New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 322
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Calthropstu View Post
    "Everyone has wings? Well that kinda sucks for you guys. The arch villian has his base in the underdark."

    Did that to a party where everyone had gained flight. It didn't completely negate flight (massive caverns, etc) and flight actually solved some problems, but the underdark is a pretty good flight foil.
    On the other hand, if you (general you, not specific you) come up with a setting that gives flight to everyone and then actively work on negating that advantage for the players because you don't want to deal with them being able to fly, maybe that setting wasn't a good idea in the first place.
    What did the monk say to his dinner?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Out of the frying pan and into the friar!


    How would you describe a knife?
    Spoiler
    Show
    Cutting-edge technology

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    No Longer The Frostfell

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
    Unless most of the adventure takes place in an underground structure of some sort
    Unless the underground structure consists of precise hallways no greater than 5 feet high, you're not really making the flight of the party any less useful. And by putting your entire setting underground, you're again even further limiting the challenges that you can present to the party. But sure, if the entire adventure takes place in 5 ft high tunnels underground, you can still use cover and some terrain pieces as challenges for the group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    Within the context of the question, do you contest my claim that it fits Crake’s definition of low magic where generally no scenario for which one character can trivialize others will struggle? There never was a quantity put on the meaningful challenges, just that disparities between characters would get in the way of meaningful challenges. Meaningful challenges here defined by Crake as events most/all characters can participate in without one or more trivializing it. In other words stuff that’s worth table time for detailed resolution.

    Four sky knights flying over a monster infested expanse isn’t a challenge, it’s scenery. One sky knight flying to pluck the golden apple while bob the rogue, Tim the fireballer, and Jessica the merchant Queen stare on from the safety of a distant cliff is potentially anticlimactic.

    ‘Reducing the number of challenges’ here is a trivial statement. Of course taking a general system and drilling down to a single setting is going to limit our possibilities by definition. That’s not what we’re talking about. A challenge for a sky knight is different from a challenge for a town guard is different from a challenge for an anthropomorphic squirrel archer (actual squirrel size). I am not addressing player competency, that’s not relevant to my immediate question.

    On what point of the currently operational definition of a low magic party/setting does the band of sky knights fail?

    If the sky knight campaign is indeed low magic by the above standards, yet we find something urging us to reject it as high magic, we have identified the existence of an as yet unlisted requirement for our definition of low magic.
    This is probably my fault for jumping in somewhere and not fully understanding the context, but I'm having a difficult time trying to put together what point you're trying to address is. If I understand it correctly, you're saying that if a group of individuals are all of similar or identical ability (flight, as was your example) that it doesn't matter whether the setting is high or low magic? Maybe I'm oversimplifying that way to much, but I'm trying to make sure I understand your position. Also, could you link/quote what you're using for the operational definition of low magic, again just so we're on the same page and I can better understand your position.

    I will say that when I think of a "low magic" campaign, one of the last things I think of is a campaign where everyone has magically grafted wings and can fly everywhere, so I feel like from the get-go we are operating with different definitions of the term low magic.

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgaln View Post
    On the other hand, if you (general you, not specific you) come up with a setting that gives flight to everyone and then actively work on negating that advantage for the players because you don't want to deal with them being able to fly, maybe that setting wasn't a good idea in the first place.
    The point of flying in the example was not just to provide an advantage above and beyond the confines of ‘medieval Europe’ but to do so while keeping everyone on similar footing. Regardless of whether the advantage is accessible or denied, it’s the same for the whole party. Does sticking wings on a low magic party, cranking their numbers and dropping them in a not at all gritty setting make it high magic? Is it still high magic without the wings, or the numbers, or the non-gritty backdrop?
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Calthropstu View Post
    "Everyone has wings? Well that kinda sucks for you guys. The arch villian has his base in the underdark."

    Did that to a party where everyone had gained flight. It didn't completely negate flight (massive caverns, etc) and flight actually solved some problems, but the underdark is a pretty good flight foil.
    Sounds about right. From my rules for DMs:

    27. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bear mountains! (Alps)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgaln View Post
    On the other hand, if you (general you, not specific you) come up with a setting that gives flight to everyone and then actively work on negating that advantage for the players because you don't want to deal with them being able to fly, maybe that setting wasn't a good idea in the first place.
    To be fair to the hypothetical setting, makes sense to me that the nemesis to the avian races would be molepeople of sort.
    Alternatively, aquatic.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat View Post
    Ok, so I can see this line of reasoning, so I'll try to explain the best I can. Because it is easier to go up, I find that starting at lower magic is better for the initial starting point. The reason I find that to be better is because you balance to the lowest denominator and the balance point evolves/grows naturally, rather than trying to force the lowest denominator to compete with the higher points. It's also a frame of comfort as well. I've found that players tend towards more simple characters, classes, and builds if they have attention or social disabilities such as ADD, ADHD, and occasionally some forms of Autism. This is not to say anything bad about them, it's just that there is a limit to the feasible point of balance when playing with players who have such disabilities, and often time even players who don't have any social or attention disability and just prefer playing more simple characters. For me, it is better to start at the lowest possible magic influence as possible, and gradually bring it up to just before the point where things become too complex or too much is going on. I understand this to be a point of bias on my part, but I think the logic/methodology is sound and tends to cater more to players rather than build, characters, or classes. I do tend to play with a large number of individuals who have social and attention disorders/disabilities because I volunteer to do so with hospitals and schools to provide creative outlets to young people.

    I guess the most concise way to put it is that lower magic games tend to have far fewer complexities. In an effort to find the appropriate level of complexity for any given table, I find it more effective to start at the lowest level of complexity and grow from there to the point where you can engage everyone meaningfully, but you're not losing the players in the complexity of a game.

    Does that make sense or at least better explain where I'm coming from with my thought process?
    Actually, I think that I am now far more confused than I was previously.

    So, this'll probably ramble a bit, because confused, and there's several ideas here.

    Simplicity?

    Ostensibly, the difference under discussion is high vs low magic.

    So, I continue believe that the comments from Crake make sense as discussing how capable the PCs are - high vs low capacity.

    And I've likened that to high vs low planning (and yes, Crake, although I lost your quote, high planning can "trivialize" encounters, despite them requiring effort, if they do not require resources - rather than only being able to handle 4 encounters per rest, now they've bypassed 20, and are at full strength for the boss fight).

    But now you've brought up simplicity, and… and I can't even.

    I reject wholesale the notion that, because my character sheet just says "Wizard", that that gives me some right to complain that your character sheet says "lion totem barbarian / Fighter / war blade // rogue / factotum" or whatever hodgepodge of classes it took to instantiate your vision and/or bring you up to balanced with the party.

    And I reject wholesale the notion that all starting characters should be *forced* to begin play over simplified, regardless of any disadvantages players of *other* PCs might have.

    In fact, it's kinda a Playground meme that, 20 years and 2 editions later, the reason that people are still playing 3e is because people *like* that complexity, that the complexity is the draw of 3e.

    So, if high vs low magic were purely an issue of complexity, I struggle to see how "both in the same party is fine - let people play what they want" isn't the answer.

    And… since probably none of what I'm saying or would say actually addresses what you meant me to understand, I'll end there, rather than expressing the rest of my confused babble. Hopefully this will suffice to express my confusion.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    No Longer The Frostfell

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    The point of flying in the example was not just to provide an advantage above and beyond the confines of ‘medieval Europe’ but to do so while keeping everyone on similar footing. Regardless of whether the advantage is accessible or denied, it’s the same for the whole party. Does sticking wings on a low magic party, cranking their numbers and dropping them in a not at all gritty setting make it high magic? Is it still high magic without the wings, or the numbers, or the non-gritty backdrop?
    I understand that it wasn't intended to provide an advantage to any particular player or character, but it still increased the complexity of the game to a point where new players, players with disabilities, or just a very casual group might not appreciate or enjoy or are beyond the scope of their vision of the game (leading to lack of interest). Sticking wings on an otherwise low-magic party kind of does change them from being low-magic, as wings on people is an inherently magical thing. That doesn't necessarily make it high magic, just not-so-low magic. The setting may or may not be high magic without the wings, numbers, or framing (gritty vs non-gritty). None of those things singly make something high or low magic, but can be descriptors for how pervasive magic is in the setting and in the party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Actually, I think that I am now far more confused than I was previously.

    So, this'll probably ramble a bit, because confused, and there's several ideas here.
    I'm going to break things up a bit and mix up the order of your response to make it kind of flow in an order that I to be easy for me to follow.

    And I reject wholesale the notion that all starting characters should be *forced* to begin play over simplified, regardless of any disadvantages players of *other* PCs might have.
    I'll start here. At no point did I say that I force people to begin play with over simplified characters. I said I tend to, especially when I DM for groups that I know to have mental or social disorders or disabilities. I also don't outright say "I'm going to start you guys with something simple" or anything like that. I ask my players to paint a mental picture for me about what they see their character doing and I assist them in creating that in the most simple way mechanically possible. I actively discourage them from telling me specific classes or abilities so that I can guide and ensure the party as a whole has characters that fit their concepts that they've described to me and are all on the same approximate power level both for the group, and for the setting. Because of the demographic, this does tend to be less magical and more mundane, which lends better to a lower magic group and setting.

    I brought up two points of balance here, both the group and the setting have distinct points of balance. It would be a bad choice to allow a party of 4 to include a God Wizard, Persistomancy Cleric, Do All the Things Druid, and a Mailman Sorcerer in to a game where magic simply isn't prevalent. It would also be a bad choice to include any one of those four in a party of a skillmonkey rogue, sword/board fighter, healbot cleric. During character creation, it's the responsibility of the DM to ensure that the group is creating characters that fit in the setting, and with each other.

    With experienced players, I don't tend to do any of this. I tend to tell them that they're on their own to figure out how they want to balance the party and that whatever they are doing, I'm fully within my capability to keep up, and I will. In the first instance, I'm guiding and assisting to ensure that the group builds a cohesive team that can exist without issue in the world I'm presenting to them. In the second, I'm letting creativity and system mastery dictate the game. Since I usually play with new players or am playing with players who have social or mental disorders or disabilities, my instinctive reaction is to work with a particular methodology.

    I'll reiterate, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm guiding based on expectation and player desire to ensure a balance group and setting. I nearly never tell my players "no" to anything. If something they bring to the table doesn't fit, I explain that and then we work together to bring it to a level that does fit, or find something similar that fits.

    I reject wholesale the notion that, because my character sheet just says "Wizard", that that gives me some right to complain that your character sheet says "lion totem barbarian / Fighter / war blade // rogue / factotum" or whatever hodgepodge of classes it took to instantiate your vision and/or bring you up to balanced with the party.

    So, if high vs low magic were purely an issue of complexity, I struggle to see how "both in the same party is fine - let people play what they want" isn't the answer.
    In the situations I've described above, There wouldn't be a basic, non-specialist or unoptimized wizard in the same group as a gestalted lion totem barbarian/fighter/warblade//rogue/factotum. In fact, I've literally never run a game for that amalgam of classes. When I say simple, I mean simple. If the fighter is created simply, I encourage and guide the rogue, the wizard, the cleric, etc to simple as well. If I'm in a group where there's a very experienced player with a lot of new players, I discuss with them how things are going to play out and if they don't like it they can walk. Vice Versa, if there's a single inexperienced player with a lot of very experienced players, I will discuss the expectation with them and if they don't like it they can walk. I won't sacrifice the group dynamic for a single person. There's nuance to everything and I don't just blindly apply the same concepts to every situation. Decisions are made based off of the players I'm running the game for.

    In fact, it's kinda a Playground meme that, 20 years and 2 editions later, the reason that people are still playing 3e is because people *like* that complexity, that the complexity is the draw of 3e.
    3e is unique. On the one hand it can be insanely complex with a near infinite level of potential. On the other hand, the core functions of the game can be applied in a very simplistic style of game. It has a very low complexity floor and a very high complexity ceiling. Because of this, I can basically assess how low the game should start at to engage everyone, and then steadily increase complexity to the point just before players start to become confused by the complexity. The most simple way to do this, in my opinion, is increase the amount of magic that is influencing the setting and party.

    And… since probably none of what I'm saying or would say actually addresses what you meant me to understand, I'll end there, rather than expressing the rest of my confused babble. Hopefully this will suffice to express my confusion.
    I think you did a pretty good job of generalizing where you were confused and what you were confused by, and I hope that I responded in a clear enough way to help expand what I'm talking about. I was explaining things from a certain perspective, but I didn't really give a clear image of what that perspective was. That's partially because I inserted myself into the conversation and partially because I didn't think to. If you look at what I described from the perspective of running a game for new players or from the perspective or running the game for individuals with disabilities, I think my methodology and thought process make a bit more sense and explain better why I said what I did, and why I do what I do.

    Simplicity?

    Ostensibly, the difference under discussion is high vs low magic.

    So, I continue believe that the comments from Crake make sense as discussing how capable the PCs are - high vs low capacity.

    And I've likened that to high vs low planning (and yes, Crake, although I lost your quote, high planning can "trivialize" encounters, despite them requiring effort, if they do not require resources - rather than only being able to handle 4 encounters per rest, now they've bypassed 20, and are at full strength for the boss fight).

    But now you've brought up simplicity, and… and I can't even.
    Planning can trivialize encounters, you're correct. I'm not 100% sure how this specifically interacts with high vs low magic except for maybe the specific types of challenges you would throw at a given party, or what kinds of challenges might exist within a certain setting. Like, I wouldn't expect an average encounter for a party of 4 non-magical characters to be a pack of incorporeal wolves, and I wouldn't really expect a pack of 3 goblins to be an average encounter for a group of 4 highly optimized spellcasters. On the flip side, I wouldn't expect a pack of incorporeal wolves to be in a setting where ghosts were mythological beings, and I wouldn't expect 3 goblins to be in a game where every creature can use all cantrips at-will and the world is a magical utopia.

  8. - Top - End - #278

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    This statement is the prime example of a false equivalency.
    You know, if you're not going to defend your positions, there's this neat thing you can do where you just don't post. That spares the rest of us the effort of having to explain to you that just naming a logical fallacy is not a rebuttal to someone's argument.

    Low-magic games do this by happenstance, but as we've discussed, high magic games tend to need this to be explicitly performed, something GMs don't always do.
    Again, no. It is not somehow "more explicit" to say "low magic" than "high magic". That's something you're making up to make the side you like seem better. Both are a genre assertion, and both are meaningful to the degree that you explicitly exclude things on the basis of using them. Saying "low magic" does not magically stop people from playing high magic concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
    Your arguments are mutually exclusive.
    No, they aren't. Or at least, you haven't explained why they are. If you're going to argue, you need to make proactive arguments why you're right, not expect me to explain why you're wrong. If you think there's a contradiction, explain the contradiction you think you see. Don't make me guess what problem you have.

    Wow. It’s like you looked at CR 10 traps, found the lowest DC, and assumed that that was the toughest thing you could encounter. He needs a 14 to find 2 other traps on that same page. Nor is it impossible that you can face traps with CR>CL
    I picked the first one. Yes, there are traps which might require you to buy a +skill item. But let's not pretend you weren't cherry-picking your examples to a far more dramatic degree.

    And they get Dominate.
    Beguilers don't use Dominate. They use Charm + Diplomacy. Charm makes a target Friendly, dropping the DC to make them Helpful by up to 30 points (functionally more when you consider e.g. speed penalties). Yes, the Beguiler and the Rogue are both using the Diplomacy skill. But to suggest that they are using it in the same way reflects a fundamental ignorance of how the Beguiler should be played and optimized.

    Outside combat, you have gimped your own skills, hp and class abilities to do what any wizard can do by leaving a slot open. I’d rather buy some scrolls than spend 2 feats and half my skills on that.
    Yes, you're right. One HP per level and the ability to feint as a move action is way better than spontaneously casting off the best list in the game. And, no, it's not "what any Wizard can do", because that puts you down a slot in combat and doesn't grant you nearly the range of options the Spellpool does. The average Wizard is not going to know the obscure spell that solves exactly the problem you are having right now.

    I don’t see any reason why the muggle side couldn’t also be optimized. You are talking about 5 levels of beguiler, so I could WB//shadow creature/rogue 5/bard 1/fighter 2/Eternal Blade 6.
    Again, feel free to make the argument. If you think that's better than spontaneously casting from a list of spells that includes Teleport, Fabricate, Lesser Planar Binding, Cloudkill, and Major Creation, say so explicitly and own up to it.

    At the same level, the WB has White Raven Tactics. So while you are spending 2 rounds recovering and casting one spell, as little as once per day, every single combat he is giving an extra action on Turn 1 to whichever PC happens to be the best suited to win that fight.
    That's a very good ability. WRT is probably the best thing that the Warblade brings to the table. But your analysis misses some things. But it's not quite as impressive as you make it out to be. It doesn't give extra actions to the minions people might have (and people will have them, even as early as 5th level -- that's when Clerics get Animate Dead) and it doesn't grant any extra spell slots. It also causes problems for you as the game scales to higher levels, because at that point a lot of the value of the Warblade can be captured by reanimating and rebuking a Corpse Creature Warblade 5.

    And no it doesn’t. And if it did the good requirement probably prohibits your mob of dominated slaves.
    Using talk-no-jutsu to turn enemies to allies seems like a pretty classically Good thing to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgaln View Post
    On the other hand, if you (general you, not specific you) come up with a setting that gives flight to everyone and then actively work on negating that advantage for the players because you don't want to deal with them being able to fly, maybe that setting wasn't a good idea in the first place.
    Not really. Giving people an adventure that interacts with their abilities is good. In a real sense the Underdark adventure is meaningful precisely because the players have flight and its use is restricted by the specific operating context they now find themselves in.

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    You know, if you're not going to defend your positions, there's this neat thing you can do where you just don't post. That spares the rest of us the effort of having to explain to you that just naming a logical fallacy is not a rebuttal to someone's argument.
    A false equivalency is where you try to compare an example to another one that doesn't actually have a parallel, and is thus a meaningless comparison. Like when you try to compare different builds in one system, to including cross system characters in a completely different system to the one we're discussing.

    It was clearly a facetious comment, and thus not one worth defending against, because there's no substance to the argument.
    Last edited by Crake; 2021-01-12 at 09:53 PM.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Bohandas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat View Post
    Unless the underground structure consists of precise hallways no greater than 5 feet high, you're not really making the flight of the party any less useful.
    It would force them to be in range of ranged weapons and likely also of reach weapons like spears
    "If you want to understand biology don't think about vibrant throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology" -Richard Dawkins

    Omegaupdate Forum

    WoTC Forums Archive + Indexing Projext

    PostImage, a free and sensible alternative to Photobucket

    Temple+ Modding Project for Atari's Temple of Elemental Evil

    Morrus' RPG Forum (EN World v2)

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Morcleon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Floating in the void

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat View Post
    Ok, so I can see this line of reasoning, so I'll try to explain the best I can. Because it is easier to go up, I find that starting at lower magic is better for the initial starting point. The reason I find that to be better is because you balance to the lowest denominator and the balance point evolves/grows naturally, rather than trying to force the lowest denominator to compete with the higher points. It's also a frame of comfort as well. I've found that players tend towards more simple characters, classes, and builds if they have attention or social disabilities such as ADD, ADHD, and occasionally some forms of Autism. This is not to say anything bad about them, it's just that there is a limit to the feasible point of balance when playing with players who have such disabilities, and often time even players who don't have any social or attention disability and just prefer playing more simple characters. For me, it is better to start at the lowest possible magic influence as possible, and gradually bring it up to just before the point where things become too complex or too much is going on. I understand this to be a point of bias on my part, but I think the logic/methodology is sound and tends to cater more to players rather than build, characters, or classes. I do tend to play with a large number of individuals who have social and attention disorders/disabilities because I volunteer to do so with hospitals and schools to provide creative outlets to young people.

    I guess the most concise way to put it is that lower magic games tend to have far fewer complexities. In an effort to find the appropriate level of complexity for any given table, I find it more effective to start at the lowest level of complexity and grow from there to the point where you can engage everyone meaningfully, but you're not losing the players in the complexity of a game.

    Does that make sense or at least better explain where I'm coming from with my thought process?
    Honestly, my experience (both as someone who has ADHD and autism and someone who regularly plays with people with those) is almost the exact opposite. In a system that they know, the tendency seems to be that they gravitate towards more complex characters. While it's definitely also bias on my part, it's interesting how our own preferences influence the type of people we end up playing with.

    To answer the thread title, I'm quite curious myself, mostly because I have no desire for low magic. At all. To take it further, sometimes 3.5e's magic levels feel too low to me (it would be nice to have solid rules for Netheril and its ilk) and too narrowly granted (Eberron did a great job spreading out the magic and making it feel ubiquitous, but it did so at the cost of removing many of the higher levels of magic from the ubiquity). The fact that there are classes out there at all with no supernatural abilities (in the dictionary sense, not in the (Su) sense) feels wrong to me with what the heights of this game have to offer.
    Avatar of Furude Setsuna, by Telasi.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mephit View Post
    Don't worry, I like my characters the way I like my coffee: Strong, but with no cheese in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Akagi
    Don't hesitate to tell the people you care about the feelings you have for them, because they may not be there tomorrow.

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morcleon View Post
    The fact that there are classes out there at all with no supernatural abilities (in the dictionary sense, not in the (Su) sense) feels wrong to me with what the heights of this game have to offer.
    For finding those classes you need to pick up the fighter or seek the npcs or search through extra manuals.
    Even the rogue and the barbarian have some supernatural abilities(like dodging entirely things while staying at the same place or getting so angry they are tougher and stronger on command and the "sixth sense" for traps)
    But a normal player(and not a playgrounder) on average picks fighter more than other classes (probably because it does not have supernatural abilities so they can more readily identify themselves with one).
    Last edited by noob; 2021-01-14 at 08:01 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #283

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Like when you try to compare different builds in one system, to including cross system characters in a completely different system to the one we're discussing.
    So what? We're not talking about "what game system is this", we're talking about "what genre is this". If "low magic" + "high magic" = "high magic", what does "cyberpunk fantasy" + "xianxia" equal? Alternatively, maybe if you mash up genres you get a game that is incoherent, which is the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morcleon View Post
    To take it further, sometimes 3.5e's magic levels feel too low to me (it would be nice to have solid rules for Netheril and its ilk) and too narrowly granted (Eberron did a great job spreading out the magic and making it feel ubiquitous, but it did so at the cost of removing many of the higher levels of magic from the ubiquity).
    Yeah, that's one of the issues with the topic. For all that 3e does have some very high magic things, the way high magic play is implemented is... not ideal, and that colors some people's perceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    Even the rogue and the barbarian have some supernatural abilities(like dodging entirely things while staying at the same place or getting so angry they are tougher and stronger on command and the "sixth sense" for traps)
    The better argument re: the Rogue is that there are three Rogue PrCs in Core, and every single one gets magic. The clear intent is that you level up into a Shadow Thief or something.

    But a normal player(and not a playgrounder) on average picks fighter more than other classes (probably because it does not have supernatural abilities so they can more readily identify themselves with one).
    The average player picks Fighter because the game sets up Fighter as the choice for new players. No need to psychoanalyze people who are following the instructions the game gives them.

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    So what? We're not talking about "what game system is this", we're talking about "what genre is this". If "low magic" + "high magic" = "high magic", what does "cyberpunk fantasy" + "xianxia" equal? Alternatively, maybe if you mash up genres you get a game that is incoherent, which is the point.
    That's still not a valid comparison, because one is a gradient of one aspect of a genre, while the other is a radical shift between different genres entirely. I find it hard to believe that you can't see the obvious difference between the two comparisons, and believing you to be a competent and smart individual, that leads me to believe you are being purposely facetious in your argument.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
    I feel you should be able to get a crossbow with a flat +5 to damage for the same flat 500gp extra as a +5 strength composite longbow
    I actually allow this. Even above your own strength.

    Must be heavy, and it takes an extra move action to load (lower gearing / longer lever needed) for each point of str bonus beyond your own strength.

    So +5 damage with a 10str would take 3.5 rounds to load - base full round, 2 more full rounds, and a move action in the final round (after which you could fire it with your standard - one shot every 4 rounds).

    I have it capped at 20str (500gp) without moving to exotic materials, then the price goes up rapidly.

    Nobody has bothered to buy a dozen of them.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    I'd call Dragonlance a low magic setting (based on the books), magic isn't really that common, and obtaining a magic item was a big deal. Does anyone know how well that comes across in 3e? I know Sovereign Press converted the modules years ago, does that preserve the "low-magic" feel of the setting?

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by crystal_entity View Post
    I'd call Dragonlance a low magic setting (based on the books), magic isn't really that common, and obtaining a magic item was a big deal. Does anyone know how well that comes across in 3e? I know Sovereign Press converted the modules years ago, does that preserve the "low-magic" feel of the setting?
    The low magic feel of Dragonlance was always about the world outside of the party. So if you can achieve that regardless of how much magic the party themselves have access to, you should be able to do low magic settings even if the game/party are dripping with mystical mojo.

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Wildstag's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Alamogordo
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    I can't be bothered to read every comment, but within the last page I haven't seen this response...

    Sometimes I just want a change of pace. For the same reason some GMs take the monk out and the druid out. Sometimes, there's a custom setting and to preserve the verisimilitude, you've just gotta make magic more infrequent or even just less powerful overall.

    I know some of the earlier pages discussed the whole "make martials feel more unique", but even more than that, low magic really helps make the peasantry seem more unique as well.

    Why, in a high-magic world, are there not druids that cast Plant Growth for a countryside? It costs nothing to cast and only helps amplify the economy of a region. And even more, basically every setting book has a regional tenth-level character, with level 5s uncommon in a region. Why would peasants be unfamiliar with magic or superstitious towards it when there's so much magic in the world?

    Basically, settings don't really help explain why they're high-magic to a sufficient degree. And the response to that is to make things actually low magic. It limits the mages, but so long as they receive third or fourth level spells (or even fifth), they're still outshining the martials. And it also helps to keep the settings logically consistent with the mechanics of the game.

  19. - Top - End - #289

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    That's still not a valid comparison, because one is a gradient of one aspect of a genre, while the other is a radical shift between different genres entirely.
    That's a distinction without a difference. "Low magic" and "high magic" are different genres. "Cyberpunk fantasy" and "xianxia" are both part of the fantasy genre. If you think there is a difference, articulate it. Don't insist that people are arguing in bad faith because they reject claims you have made no effort to prove.

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    That's a distinction without a difference. "Low magic" and "high magic" are different genres. "Cyberpunk fantasy" and "xianxia" are both part of the fantasy genre. If you think there is a difference, articulate it. Don't insist that people are arguing in bad faith because they reject claims you have made no effort to prove.
    Yeah, but they're also different systems that aren't cross compatible, wheras low and high magic dnd is, so there is a pretty major difference. Maybe if you had used generic terms, like "if you put a wuxia monk in a cyberpunk fantasy game, does that game become a wuxia game", and the answer would be "how does it affect the game?" (and the answer to THAT would probably be "not a whole lot"). You see, a low magic character in a high magic setting has no impact on the setting by their mere existence. Hence, it remains what it is, a high magic setting. Meanwhile, a high magic character in a low magic setting does have an impact on that setting. They have raised the bar of what exists in the setting, thus actually changing the nature of the setting itself. Ergo: High magic character in a low magic setting = high magic game, but low magic character in a high magic game still = high magic game, because the bar is set at the top, not the bottom.
    Last edited by Crake; 2021-01-16 at 05:13 AM.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Yeah, but they're also different systems that aren't cross compatible, wheras low and high magic dnd is, so there is a pretty major difference. Maybe if you had used generic terms, like "if you put a wuxia monk in a cyberpunk fantasy game, does that game become a wuxia game", and the answer would be "how does it affect the game?" (and the answer to THAT would probably be "not a whole lot"). You see, a low magic character in a high magic setting has no impact on the setting by their mere existence. Hence, it remains what it is, a high magic setting. Meanwhile, a high magic character in a low magic setting does have an impact on that setting. They have raised the bar of what exists in the setting, thus actually changing the nature of the setting itself. Ergo: High magic character in a low magic setting = high magic game, but low magic character in a high magic game still = high magic game, because the bar is set at the top, not the bottom.
    Agreed. To further expand the point, think of the commoner. Most people being 1st level commoners in D&D doesn't make any game or setting "low magic" or "low op". In a game where most people are instead 1st level Paladins, introducing a 100 commoners would not at all change the setting - but if you had a game where *everyone* was a commoner and introduced a 100 Paladins, you're looking at a radically different game. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is significant.

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    High magic character in a low magic setting = high magic game, but low magic character in a high magic game still = high magic game, because the bar is set at the top, not the bottom.
    So… introduce a single high-tech element to D&D, and now it's a high-tech game?

    Oh, wait - D&D already had crashed spaceships, laser weapons, and jet airplanes, just to name a few from published materials.

    The Forgotten Realms is pretty pants-on-head. Introduce "the one-eyed King", and suddenly the Realms is competent? I don't think so.

    So why should high-magic have a property that high-tech and high-competence do not?

    I don't think that it does.

    Now, the highly competent character may well dominate the game, potentially (but not necessarily) at the expense of the fun of their incompetent comrades. Just as the high-tech, high-magic, or high-wuxia character might. But, as was brought up earlier, it's easier to scale up than down, so it's better to scale up to the "high" character, if there's an issue.

    And I *still* think that you're saying "balance to the table", and now fallaciously attempting to label a setting based on a single element.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    High magic can mean that the individual magical things can have extreme power.
    If one individual magical thing have extreme power then it makes the setting it goes into high magic.
    Superman or dr strange would make any setting they go in be high magic due to their so much ridiculous power that they can every day reshape the world entirely.

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    High magic can mean that the individual magical things can have extreme power.
    If one individual magical thing have extreme power then it makes the setting it goes into high magic.
    Superman or dr strange would make any setting they go in be high magic due to their so much ridiculous power that they can every day reshape the world entirely.
    Superman isn't magic. He is arguably, among other things, high level. Is a setting with no one but 0-level commoners and Superman a high-level setting?

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Superman isn't magic. He is arguably, among other things, high level. Is a setting with no one but 0-level commoners and Superman a high-level setting?
    If superman is not magical at the very least he is reality bending in unnatural ways like time travelling by making earth spin the other way by flying and other complete nonsense like that.

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Superman isn't magic. He is arguably, among other things, high level. Is a setting with no one but 0-level commoners and Superman a high-level setting?
    Superman has supernatural physics defying powers, he has phlebotinum, the fact that it isn't technically 'magic' is irrelevant.

    A setting in which Superman's powers are fully industrialized, as in the classic SMBC reference is indeed a 'high-magic' setting, because Superman can, all by himself, drastically alter the fate of the entire planet and completely reform its society (Superman: Red Son is also a version of this).

    If a high-magic or high-tech component is introduced into a setting allowed full integration and application within that setting, then it inevitably converts that setting into a high-magic or high-tech setting. This is in fact the premise of it's own specific sub-genre: The Magic Comes Back, which involves stories that are told during the unstable period of magical resurgence. The Wheel of Time, though not advertised as such, is exactly such a series, and by its end is clearly on the path to a magitech utopia/dystopia with medieval stasis far behind it.

    It is possible to introduce high-magic or high-tech components into a setting and restrain their application, usually by making the high-magic or high-tech components sufficiently advanced to the point of incomprehensibility so that they cannot be integrated and applied to the setting in any consistent fashion. This is particularly doable when the elements in question lack agency. The alien starship defended by berserk robots, for example, works fairly well in this role. So does the ancient magical MacGuffin forged by lost civilizations. The key trick is to make such things completely immune to any attempt to reverse engineer them.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    If superman is not magical at the very least he is reality bending in unnatural ways like time travelling by making earth spin the other way by flying and other complete nonsense like that.
    That take on Superman is highly… capable. If someone wanted to be an equal member of a party with him, they would need to be highly capable, as well.

    I think I would feel cheated (bait and switch, perhaps?) if someone declared a setting "high capability" or "high level", then showcased a bunch of not particularly ept 0-level commoners… and Superman. I believe that that would amount to the same type of "failure to communicate" that got us here in the first place (ie, Crake complaining about GMs failing to communicate that their settings were "high magic").

    However, if we were asked to build a high-level, low capacity party, and someone brought that version of Superman? I suspect I'd believe that they needed a few terms explained to them.

    So, to recap, my conclusion continues to be that a single high-X element does not inherently make a setting high-X.

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Superman has supernatural physics defying powers, he has phlebotinum, the fact that it isn't technically 'magic' is irrelevant.
    Seems relevant to a discussion of "why low-magic", especially when one's current line is, "so… what you're really saying is, 'balance to the table'?".

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    The key trick is to make such things completely immune to any attempt to reverse engineer them.
    Other than my personal dislike of such (seemingly) hand wave tactics… how does that prevent their proper utilization? Wouldn't they need to be incomprehensible, lack free will, *and* not repeatable to guarantee their lack of impact?

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So… introduce a single high-tech element to D&D, and now it's a high-tech game?

    Oh, wait - D&D already had crashed spaceships, laser weapons, and jet airplanes, just to name a few from published materials.

    The Forgotten Realms is pretty pants-on-head. Introduce "the one-eyed King", and suddenly the Realms is competent? I don't think so.

    So why should high-magic have a property that high-tech and high-competence do not?

    I don't think that it does.

    Now, the highly competent character may well dominate the game, potentially (but not necessarily) at the expense of the fun of their incompetent comrades. Just as the high-tech, high-magic, or high-wuxia character might. But, as was brought up earlier, it's easier to scale up than down, so it's better to scale up to the "high" character, if there's an issue.

    And I *still* think that you're saying "balance to the table", and now fallaciously attempting to label a setting based on a single element.
    Why not high tech? The answer is simple: If people don't understand the tech and how to use/duplicate it, then the item may as well just be an artifact since it's not suppressed by an AMF. It's the same reason a world doesn't become high magic just from it having a powerful artifact.

    On the other hand, if you introduced iron man into the world (the high tech equivilent of introducing a powerful wizard into a low magic world), then yeah, it kinda starts becoming a high-tech game, because that tech can perpetuate and affect the setting beyond just the existence of a single item.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why the desire for low magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Why not high tech? The answer is simple: If people don't understand the tech and how to use/duplicate it, then the item may as well just be an artifact since it's not suppressed by an AMF. It's the same reason a world doesn't become high magic just from it having a powerful artifact.

    On the other hand, if you introduced iron man into the world (the high tech equivilent of introducing a powerful wizard into a low magic world), then yeah, it kinda starts becoming a high-tech game, because that tech can perpetuate and affect the setting beyond just the existence of a single item.
    "A high-X game is a high-X game" is tautologically true, so I'll not even attempt to disagree.

    However, it means that your concern is *not* with a single high-X element, but exclusively with having a high-X game when it was billed as a low-X game.

    So we're back to the point of, "do you actually have any objections to having a high-X element in an otherwise low-X game?".

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •