Results 271 to 300 of 322
Thread: Why the desire for low magic?
-
2021-01-11, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Munich, Germany
- Gender
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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?
SpoilerOut of the frying pan and into the friar!
How would you describe a knife?
SpoilerCutting-edge technology
-
2021-01-11, 12:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2016
- Location
- No Longer The Frostfell
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
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.
-
2021-01-11, 12:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- Vacation in Nyalotha
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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?
-
2021-01-11, 01:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-11, 05:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
- Location
- Bear mountains! (Alps)
- Gender
-
2021-01-12, 04:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-12, 05:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2016
- Location
- No Longer The Frostfell
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
-
2021-01-12, 06:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2019
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
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
And they get Dominate.
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.
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.
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.
And no it doesn’t. And if it did the good requirement probably prohibits your mob of dominated slaves.
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.
-
2021-01-12, 09:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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
-
2021-01-13, 01:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
"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)
-
2021-01-14, 12:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Floating in the void
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.Originally Posted by Akagi
-
2021-01-14, 07:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-14, 04:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2019
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
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.
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).
-
2021-01-14, 08:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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
-
2021-01-14, 10:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-15, 11:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
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?
-
2021-01-15, 11:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-15, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Alamogordo
- Gender
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.Characters I've enjoyed playing for more than four sessions:
Falgar the Swiftblade
Revain Sumeth, Whip Fighter Extraordinaire
Malvin Firel, Cleric of Corellon, Destroyer of Undeath
Vongur Dorent, Primeval Champion of Poverty
In defense of the Vow of Poverty
-
2021-01-15, 10:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2019
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-16, 05:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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
-
2021-01-16, 06:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2020
- Location
- Jerusalem
- Gender
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-16, 04:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-16, 05:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
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.
-
2021-01-16, 06:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
-
2021-01-16, 07:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
-
2021-01-16, 07:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-16, 07:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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.
-
2021-01-16, 07:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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'?".
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?
-
2021-01-16, 09:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
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
-
2021-01-16, 09:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Why the desire for low magic?
"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?".