First-Time DM, Party Hates Magic?

[Pink Ranger]

The title says it all. I'm starting work on a 3.5 campaign that I think my group would really enjoy. However, I worry about the aspect of magic in my campaign. Namely, that 3 of the 4 players in the group absolutely hate magic. They despise it. They think of it as a crutch for people who can't think of any other way to solve a problem.

They are my dearest friends, so I will not force anyone to use magic if they don't want to. I should also mention that my group has no idea of the concept of optimization.

Given that, how do I effectively run a campaign if I want magic to exist? I do not want any encounter to be unbalanced because they lack spellcasting, and I want magic to exist to help along certain elements of the storyline. Is there an easy mathematical formula that I could follow that would compensate for a lack of spellcasters in a 4-person party, or would it really depend on their specific character builds? Should I even be using 3.5, or is there a system that I could encourage my group to learn that would be more accommodating?

[Engine]

The title says it all. I'm starting work on a 3.5 campaign that I think my group would really enjoy. However, I worry about the aspect of magic in my campaign. Namely, that 3 of the 4 players in the group absolutely hate magic. They despise it. They think of it as a crutch for people who can't think of any other way to solve a problem.

They are my dearest friends, so I will not force anyone to use magic if they don't want to. I should also mention that my group has no idea of the concept of optimization.

Given that, how do I effectively run a campaign if I want magic to exist? I do not want any encounter to be unbalanced because they lack spellcasting, and I want magic to exist to help along certain elements of the storyline. Is there an easy mathematical formula that I could follow that would compensate for a lack of spellcasters in a 4-person party, or would it really depend on their specific character builds? Should I even be using 3.5, or is there a system that I could encourage my group to learn that would be more accommodating?

Well, you could try E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html). It seems that it could fit properly for a campaign where the characters (and players) do not use magic, or use it just few times.

[Alabenson]

Question: Do they hate "magic" as in arcane/divine casters, or do they hate any system that's more complicated than "I swing my sword"? This could greatly effect you options.

[onemorelurker]

Would it hose your ideas if magic, in the campaign world, was largely malign? If most of your players hate magic, having magic be something pretty much only the bad guys use would let those players have their fun and provide an interesting narrative hook for the fourth player if s/he wants to play a magic-user.

That doesn't help you balance anything, unfortunately. How do the magic-haters feel about magic items? They can somewhat even out the lack of buffing there, but they still won't be nearly as adaptable as a magic-using party. Also, if you do decide to make spellcasters the bad guys, try to stick with T3 or lower classes as much as possible. Otherwise, Engine makes a solid point that E6 seems like a good fit, as the difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters isn't as pronounced at low levels.

[ericgrau]

All you have to do is avoid monsters with unusual special abilities. You could also have a lot of humanoid foes.

[Chained Birds]

One of my friends DMed a campaign with low magic and primarily used humanoids with class levels. Makes taking feats like Improved Disarm and the like for more useful.

Hmm, would playing a game where magic is mostly considered evil be very Conan-esque? That sort of setting would probably appease your anti-magic players.
"He casted a spell! Kill him!"

[Pink Ranger]

Question: Do they hate "magic" as in arcane/divine casters, or do they hate any system that's more complicated than "I swing my sword"? This could greatly effect you options.

Hmm...TBH, half of them don't even like the "I swing my sword" part of D&D. This group is very into riddles, mysteries, political intrigue, and so forth. For them, battle often feels like it takes up too much time, time that could be spent telling the story instead.

[onemorelurker]

Hmm...TBH, half of them don't even like the "I swing my sword" part of D&D. This group is very into riddles, mysteries, political intrigue, and so forth. For them, battle often feels like it takes up too much time, time that could be spent telling the story instead.

In this case, yeah, it sounds like D&D is not the system for them. What drew you guys as a party to consider 3.5 in the first place? Because if it just happens to be the system that everybody knows, you should figure out what genre you want to be playing in and then find a lightweight, story-emphasizing system in that genre. If they wanted to play in a D&D-esque fantasy setting, and that's why you chose 3.5, then the first part of my above suggestion is already done for you. :smallsmile:

[Pink Ranger]

Would it hose your ideas if magic, in the campaign world, was largely malign? If most of your players hate magic, having magic be something pretty much only the bad guys use would let those players have their fun and provide an interesting narrative hook for the fourth player if s/he wants to play a magic-user.

This is a really great idea. It wouldn't affect my setting much, if at all, to have magic be largely evil, and you're right: the 4th player would jump at a chance to explore the moral/ethical possibilities of being a caster in such a setting.


...How do the magic-haters feel about magic items?...Otherwise, Engine makes a solid point that E6 seems like a good fit, as the difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters isn't as pronounced at low levels.

They are okay with magic items, because their scope is a bit more limited. I think their big problem with casting in general is the idea that a wizard could just snap their fingers and Wish for a solution to whatever problem comes their way (not that any DM worth their salt would let them get away with it).

Keeping that in mind, I looked over the E6 link that Engine provided, and I like it! The big-name game-breakers don't exist, character progression is less complicated (a big plus for the newest group member), they wouldn't have to learn anything new, and I would get the opportunity to utilize a lot of classic monsters that I haven't seen used in the campaigns I've been in. This is definitely now the front-running option for my game. Thanks!

[Dragonsoul]

It sounds like your party would prefer to be in a showrunnier system, where you "Role initiative" means you've screwed up big time.

[Grinner]

Hmm...TBH, half of them don't even like the "I swing my sword" part of D&D. This group is very into riddles, mysteries, political intrigue, and so forth. For them, battle often feels like it takes up too much time, time that could be spent telling the story instead.

I love your group.

More on topic, this website (http://hyboria.xoth.net/) has some great resources for a Conan-esque game, if you decide to go that path. Be sure to read through the alternate magic system.

[Flickerdart]

Mages abusing mind control and mind reading, sacrificing people, shapeshifting, trying to keep their "research" undetected - all of these work really well in a social game. The added bonus is that most such mages won't have access to the really showy, broken battle spells because they can't risk using them. Slip a covert puppetmaster in somewhere and see if they figure out that someone's pulling the strings.

[Heatwizard]

This is a really great idea. It wouldn't affect my setting much, if at all, to have magic be largely evil, and you're right: the 4th player would jump at a chance to explore the moral/ethical possibilities of being a caster in such a setting.

Sounds like Dark Sun, with the Defiler/Preserver thing.