that. There are also no ressurction spells except revivfy (has to be within one round of dying). Reaction has been mixed, some like it, others dislike not having a lot of "loot." An interesting side note, with magic being so rare, the stuff they do have access to is more powerful then it otherwise would have been. Ie since poeple aren't running around with +4 full plate, a simple +1 sword with a minor ability is enough.
Doopliss 03-26-06, 02:10 PM	*snip* First off, I completely fail to see how low magic can do anything to increase railroading. You lack marks of justice, geas/quests and the like, you lack any method of keeping the PCs monitored all the time aside from sending ten high-level guards with them on all of their adventures, you lack methods of completely sealing off any area, (Such as force magic) you lack a method of keeping the PCs in check at higher levels when they can usually escape overwhelming numbers, (Especially if there's a rogue in the party. They're impossible to keep in one place through mundane means) etc. Second, silver weapons are rare because they penalize attacks. Why would they be common treasure? Third, you're completely generalizing low magic. Many just restrict the high-level stuff, many restrict only certain types of magic, (Such as resurrection) many allow the PCs to play primary casters even if it's hard to learn new Wizard spells. As for Fighters, just give one a weapon of legacy and he's good for the rest of the campaign. Many have added mundane substitutes for healing, many actually know to scale down the encounters, and use mundane-friendly monsters.
ressurrector 03-26-06, 02:37 PM	I'm DMing a "low magic" game, and by that I mean magical items are rare and costly. To start with all magical items are doubled in price, and its more difficult to find someone selling them. Furthermore magic is more unique, ie you don't have a +1 rapier, you have a rapier that does +2 damage if your flanking someone. You don't have a +3 Lance, you have a +1 Lance that 1/day you can re-roll an attack roll. Things like that. There are also no ressurction spells except revivfy (has to be within one round of dying). Reaction has been mixed, some like it, others dislike not having a lot of "loot." An interesting side note, with magic being so rare, the stuff they do have access to is more powerful then it otherwise would have been. Ie since poeple aren't running around with +4 full plate, a simple +1 sword with a minor ability is enough. You know, I constantly toss out weird and custom items like that, and I constantly make them as a character as well. Low Magic is not necessary to have unique items. BTW, you're referring more to a Low Wealth game, than a low magic game. First off, I completely fail to see how low magic can do anything to increase railroading. You lack marks of justice, geas/quests and the like, you lack any method of keeping the PCs monitored all the time aside from sending ten high-level guards with them on all of their adventures, you lack methods of completely sealing off any area, (Such as force magic) you lack a method of keeping the PCs in check at higher levels when they can usually escape overwhelming numbers, (Especially if there's a rogue in the party. They're impossible to keep in one place through mundane means) etc. Second, silver weapons are rare because they penalize attacks. Why would they be common treasure? Third, you're completely generalizing low magic. Many just restrict the high-level stuff, many restrict only certain types of magic, (Such as resurrection) many allow the PCs to play primary casters even if it's hard to learn new Wizard spells. As for Fighters, just give one a weapon of legacy and he's good for the rest of the campaign. Many have added mundane substitutes for healing, many actually know to scale down the encounters, and use mundane-friendly monsters. Well, that what's the difference between high and low magic? Silver weapons would bejust as rare in high-magic worlds, and in 3.5 dr/silver is only bypassed BY silver. If mages are allowed in both worlds, they can still fireball the damn furball in both. The main railroading ease in LM worlds is generally from the fact that the PCs require much more rest, and they don't generally have access to spells/items that allow them to go outside the DMs plans. They can't use potions of fly to just fly to the top of the tower, they have to walk in through the front door and fight their way up. If he didn't generalise low magic, how could he comment on it? Besides, any specifics automatically get atacked on the basis of "well, I never do that in my campaigns" or "that's not Low Magic, that's something else!"
taradusis 03-26-06, 02:48 PM	I like a certain amount of grittiness in the fringe areas of my world,only higher magics in the big cities.If I wanted to drive something like a car I'd switch to d20 modern,if I wanted teleporters everywhere I'd switch to d20 Future,as far as the game goes whats the differce between high magic and high tech anyway?To my mind the whole idea of a fantasy world isnt to recreate our world but an ANCIENT to MIDEVIL world say 4000 B.C. to400 A.D. with magic being real instead of rank superstition. :yuck:
Doopliss 03-26-06, 03:22 PM	Silver weapons would bejust as rare in high-magic worlds, and in 3.5 dr/silver is only bypassed BY silver.I would assume creatures in a position to have DR/silver would be significantly more rare. I was just commenting on his suggestion that silvered weapons should be much more common in a low magic world, which doesn't really make sense to me. The main railroading ease in LM worlds is generally from the fact that the PCs require much more rest,I've never seen rest used to railroad. May I have an example? and they don't generally have access to spells/items that allow them to go outside the DMs plans. They can't use potions of fly to just fly to the top of the tower, they have to walk in through the front door and fight their way up.Assuming the party would be high enough level to have access to a fly spell, a rogue could quite likely be capable of climbing up the tower's outer wall, then lower a knotted rope down for the others. Even if not, said Rogue could throw a grappling hook through a window and use that to skip some foes. Also, keep in mind any enemies the party would face at that CR would probably have ways of countering fly. Messing up the DM's adventure plan is still just as possible, it's just done differently. :) Completely off-topic, I never really thought about it this way. Now that I do, it seems there are two different types of railroading. Railroading a specific way through a dungeon, and railroading a specific way throught a plotline. If he didn't generalise low magic, how could he comment on it? Besides, any specifics automatically get atacked on the basis of "well, I never do that in my campaigns" or "that's not Low Magic, that's something else!"I suppose, but what he commented on was the extreme of low magic where, just like the extreme of high magic, roleplaying, or min-maxing, is a definite bad thing. Aside from being extremely low magic, the scenarios he described seem designed for high magic, and one of his comments actually mentioned the DM being too poor to adjust the CR properly. All in all, it doesn't seem any more fair than me complaining about 'High Magic' groups that give out +5 weapons to a level one party. All the campaigns I play in are sort of High Magic, but I definitely see the virtues of a well-played Low.
VrecknidjX 03-26-06, 06:27 PM	I figured this thread topic would be a good one. :) I play in a high-magic campaign (Warcraft RPG), a low-magic campaign (a quasi-historical game set in the 12th century in England), and I DM a very-high-magic campaign. I have no trouble keeping my players from turning into uber-Munchkins, but then I've DMed for over 20 years. I like all settings. But, I really like low-magic settings when all the players are willing and when the DM can set things up just right. I like the mystique and awe of magic in a low-magic world. In the high-magic games, magic is like TV in the real world. On the one hand, almost nobody can explain how it works, on the other hand, everybody takes it for granted to the point that it's almost trivial. Trivia can be fun, but sometimes I like the splendor of magic--and in low-magic games, that's an easier feel to get. Dave
Ut-Napishtim 03-27-06, 10:12 AM	I would say that a low-magic game, like most games, is fun if the DM runs a good game. Most of the things the OP mentioned as merits of the low-magic game are attainable at any power level by an attentive DM. Even using the standard wealth/level getting raised is a major setback until the party gets into the double digits for levels, and even at the higher ones it's not without it's sting (assuming the DM is including the materials cost and enforcing the level loss). I achieve the same level of challenge and suspense in my own games through screenless DMing. When the DM isn't pulling punches through fudging, the standard power level is quite challenging. Most of the acrimony for low-magic games comes from the fact that they tend to be synonimous with control-freak DM games. Most of the time unless everyone at the table is interested in trying one out, there's really no reason to outside of gimping the PCs. As has been mentioned much of the time the DM will restrict the PCs while leaving the monsters unaltered and often not applying the same standard to his NPCs (a huge DM no-no in my book - the same rules and restrictions should universally apply to PCs and NPCs in any DMs game in the interest of fairness and consistency). For my own advice on the hows of running a low-magic game this is how I've done it in the past: There are no deities. Core casters (Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric) are removed, Ranger loses spells and gains a d10 for hit dice, Paladin's go to File 13 also. The Adept is available as a PC class, and all casters in the world are Adepts. Adepts may select two spells for each spell level from any list and add them to their Adept list to represent their own interests and style (i.e. A starting Adept could add Magic Missile and Goodberry to their spell list). There's no need to alter the reccomended wealth/level guidelines as magic item costs are based on a spell level x caster level mechanic and Adepts generally have higher level requirements for most spells. Items that require specific spells not usually on the Adept lists are exceedingly rare since only Adepts who have selected the appropriate spell and the appropriate item creation feats will be able to make them. Items that require spells higher than 5th level are obviously nonexistant, but the costs an availability of more mundane things like a Potion of Cure Light Wounds or basic +X magical weapons and armor are conveniently unchanged. As a caveat I'd like to add that I don't normally run my game that way. I really don't see a need for a low-magic game to get the kind of exitement the OP is talking about. When players trust the DM they'll sometimes take an interest in trying such things for S's and G's though, and I've found this system to be simple and effective at toning down magic. If I went into a new game with folks I had just met and the DM was pulling this kind of crap I'd be thinking: "Oh great, he's a control freak." and already have one foot out the door at the get go. Players like their swag, and magic is part of the game. If it then turned out to be anything less than stellar I'd be gone. :twocents:
taradusis 03-27-06, 09:15 PM	You can eliminate divine magic,arcane magic,magic items,deities ,then what?Psionics,Technology and Wealth and exploitation of the rules causes the characters to turn your campaign from lo EFX to high EFX.
Doopliss 03-27-06, 10:45 PM	You can eliminate divine magic,arcane magic,magic items,deities ,then what?Psionics,Technology and Wealth and exploitation of the rules causes the characters to turn your campaign from lo EFX to high EFX.We don't eliminate them. It's low magic. Still, your general point stands. (At least concerning psionics. The other examples are more than a bit iffy.) If it's low magic, you can't expect much 'alternative' magic either. Also... You gave Technology, Wealth, and rules lawyering as examples of magic replacements, but not Incarnum!? :ahem: :hoppingma
taradusis 03-27-06, 10:56 PM	I havent had a chance to read the Incarnum rules,but just how unbalanced can one set of rules be anyway :)
Ysera_the_destroyer 03-27-06, 11:39 PM	Too much magic can make the game less challenging can anyone say eberron :) . I mena seriously, street light lit by light spells? thats overdoing it
ressurrector 03-28-06, 02:01 AM	can anyone say eberron :) . I mena seriously, street light lit by light spells? thats overdoing it What exactly is your problem with Eberron? It's much better about magical overabundance than FR is, all the magic in Eberron actually comes from somewhere and serves a purpose. It's even cost-effective for the most part.
Ut-Napishtim 03-28-06, 09:17 AM	I hate to burst your bubble there but the XPH is an optional rules supplement, not core. I would imagine any DM eliminating core casters to run a low-magic game is sure as hell not going to allow psionics unless he's impeded. Just because magic is low doesn't mean it will automatically be supplanted by tech - for two reasons: 1. As has been pointed out, it's low-magic not no-magic, 2. The early stages of the industrial revolution were partly brought about by plague - neccesity is the mother of invention, and with less able workers people had to find better ways of doing things. Unless you are completely eliminating all forms of magic from the game Remove Disease easily prevents that, and if you are it's not low-magic, it's no-magic. As far as the Eberron gripes go, I don't play it myself. I could save a fortune on my electric bill with magic lighting though, and would gladly pay for an Unseen Servant to take care of housework for me. As anyone who knows anything about physical security will tell you, ample lighting statistically decreases your risk of being victimized. For a city magic streetlights present a one-time cost that will be covered in the long run by safer streets, and ergo increased economic productivity and minimized losses due to theft. I don't play Eberron, but even I can see the obvious economic forces behind it's 'magic-tech' that seems to be so much maligned. :twocents:
Doopliss 03-28-06, 09:23 AM	I havent had a chance to read the Incarnum rules,but just how unbalanced can one set of rules be anyway :)Only unbalanced in a game that doesn't use magic, and even then it's pretty good. :) Ohh, you were talking about unbalanced things, not magic replacements. Wait a second... The only example there that's overpowered is, to an extent, rules lawyering! :confused:
erc1971 03-28-06, 10:57 AM	I actually prefer just the opposite. From a rules standpoint: If you play a low magic campaign, the wizards, warlocks, warmages, clerics, etc. are going to be powering thier way through everything like a blowtorch through butter. During all this, your fighters, rogues, etc. will spend thier money on masterwork pom-pom's and cheerleading lessons, cause that is about all they will be good for. All it takes is 1 monster with good DR, or possibly an AC high enough that character's without magic items can't hit. The caster's however are not hindered by this. Touch attacks, spells that bypass DR, etc. will allow them to function normally. From a flavor/roleplaying standpoint: When I play D&D I don't want to be the village ranger who hunts a couple orcs out in the woods cause they killed my neighbor's dog. (Yes, I am exadurating (sp?)) These types of adventures are fine when you are lower levels. But as things move on, I want epic, Lord of the Ring's style adventures. Slaying the great wyrm red dragon that has already destroyed kingdoms, armies vs. armies, stopping the demon lord from opening a gate to the abyss. I want saving the world type of stuff - things that make your stomach fill with butterflies at the thought of it - not mundane things I could almost do in real life. The high fantasy things I like require a high level of magic, or you will be seeing an awful lot of TPK's and failures. Nothing wrong with a low magic game as long as the ability to cast spells is adjusted to keep the power level in line. It is just not the flavor I prefer.
taradusis 04-07-06, 10:03 PM	The point I was trying to make earlier was that the op was actually discussing a low EFX game,one where the players haven't got what it takes to re-shape the world.You could have a no-magic campaign and the players might still feel a lack of challenge if they're unbalanced in other fashions.I prefer to start a campaign at first level and only allow higher level characters for one shot adventures!!Monty Haul is a very tough enemy for the dm!! :)
Catra 04-07-06, 10:53 PM	Do you play in a low magic campaign? Not, yet, but I will be. Do you like it? As far as my DM and I have talked about it: yes. Why? Because I'm a higher-level Sorcerer. :D Now to shed a little light. My DM is creating a HIGHLY variated system using Iron Heroes as a platform. Also, I'm not playing a straight sorcerer, I'm a Harrier/Sorcerer (which is like a Rogue/Sorcerer in IH). I like it because the majority of the enemies (and allies, albeit) I will fight will not have access to magical weapons, even up in the higher levels. This means that it's easier to sunder their weapons and armor, and their weapons don't do as much damage when they strike because they aren't enchanted in ANY way. Now, as a PC, I have access to resources most of my enemies don't especially my own Sorcerous abilities. Personally, I think relying on my own strategy and personal abilities will be a lot more fun when I don't have to worry about what magical powers my enemy may or may not have. Low Magic doesn't mean "three epic-level spellcasters in the whole country/continent/plane" either. The game I'm going to play, spellcasters are just as common in a regular setting, just not as powerful. A Mage Tower might consist of a few 9-10 level Wizards for teachers, and maybe an Archmage for the Director of Arts, and pretty much 4-5 lvl. mages making up the rest of the tower. I'd have to write several pages worth of details to explain in full, but the whole setting and magic level together really draw me in. I feel like I will enjoy it much more than a regular D&D game. My advice for regular low magic games though: Weapons of Legacy and Action Points.
SuperTKO 04-08-06, 01:34 AM	I don't think Mid to High Level Magic isn't challanging, but rather, it's a different kind of challenge. A challenge I prefer. First off, in a low magic campaign, it has this essence of a perma-death at every turn. Every encounter has a slight chance of being lethal, and you usually think more before combat. I know there are a few out there that hate that, but I personally love debating in my head if I should Surrender, Negotiate, Retreat, or Fight. Also, Magic means more in those campaigns. A +1 weapon could be a major saught after item. I know what you people are thinking "+1? Why would something +1 be any good?", but if you think about it, something that gives you +1 to damage is like having a +2 bonus to your STR, something, that in a low magic campaign, is like earning 8 levels and putting 2 ability points in STR. 8 levels is a lot to earn in a campaign where death could possibly wait around every corner. Which, on top of that, makes a fighter a more valuable player, because he can take things like Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialist. It also makes skills like Heal worthwhile, because in a low magic campaign, you don't have Wands of Cure Light to stop bleeding. You don't have a Cleric in your party, or even in the next town to Remove Poison and Disease either. It takes a lot of time to balance out such a campaign. CR's are irrelevant, and must be redone. Money must match the balance for the campaign, Some Classes Must be banned, (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, etc.), others must be limited (Paladin, Monk, Bard, Ranger, etc.), and some PrCs are no longer an option. Exp awards must be changed, and luck must be on your side. I like them, and while I wouldn't want to play in a Low-Magic campaign all the time, I most certainly would always be in one if I could. Those of you that hate them, all I can say is "your loss". The main railroading ease in LM worlds is generally from the fact that the PCs require much more rest, and they don't generally have access to spells/items that allow them to go outside the DMs plans. All I'm going to say about this is that a DM can as easily railroad with magic as he could with no magic. I could easily say that a DMPC's are too powerful in a High Magic Campaign, even though that's up to how a DM plays anyway.
Wuggadad 04-08-06, 02:07 AM	One way to balance low magic would be to go for high stat generation. A monk with 16-18 dex, 16-18 wisdom has a decent starting armor class. A dwarf fighter with 20 con and that feat Roll with It that gives damage reduction 2/- They don't depend solely on their items for their advantages, their stat and class based abilities become a bit more significant. In my campaign world, 2nd and 3rd level characters are a bit more common. 5th level is Master level for many classes. 9th Cleric means with Hallow and Raise Dead you can pretty much maintain a cult temple. Beyond 9th is seriously rare. By 9th level then, the party would represent a huge concentration of power that isn't really tied down anywhere. Even without magic, I would expect that the fighter on the Great Cleave path could wreck major havoc, with a reach weapon and combat reflexes. With high stats, the Paladin can afford that 18 charisma and all the Smite bonuses fun feats that base off turning undead abilities. With high stats, characters don't +need+ huge weapons and armor to be a step above the average guard.
Wuggadad 04-08-06, 02:23 AM	I think that part of the problem is the wide variety of definitions of "Low Magic" "High Magic" Does it refer to the relative quantity of magic that the party has over the world? Does the party accumulate items for every body slot while their opponents have just a few items? Does it mean that magic is widely used and is available to everybody with the cash? Does it refer to the power level of the PCs with respect to ordinary commoners and guards, which could come from items or stats or class levels? Does it refer to the highest level spells and classes that are influential in the history of the campaign? How does the level of power of civilized characters compare to the power of monsters? If powerful NPCs top out around 9th level, even a succubus or a Djinni is a major outsider power. On the other hand, if even the hero of a poduck town approaches Epic, even Balors have to be a bit cautious. It could be that at 9th level, the party could defeat any of the really scary monsters that people are commonly afraid of. It could be that at 9th level the party has to be careful to avoid getting mugged by common bandits or wandering monsters.
SuperTKO 04-08-06, 02:58 AM	My Definition of Low Magic is precisely that, a campaign where magic makes it's apperance is minimal. That means no caster classes (except our DM allows an Adept, and in the campaign, those are about 1-1,000,000, and most don't even know their potential) very limited spell like abilities (which, unfortunately, cleaves through most classes like no tomorrow), no Psionics, and no spells. When Magic does make an appearence, it's treated as Artifact Level. Currently, we're in the middle of the major 3 nation conquest which is after the "Father of all swords", which, Ironically enough, is a +1 Bastard Sword.
ressurrector 04-08-06, 05:38 AM	One way to balance low magic would be to go for high stat generation. A monk with 16-18 dex, 16-18 wisdom has a decent starting armor class. A dwarf fighter with 20 con and that feat Roll with It that gives damage reduction 2/- I believe there's a house-rule like this in Unearthed Arcanna (might be from elsewhere) Characters get a stat point every even level, and feats every odd level, or something like that. Items cost more, or wealth is lowered, or something. Called something like: It's the characters not the items This is all done on memory of a forum post from a few months back, so bear with me.