Why the desire for low magic?

[Bohandas]

The big difference is that the availability of technology to characters in any given setting is usually managed by economic or educational factors. If you 'bamf' Conan into Eclipse Phase he'll need some remedial coursework and a giant pile of dollars to catch up to the average joe, but he absolutely can catch up. Magic, by contrast, usually has gated entry, and the most common form of gatekeeping is exactly the same as most other superpowers: winning the genetic lottery.

Not usually. I'd say it's more like fifty-fifty. Going along with the superpower analogy, IIRC Doctor Strange himself gained his powers through hard work and study

[Batcathat]

Why not? You're asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter if you can do every type of magic, or only one, or somewhere in between. It matters what range of problems you can solve with magic, and that's more a function of how long your spell list is and how you select spells than the range of things that are on it.

It's a function of those things too, but obviously what spell choices you have to choose from affect what you can do with it. When I say "not using every kind of magic" I mean in terms of what you can do with it, rather than how you flavor it. The Necromancer you talk about can still do pretty much every kind of magic, even if it's under a veneer of Necromancy.

Consider the Necromancer. The Necromancer is, I think we can all agree, a flavorful class. You do Death Magic and you do not do other kinds of magic. But is the Necromancer any more mechanically limited than the Wizard? Not really. You can imagine just about any Wizard spell as a Necromancy spell, or at least a spell a Necromancer could cast. Bone blasts to deal direct damage, undead minions to take the place of summons (or even straight-up demonology), Magic Jar-ish soul puppetry to do everything Enchantment does, skeletal armor for Abjuration, undead craftsmen to break the economy, the list goes on. You can imagine a Necromancy-themed solution to pretty much every problem, and if you wrote as many spells for the Necromancer as WotC did for the Wizard, you'd get most of them. Conceptual limitations don't directly do anything to power. Insofar as they have an effect at all, it's a second-order result of more classes meaning less words for each class.

Yes, I said thematic specialization can help with power balance, not that it's an automatic fix. Obviously it won't do much if the specialization is basically all flavor, rather than an actual limitation.

EDIT: Perhaps I should have clarified that when I'm talking about kinds of magic or specialization, I'm not referring to any existing schools or specializations but using the terms more generally.

[NigelWalmsley]

The Necromancer you talk about can still do pretty much every kind of magic, even if it's under a veneer of Necromancy.

He can do every mechanical effect. But that's the point. Because magic divorces themes from mechanics, the thematic limitations (or lack thereof) don't matter to mechanical power. If you give someone the powers "area blast", "summon minions", and "long distance travel", it doesn't matter if those are three Necromancy effects, two Necromancy effects and an Evocation effect, or one each of Evocation, Necromancy, and Conjuration. It's the same set of powers.

Obviously it won't do much if the specialization is basically all flavor, rather than an actual limitation.

Theme is flavor. There are good reasons for themes. People like having Death Mages and Fire Mages and Nature Mages. But it doesn't do anything to address power concerns. And that's fine -- not everything is done because it solves a balance problem.

[Batcathat]

He can do every mechanical effect. But that's the point. Because magic divorces themes from mechanics, the thematic limitations (or lack thereof) don't matter to mechanical power. If you give someone the powers "area blast", "summon minions", and "long distance travel", it doesn't matter if those are three Necromancy effects, two Necromancy effects and an Evocation effect, or one each of Evocation, Necromancy, and Conjuration. It's the same set of powers.

Yes, that is true, but I don't see how that's a good thing. It's like if every weapon had the exact same stats and it would make no difference whether you fought with a dagger or a six feet sword. I can appreciate separating flavor from mechanics to some degree (I like that about Mutants & Masterminds, for example) but having every wizard able to accomplish more or less the same thing just seems less interesting to me. If I were to play a Necromancer, for example, I would prefer it if I could contribute to the party in a different way from a Summoner, or whatever.

Theme is flavor. There are good reasons for themes. People like having Death Mages and Fire Mages and Nature Mages. But it doesn't do anything to address power concerns. And that's fine -- not everything is done because it solves a balance problem.

I'm not saying it always addresses it or have to address it, just that it can address it. Having more flavorful and more balanced classes seems to me like it would be a win/win situation.

[NigelWalmsley]

Yes, that is true, but I don't see how that's a good thing.

It's not particularly. I wasn't saying it was good, just that the thematic limitation doesn't inherently impose mechanical limitations. The range (and limits) of the things Wizards can do in 3e isn't because those are the natural limitations of "book magic", it's just the result of the spells they happen to have and the resource management system they happen to use. And that's mostly a result of Wizards being a core class (and one of the core classes best suited to power creep).

If I were to play a Necromancer, for example, I would prefer it if I could contribute to the party in a different way from a Summoner, or whatever.

Sure. But that doesn't necessarily only come from having stuff the Necromancer or Summoner can't do. It also comes from how they do things. Both the Necromancer and the Summoner should have minions, but how those minions work is going to be different in both cases.

I'm not saying it always addresses it or have to address it, just that it can address it. Having more flavorful and more balanced classes seems to me like it would be a win/win situation.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that those are separate axes. Compare, say, the Barbarian and the Fighter to the Dread Necromancer and the Sorcerer. Very similar power levels in each pair, but completely different levels of thematic focus.

[Batcathat]

It's not particularly. I wasn't saying it was good, just that the thematic limitation doesn't inherently impose mechanical limitations. The range (and limits) of the things Wizards can do in 3e isn't because those are the natural limitations of "book magic", it's just the result of the spells they happen to have and the resource management system they happen to use. And that's mostly a result of Wizards being a core class (and one of the core classes best suited to power creep).

I've never said it does. I think enforcing more specialization on casters could theoretically make them both more balanced and more flavorful but either could be accomplished in other ways and neither is a guaranteed effect of increased specialization (Wow, that's probably the most confusing sentence I've written in quite a while...). It's a two-birds-with-one-stone sort of deal but it's neither the only stone nor necessarily the best one.

Sure. But that doesn't necessarily only come from having stuff the Necromancer or Summoner can't do. It also comes from how they do things. Both the Necromancer and the Summoner should have minions, but how those minions work is going to be different in both cases.

True. I remember preferring playing orcs over humans in the original Warcraft despite the sides being basically identical in almost every way, just because the orcs looked cooler. But I prefer strategy games where there's an actual difference between the sides that's more than skin deep and it's the same with classes in role-playing game.

And I'm not saying there should be absolutely no overlap in my theoretical system. More than one type of caster could have minions or whatever, as long as all the types of caster don't have (almost) all the kinds of magic.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that those are separate axes. Compare, say, the Barbarian and the Fighter to the Dread Necromancer and the Sorcerer. Very similar power levels in each pair, but completely different levels of thematic focus.

Sure. It's just that I feel "magic can do almost anything" is a detriment to both class balance and class flavor in some cases, so changing that paradigm could lessen both problems.

[Crake]

Playing D&D excludes Shadowrun character concepts like Hacker, Rigger, and Street Samurai. Should we all play Shadowrun instead of D&D? Of course not. Shadowrun's a fine game, but it's doing a different thing from D&D ("cyberpunk fantasy" v "epic fantasy"). While it's trivially true that choosing a particular genre excludes things that aren't in that genre, that's not a problem, because if you want to tell a story that's in that genre, you definitionally don't want your story to include things from outside that genre. Maybe you like the "low magic" genre better than the "high magic" one. That's fine. You can play low magic games, and no one is going to stop you. But this notion that people are "excluded" by the fact that genres contain specific things is nonsense.

You keep talking like character concepts are people. No person is excluded when you say "we're playing dnd, so you can't play a hacker, rigger or street samurai". They just pick a different character concept. However, the issue is that "High magic" doesn't actually exclude low magic concept characters like martials and skill monkeys, and so those characters can, and do exist in high magic games. Of course, the DM can say "You must have some level of magic to participate in this game", which is fine, and certainly helps the situation, but that's usually not the case.

So now if you look at it, a low magic challenge has no floor on who can participate, but it does have a ceiling (go above the ceiling and the challenge is trivialized). However that ceiling also applies to low magic campaigns, and thus is usually not an issue. On the other hand, high magic challenges have practically no ceiling, but they have a very high floor. A floor which does not apply to high magic campaigns. Thus, by the high/low magic nature of a challenge, everyone can qualify for the low magic challenge, while not everyone can qualify for the high magic challenge.

Thus, if you consider meaninfulness as at least partially determined by a character's ability to participate in a challenge at all, since a challenge has no meaning to a character if they may as well have not even been there to help, then high magic challenges are, by their very nature, less meaningful.

I have to kinda diagree with you here, because challenges in general are party solvable ( or should be ), but not every character can solve every challenge

Yes, you're correct, there are other factors which can exclude players, but we're looking purely at the high/low magic factor. Your example of the rogue being the only one able to disarm a trap is probably the clearest example of an unmeaningful challenge for example. It completely excludes all but one player, and it comes down to just a roll.

I'm not saying all low magic challenges are more meaningful than all high magic challenges, nor am I saying that all low magic challenges include all players. I'm speaking purely on the high/low magic factor. Since low-magic concepts can exist in high magic campaigns, but high magic concepts cannot exist in low magic campaigns, a low magic challenge in a low magic campaign excludes no potential players due to it's nature as a low magic challenge. On the other hand, a high magic challenge in a high magic campaign does exclude potential players, since low magic character concepts still exist.

This is why low-magic challenges feel more meaningful than high magic ones. A good low magic challenge will always feel meaningful to everyone in the party. A good high magic challenge will only feel meaningful to high magic characters. Now, while many high-magic games may include only high magic characters, some will include lower magic characters. Thus, as a percentage of players who find meaningfulness in a challenge, good low magic challenges are 100%, wheras good high magic challenges are less than 100%.

[Quertus]

If you're supposed to be a major player, you get powers that let you solve the problems you're faced with.

This is what's always bothered me: people can't seem to respond to questions of how they picture their character participating, meaning (to me, at least) that even conceptually their characters aren't major players.

Deffently, using your magic in smart ways is something good to have even in high magic games.... so playing a low magic game is good practice.

I'm not so sure about this.

I mean, sure, I play Fighters to be better at playing Wizards, but… I think that actual experience with high-magic challenges would be better practice for how to be smart within a high magic setting than all our decades trying to be smart IRL.

while low magic challenges may exclude the ability to face a high magic challenge, high magic challenges exclude players from participating, something that a lower magic challenge does not do.

Absolutely false. When my car broke down, I was excluded from that challenge. When we discussed the rules of Candyland, two players were excluded from that challenge. Etc etc. Most every world is rife with "you must be this tall to ride" - sometimes quite literally.

Vast disparities in character power are generally not viable in TTRPG game structure. All viable PC concepts must maintain a roughly equivalent position on the power curve. That means once one character concept moves significantly past the fundamental limits on the human body and mind's capabilities, others must do so as well. It need not be magic that's responsible, massive technological disparity has the same problem. Conan can't adventure alongside Iron Man either.

Game balance is in no way a prerequisite for an RPG. It's the "informed consent" and "it's in ourselves, not in our stars" that are missing from certain systems.

have-powers group never gets to override the doesn't-have-powers masses (increased technology level helps here by boosting the power level of the doesn't-have-powers group). Trying to do this in high magic means giving everyone powers, but when you do that the result is worlds that bear no resemblance to our own and become massive worldbuilding challenges to put together and tell stories effectively within because you've fundamentally altered the definition of 'person.'

We are a somewhat technologically advanced society. Have we changed the definition of "person" sufficiently that our stories would be inhumanly alien to our ancestors, that stories of Conan no longer resonate with us?

Also, who cares about "the masses" - I thought you were talking about the PCs.

And, putting those two together… don't we live in a world where the ruling elite control mass political, economic, and military forces that Joe Average cannot possibly override? Why in the world would we want to tell stories about worlds even more mundane than our own?

The other problem is that that probably means a land where no one can challenge a high level caster.

City: we don’t allow casters here
Druid: oh? Well what happens if I fly off and park a hurricane on you until you change your mind?

Also, this last page has a lot of false claims presented as facts. Stuff like “Vast disparities in character power are generally not viable in TTRPG game structure”. Flat out wrong. There are plenty of games that allow for wider spreads of character power than D&D. Games like Elric (AKA, I’m a melnibonean fighter sorcerer with bonuses on all my stats and you are a beggar with -1d4 Cha and a roll on a crippling deformity table). Or Rifts (AKA You are a wilderness scout with 20 hp and a gun that does 100-400 hp damage and I am a spellcasting shapeshifting dragon with better stats and 10,000 hp). Or WoD (AKA you are a human kinfolk who doesn’t go crazy when they see magic and I am a wizard who rewrites reality with my brain, and also has better stats than you). If you are in a game where a power level mix isn’t beneficial, you can set the power level where you want it. The problems with 3.PF, generally solved over time, are that characters don’t make it clear what power level they are at (a newb doesn’t know he is in kinfolk/beggar/wilderness scout mode when he plays a monk) and there don’t happen to be many high power first party non-casters or low power first party casters. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t write a Gilgamesh/Heracles or a hedge mage class easier than creating a low magic setting. A simple gestalt Warblade(using only ex maneuvers)//Rogue is no effort on the DMs part and will more than hold his own as a Conan type at most tables with full casters.

Love most of your post, couldn't bear to cut it. But… you really think your gestalt can hang with the big boys? Without extensive buffs / UMD pretending to be a Wizard all the time?

I know that a well-buffed Rogue can be more than capable, but, for those who complain about such characters being a drain on the party, how much does this build need from the party to keep up?

Sure, they have limits but the sheer versatility of magic mean that most casters can handle almost any type of situation. A fighter isn't capable of doing every kind of violence imaginable, a skill-monkey can't master every skill, why should a caster be capable of (almost) every kind of magic?

Yes, thematic classes are nice. I personally find wizards fairly boring in part because "I do magic" is a pretty flavorless concept. But it can also help with class imbalance, if every caster isn't capable of so many different kinds of magic. I'd prefer if they had to specialize, for both flavor and balance.

"This looks like a job for Aquaman" is in no way something that I want to intentionally emulate

On a different note, I find D&D casters too… limited. I would prefer casters who could train "power source" and "technique" independently. Where I could start with a character who draws upon the divine to hurl Fire, or risks Taint to Heal the sick, or uses the safety of the weave to manipulate probability, or focuses their own inner power to bend spoons manipulate matter, or uses the Force to Animate the Dead.

D&D simultaneously too tightly binds effects to power source, and too loosely binds one source to too many powers inherently. Kinda a "worst of both worlds" thing, IMO.

I really liked the example of how Necromancy could be used to generate most any effect / solve most any problem. I'm imagining a Wizard who has various mastery of Necromancy, Lightning magic, probability manipulation, and spacial bending… looking at the epic challenge of a locked door… and wondering whether to invoke the gods, risk Taint, or sacrifice a chicken to power… what spell.

That's more my kind of Wizard.

[Batcathat]

"This looks like a job for Aquaman" is in no way something that I want to intentionally emulate

Surely there's some middle ground between that and having casters be like a Superman stuffed with a Batman, able to handle any situation in a billion different ways and so boring because of it.

Actually, now that I think about it, Aquaman might actually be a pretty good example of what I'm aiming for. Not the "Haha, talking to fish is a lame superpower" meme version of him but how he's actually portrayed in comics. Specialized, but not to the point of being helpless outside of his speciality.

[noob]

This is what's always bothered me: people can't seem to respond to questions of how they picture their character participating, meaning (to me, at least) that even conceptually their characters aren't major players.



I'm not so sure about this.

I mean, sure, I play Fighters to be better at playing Wizards, but… I think that actual experience with high-magic challenges would be better practice for how to be smart within a high magic setting than all our decades trying to be smart IRL.



Absolutely false. When my car broke down, I was excluded from that challenge. When we discussed the rules of Candyland, two players were excluded from that challenge. Etc etc. Most every world is rife with "you must be this tall to ride" - sometimes quite literally.



Game balance is in no way a prerequisite for an RPG. It's the "informed consent" and "it's in ourselves, not in our stars" that are missing from certain systems.



We are a somewhat technologically advanced society. Have we changed the definition of "person" sufficiently that our stories would be inhumanly alien to our ancestors, that stories of Conan no longer resonate with us?

Also, who cares about "the masses" - I thought you were talking about the PCs.

And, putting those two together… don't we live in a world where the ruling elite control mass political, economic, and military forces that Joe Average cannot possibly override? Why in the world would we want to tell stories about worlds even more mundane than our own?



Love most of your post, couldn't bear to cut it. But… you really think your gestalt can hang with the big boys? Without extensive buffs / UMD pretending to be a Wizard all the time?

I know that a well-buffed Rogue can be more than capable, but, for those who complain about such characters being a drain on the party, how much does this build need from the party to keep up?



"This looks like a job for Aquaman" is in no way something that I want to intentionally emulate

On a different note, I find D&D casters too… limited. I would prefer casters who could train "power source" and "technique" independently. Where I could start with a character who draws upon the divine to hurl Fire, or risks Taint to Heal the sick, or uses the safety of the weave to manipulate probability, or focuses their own inner power to bend spoons manipulate matter, or uses the Force to Animate the Dead.

D&D simultaneously too tightly binds effects to power source, and too loosely binds one source to too many powers inherently. Kinda a "worst of both worlds" thing, IMO.

I really liked the example of how Necromancy could be used to generate most any effect / solve most any problem. I'm imagining a Wizard who has various mastery of Necromancy, Lightning magic, probability manipulation, and spacial bending… looking at the epic challenge of a locked door… and wondering whether to invoke the gods, risk Taint, or sacrifice a chicken to power… what spell.

That's more my kind of Wizard.

Obviously in case of locked door throw the corpse at it(it is still alive and complaining about being called this way but it can be fixed with applications of doors)

[Gnaeus]

Love most of your post, couldn't bear to cut it. But… you really think your gestalt can hang with the big boys? Without extensive buffs / UMD pretending to be a Wizard all the time?

I know that a well-buffed Rogue can be more than capable, but, for those who complain about such characters being a drain on the party, how much does this build need from the party to keep up?.

Thank you

And honestly, yes. For the vast majority of games and most level ranges. Actually, I would be more worried about it overperforming by too wide a margin in the 1-6 range than being outperformed in the 13-20.

It does depend somewhat on table optimization. Clearly, in a game with unlimited planar binding it can’t compete, but really neither can the Cleric or Druid.

When I say a muggle like a warblade//rogue can hang with the big boys, I am assuming what I regard as a standard play environment. By that I mean, tier 1 casters are for the most part working within the limits of their spell tables. So a 9th level caster is casting 3-4 5th level spells/level, as opposed to an arbitrary number of 5ths or some kind of early entry UR-priest shenanigans or the like. So given that, the big 3+ are basically working with core strengths. They can play in any part of the game (social, exploration, combat etc). They are solid in combat. They have a range of reality shifting tricks like movement types, minionmancy etc.

So, first, I will challenge conventional wisdom by saying that numbers mean things. Even at tier 1 levels, numbers mean things. Now, T1s have spells that improve their numbers. But they are still playing D&D. I have had mid level casters die because of plain old damage. I suspect you have also. Yes, they have spells that help them manipulate their environment but it just isn’t practical to use all of them all the time. I had an arcanist die last game to bad luck. I was invisible, injured, at the edge of a battle, and the enemy boss cast a last fleeing fireball, rolled near max, and I went from 75% hp to dead in a round. I’ve lost casters to bad saves. They are capable but not invincible.

So Warblade//Rogue. Good base numbers. Good fort and reflex saves, and gets to add Int to reflex saves, and gets improved evasion. So it’s basically immune to any reflex save effect which isn’t a 1. Hit points mean things. If they run out you die. D12s are good. Warblades also have just Nope abilities in diamond mind to auto make saves even on 1s. They have Iron Heart Surge, which even if it can’t end gravity is better than most T1 tricks for evading conditions.

Damage numbers mean things. Most fights I see are ultimately won or lost by damage, whether or not there is a CoD or W in the group. Warblade//Rogue will likely outperform most casters at most levels at putting hurt on target. It baseline includes the incredible damage numbers of a full bab sneak attacker with all martial weapons. But it also gets maneuvers to let it do good damage after moving. They can sense and fight invisible attackers (blindsense +blind fight). They can bypass fighter problems like DR. That Persist cleric or Polymorphed wizard isn’t outmeleeing a rogue//WB. It’s also a great buff target.

So then they get skills. And again, while the forum doesn’t think so, skills mean things. Get Hide and Move silently + some darkstalker and you will sneak better than most T1s. Trapfinding is something T1s can emulate, but bad game design or not it’s a good thing to have, especially on an Int base for great search checks. Diplomacy and Bluff are commonly better than enchantment spells because most things aren’t immune to diplomacy. A mid level rogue//Warblade probably gets 12-13 skill points/level. Then at the end of all that it gets UMD. It doesn’t need to pretend to be a wizard to have a handy wand chamber in its greatsword. And it starts being a skillmonkey at L1.

And on top of all that, it doesn’t care about AMFs, SR, or magic immune enemies. Not that a good T1 can’t end run SR or that I think T1s need to have every third fight in an AMF or be routinely dispelled. But those are still things. A wizard 9 will probably never run out of spells, but that doesn’t mean he is at 100% in fight 5 or 6. If the team gets surprised, and yes, even T1s can get jumped, it doesn’t have to spend 4 rounds establishing its defenses.

Can it do everything any theoretical T1 can do? No. But it has solid, useful roles that it can meaningfully accomplish that T1s can’t trivially beat.

I would play that, even in a competitive or un cooperating party, along with a Druid, Cleric or Wizard. I think I would outperform them 1-6, and be clearly shown up 17+ because Shapechange/Wish/Miracle/Ice Assassin.

[Crake]

Absolutely false. When my car broke down, I was excluded from that challenge. When we discussed the rules of Candyland, two players were excluded from that challenge. Etc etc. Most every world is rife with "you must be this tall to ride" - sometimes quite literally.

That's a false equivilency though. You're including a secondary factor as to why you could not participate. If we're purely talking on the merits of high/low magic, your lack of skills in mechanics aren't a factor.

As I said in my previous post, we're purely discussing the merits of high vs low magic, so saying "yeah, but I couldn't participate in this low magic challenge because I lacked a particular skill" is besides the point. You weren't excluded on the basis of your magical abilities or lack therof. Now, of course, that does demonstrate a parallel, in that skill-based challenges that have a barrier to entry requiring a particular skill to participate are also typically less meaningful, for the same reasons that a high magic challenge that has barriers to entry in that they require magic to solve are for the same reason typically less meaningful.

You're describing a rogue being the only one who can defeat a trap challenge due to his trapfinding and search skill, and that is an equally bad challenge due to it's barrier to entry, meaning the rest of the party just sits around and twiddles their fingers. That's just as bad as a high magic challenge that is solved by the wizard and cleric, while the rogue and fighter sit around and twiddle their thumbs.

Basically: Barrier to entry = less participation = less meaningful to the party as a whole. High magic has a greater barrier to entry than low magic. Saying that low magic challenges can include other barriers to entry is entirely besides the point, because high magic challenges can also include such external barriers to entry, and is thus equal between the two.

[NigelWalmsley]

Sure. It's just that I feel "magic can do almost anything" is a detriment to both class balance and class flavor in some cases, so changing that paradigm could lessen both problems.

Well that gets back to "what do you mean by magic". If you take the "magic does everything" class and divide it up into chunks, is that still "magic does everything"? It seems like your real issue is "no class should do everything", which is disconnected from magic, and you're mis-stating your opinion because of how things hash out in 3e specifically.

However, the issue is that "High magic" doesn't actually exclude low magic concept characters like martials and skill monkeys, and so those characters can, and do exist in high magic games.

So high magic challenges exclude low magic characters by not explicitly excluding them? You understand how that doesn't make any sense at all, right?

So now if you look at it, a low magic challenge has no floor on who can participate, but it does have a ceiling (go above the ceiling and the challenge is trivialized).

So it excludes things above that ceiling? And this is different from low-magic characters being excluded from high-magic encounters how? It seems to me that your problem is that you consider low magic concepts inherently more legitimate than high magic ones, so high magic campaigns can't exclude them entirely (which doesn't count as excluding things for some reason). But that's your assumption. Just as D&D campaigns exclude Shadowrun concepts and low magic campaigns exclude high magic concepts, high magic campaigns exclude low magic concepts. If you insist on playing a low magic character anyway the fact that you can't solve problems isn't you being "excluded", it's you being a disruptive player who refuses to get with the program.

For the vast majority of games and most level ranges.

So your position is that in any case where your position isn't false, it's true? That's not exactly a daring claim. Frankly, within the parameters you've defined, even unmodified martials are close to reasonable. It's precisely the high-level, high-optimization environment that people care about in the context of these discussions. "The vast majority of games" happen at or below playtesting levels of optimization.

Most fights I see are ultimately won or lost by damage, whether or not there is a CoD or W in the group.

Don't confuse "ending the fight" with "winning the fight". Yes, you need to deal damage. But if your enemies are locked down, you don't need a full character's worth of resources spent on dealing damage. Simply getting the biggest numbers isn't important. What matters is getting the most cost-effective numbers. You'd be better served by a Dread Necromancer, DMM Cleric, or Druid, all of whom get "good enough" numbers while also getting a full suite of spellcasting.

So then they get skills. And again, while the forum doesn’t think so, skills mean things.

Sure. But a Beguiler gets as many skills as you do, and is also a full caster.

Diplomacy and Bluff are commonly better than enchantment spells because most things aren’t immune to diplomacy.

While the forum doesn’t think so, most things are not, in fact, immune to enchantment spells. Also, the synergy between enchantment and diplomacy is massive. Again, a Beguiler is hugely better than you at this shtick, and basically for free.

[Crake]

Well that gets back to "what do you mean by magic". If you take the "magic does everything" class and divide it up into chunks, is that still "magic does everything"? It seems like your real issue is "no class should do everything", which is disconnected from magic, and you're mis-stating your opinion because of how things hash out in 3e specifically.



So high magic challenges exclude low magic characters by not explicitly excluding them? You understand how that doesn't make any sense at all, right?



So it excludes things above that ceiling? And this is different from low-magic characters being excluded from high-magic encounters how? It seems to me that your problem is that you consider low magic concepts inherently more legitimate than high magic ones, so high magic campaigns can't exclude them entirely (which doesn't count as excluding things for some reason). But that's your assumption. Just as D&D campaigns exclude Shadowrun concepts and low magic campaigns exclude high magic concepts, high magic campaigns exclude low magic concepts. If you insist on playing a low magic character anyway the fact that you can't solve problems isn't you being "excluded", it's you being a disruptive player who refuses to get with the program.

You're conflating challenges and campaigns. A high magic challenge excludes low magic participants, but a high magic campaign does not. Thus not all people playing in high magic campaigns can participate in high magic challenges.

Conversely a low magic challenge excludes (read: is trivialized by) high magic participants, but a low magic campaign also excludes them. Thus all people playing in a low magic campaign can participate in a low magic challenge.

Because people keep bringing up alternate factors regarding challenges and the capability to participate, I will reiterate: This is purely participation capability on the basis of magic-level, since that is the topic of this thread. Saying "oh, but low magic challenges can exclude people in XYZ way so your point is moot" doesn't work, because you're adding an additional factor that's not related to the magic level, and thus is not relevant to the conversation.

[NigelWalmsley]

You're conflating challenges and campaigns.

Why is that distinction relevant? I understand that you don't think we should exclude low magic concepts in high magic games. Really, I get that. What I don't get is why you think that. As far as I can tell, it's just "Crake likes them". Your argument rests on the premise that low magic campaigns get to exclude high magic concepts (which, again, somehow does not count as exclusion), but high magic campaigns don't get to exclude low magic concepts. But you have given no reason for this. Your whole argument is that you refuse to accept the symmetry that exists between things you want in the game and things other people want in the game.

[Crake]

Why is that distinction relevant? I understand that you don't think we should exclude low magic concepts in high magic games. Really, I get that. What I don't get is why you think that. As far as I can tell, it's just "Crake likes them". Your argument rests on the premise that low magic campaigns get to exclude high magic concepts (which, again, somehow does not count as exclusion), but high magic campaigns don't get to exclude low magic concepts. But you have given no reason for this. Your whole argument is that you refuse to accept the symmetry that exists between things you want in the game and things other people want in the game.

Because most people running high magic games don't always explicitly say "Only high magic characters in this game". Yes, some do, but not all do. It's not a personal taste, nothing to do with what I want, it's just how things are if you look at things realistically. On the other hand, low magic games must, by their very definition, exclude high magic characters, else they cease being low magic games.

[Batcathat]

Well that gets back to "what do you mean by magic". If you take the "magic does everything" class and divide it up into chunks, is that still "magic does everything"? It seems like your real issue is "no class should do everything", which is disconnected from magic, and you're mis-stating your opinion because of how things hash out in 3e specifically.

Yes, that is completely true. If the fighter had been able to handle any situation and the wizard had been stuck with a few spells only useful in very specific situations I would have complained about that instead. But this is a D&D forum and a thread about high and low magic so of course I have focused on that in this discussion.

[ciopo]

Because people keep bringing up alternate factors regarding challenges and the capability to participate, I will reiterate: This is purely participation capability on the basis of magic-level, since that is the topic of this thread. Saying "oh, but low magic challenges can exclude people in XYZ way so your point is moot" doesn't work, because you're adding an additional factor that's not related to the magic level, and thus is not relevant to the conversation.

How is positioning examples of challenges that do not require magical means to solve out of scope? aren't all challenges that are not "mandatory magic" by definition on the lowest scope in the spectrum of magic?
nomagic------low magic------high magic

by the limits you are putting, even in low magic challenges, whatever they may be, people with no magic capabilities whatsoever are excluded a priori, because if they *could* partecipate, then these are not low magic challenges either, by definition.

So, Okay? I'm confused

Could I have an example low magic challenge? I'm having trouble visualizing, since I was defining that as "something that can be solved/contributed to without magic", but I guess not?

I don't think I understand your position, I read it to be "low magic challenges have no bar to entry", but that doesn't make sense to me

My position is "not every challenge should be solvable by every character concept" (because otherwise it is uninteresting)

I do understand your point that 3.5 prepared casters have a lot more tools to go about solving this or that challenge given adeguate time to prepare, I don't see how that is in function of low/high magic tho, even with just 1st/2nd level slots a druid has tools, especially with supplements. I talk of druid because that's what I'm currently most familiar with since it's what I'm currently playing.

I'm confused, some character concepts are narrower in scope of what they can do, it follows that if a challenge falls outside the scope of what they can do, their chance of contributing is less than a different character concept whose scope is broader

[anthon]

Ultimately, the fantasy genre in general is one about magic: Magic locations, magic items, magic creatures, magic spells, and magic situations. Magic is what separates fantasy from other genres like historical fiction, even though other genres may have analogs (superpowers, psionics, etc.)

I understand the point of D&D and Pathfinder being games and systems familiar to many people and I know they're versatile, but at least for me, I'd rather play higher magic in these systems since they're intended to be played with the assumption that magic, at least for PCs, is fairly common. Action RPGs like Diablo were inspired by Monty Haul campaigns with lots of magic items!

To clarify, if you prefer low magic or high magic or middle magic or no magic in your game, that's your preference and go ahead. As previously stated, my preference has been for high magic because, for me, magic in general has been where the fun is.

you might like AD&D quite a bit more than 3e. The Epic stuff for 3e isn't as forgiving as say, the Netheril Setting or the Council of Wyrms. d20 mechanics tend to drift upward into very high attributes with low returns, as i learned in our level 1-26 campaign using d20 D&D.

My attempt at making some stuff like magical custom pocket dimensions was essentially not going to happen in d20.

here's a basic logic problem:

in 2e/1e you get rewarded experience points for writing new spells or creating magic items
in 3e/3.5 you get charged experience points for creating new magic items

in 2e/1e you do quests to defeat mystical creatures and challenges and then sell your magic items for profit
in 3e/3.5 you do simple enchantment rituals and pay such high sums that its cheaper to find/buy the items than to make them

over a campaign cycle, this is like the businessman who has to decide if he wants to sell below cost to rival a bulk business, or just abandon his craft entirely to hobbyist personal amusement.


5e has even lower tier magic than these other editions.


I think there's a place in fantasy for low magic, but I seldom had interest in it.

High magic or low magic really doesn't make or break the concept.

What really matters is how exceptional is what you are personally doing/seeing, compared with the world in which your character lives, or for immersion, you personally?

if you are personally experiencing vicariously through your character,

then a Wand of 100 Lumens isn't precisely interesting. A Crystalline Rectangle of Revelation With the powers to send thoughts, produce minor illusions, or provide answers with divination magic is actually also not a mystical experience.

After all, Flash Lights and Smart Phones are everywhere.

But if you had a drop of magical rain on a leaf that could mend a badly healed broken bone, or better still, cure cancer? That would be fantastical, even if it doesn't do 20d6 radiant damage or have +51 to hit.

[Xervous]

So the campaign that can’t trivialize its challenges is the campaign that can’t trivialize its challenges? Those bounds seem a little tautological for a low magic campaign.

It also seems to produce an interesting case where if all characters are more or less broadly equally competent but not to the point of overwhelming challenges , then a very flashy and high powered campaign could check this low magic box.

And that’s glossing over contextual questions like “is crossing a stream a challenge?”

[NigelWalmsley]

Because most people running high magic games don't always explicitly say "Only high magic characters in this game". Yes, some do, but not all do. It's not a personal taste, nothing to do with what I want, it's just how things are if you look at things realistically. On the other hand, low magic games must, by their very definition, exclude high magic characters, else they cease being low magic games.

So your position is that because some people who run high magic games communicate poorly, high magic games don't require high magic concepts. Again, no. Some people don't communicate well when setting up games they expect to be low magic either. This is really just a bias on your part that refuses to accept that "high magic" is a legitimate way for the game to define itself.

Yes, that is completely true. If the fighter had been able to handle any situation and the wizard had been stuck with a few spells only useful in very specific situations I would have complained about that instead. But this is a D&D forum and a thread about high and low magic so of course I have focused on that in this discussion.

That's not staying focused on the discussion. That's allowing your point to get distracted by contingent circumstances. If your problem is with classes that can do everything, say that. By saying "magic shouldn't do everything" you create an awkward ambiguity. For example, I'm still not entirely sure if you'd be okay with a system where all the spells that currently exist still do (modulo game-breaking things), but are divided into smaller piles. That would seem to be "magic does everything" to pretty much the same degree as currently exists, but would obviously not have individual characters that could do everything.

[Quertus]

Surely there's some middle ground between that and having casters be like a Superman stuffed with a Batman, able to handle any situation in a billion different ways and so boring because of it.

Actually, now that I think about it, Aquaman might actually be a pretty good example of what I'm aiming for. Not the "Haha, talking to fish is a lame superpower" meme version of him but how he's actually portrayed in comics. Specialized, but not to the point of being helpless outside of his speciality.

IMO, being able to participate is not "boring"; the inverse, OTOH, is.

Curiously, despite their abilities being fairly broad, my sample Necromancy/Lightning/Probability/Space Wizard actually struggled with the epic challenge of the locked door.

Although the suggestion to throw live bodies at it until they became corpses was priceless. When life serves you lemons…

I have had mid level casters die because of plain old damage. I suspect you have also.

Oh, absolutely! And I GM, so I've seen *lots* of Wizards die to damage.

I would play that, even in a competitive or un cooperating party, along with a Druid, Cleric or Wizard. I think I would outperform them 1-6, and be clearly shown up 17+ because Shapechange/Wish/Miracle/Ice Assassin.

So it can't keep up at the high end? Pity. Would you play it if you knew that the game was going to start at level 15 or 17?

Agree that it would outperform at low levels.

That's a false equivilency though. You're including a secondary factor as to why you could not participate. If we're purely talking on the merits of high/low magic, your lack of skills in mechanics aren't a factor.

As I said in my previous post, we're purely discussing the merits of high vs low magic, so saying "yeah, but I couldn't participate in this low magic challenge because I lacked a particular skill" is besides the point. You weren't excluded on the basis of your magical abilities or lack therof. Now, of course, that does demonstrate a parallel, in that skill-based challenges that have a barrier to entry requiring a particular skill to participate are also typically less meaningful, for the same reasons that a high magic challenge that has barriers to entry in that they require magic to solve are for the same reason typically less meaningful.

You're describing a rogue being the only one who can defeat a trap challenge due to his trapfinding and search skill, and that is an equally bad challenge due to it's barrier to entry, meaning the rest of the party just sits around and twiddles their fingers. That's just as bad as a high magic challenge that is solved by the wizard and cleric, while the rogue and fighter sit around and twiddle their thumbs.

Basically: Barrier to entry = less participation = less meaningful to the party as a whole. High magic has a greater barrier to entry than low magic. Saying that low magic challenges can include other barriers to entry is entirely besides the point, because high magic challenges can also include such external barriers to entry, and is thus equal between the two.

You're conflating challenges and campaigns. A high magic challenge excludes low magic participants, but a high magic campaign does not. Thus not all people playing in high magic campaigns can participate in high magic challenges.

Conversely a low magic challenge excludes (read: is trivialized by) high magic participants, but a low magic campaign also excludes them. Thus all people playing in a low magic campaign can participate in a low magic challenge.

Because people keep bringing up alternate factors regarding challenges and the capability to participate, I will reiterate: This is purely participation capability on the basis of magic-level, since that is the topic of this thread. Saying "oh, but low magic challenges can exclude people in XYZ way so your point is moot" doesn't work, because you're adding an additional factor that's not related to the magic level, and thus is not relevant to the conversation.

The challenge of the wet paper bag doesn't exclude anyone. I'm playing a decrepit grandmother, and she's fine. No, you can't play Hulk, or Captain America, or even Captain Hobo - this is a wet paper bag campaign, and their paper bags are too dry. Why can't you get that this doesn't exclude anyone who is appropriate for the campaign?

Please tell me that you're saying something that makes more sense than that. Because, if that's what you're saying, then you're saying that the problem is that characters have abilities that allow them to overcome challenges.

Inversely, that the problem is that low-magic characters are allowed in high-magic campaigns, where they cannot participate in high-magic challenges. That the problem is that 3e printed classes other than Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Archivist - characters who can actually participate.

-----

To say that again… I played with two people for whom the rules of Candyland were beyond their comprehension. For them, the problem was that "high-complexity" challenges excluded people, and that this was why people enjoy low-complexity games, with low-complexity challenges that don't exclude people. Of course, you can't bring high-intelligence people to those challenge, because they'll trivialize them.

Is this really the hill you want to stand on?

EDIT:

Because most people running high magic games don't always explicitly say "Only high magic characters in this game". Yes, some do, but not all do. It's not a personal taste, nothing to do with what I want, it's just how things are if you look at things realistically. On the other hand, low magic games must, by their very definition, exclude high magic characters, else they cease being low magic games.

Oh, it's a labeling issue. Just like Fighter wasn't labeled "weak sauce", GMs don't think to panel their games "you must actually have told to enable your participation"?

I guess I kinda figured "you must know your colors, the concept of a path, and be able to count to two" was kinda implicit in Candyland. Which is to say, "I didn't know that I needed tools" is kinda an odd argument to make.

[Batcathat]

That's not staying focused on the discussion. That's allowing your point to get distracted by contingent circumstances. If your problem is with classes that can do everything, say that.

Saying "magic shouldn't do everything" is a 100 percent correct description of my opinion in this context, whether it is part of my larger issue with classes or not. It's how a vegetarian might argue in a discussion "we shouldn't eat pigs", which is just one aspect of the vegetarian's larger point of "we shouldn't treat animals badly".

By saying "magic shouldn't do everything" you create an awkward ambiguity. For example, I'm still not entirely sure if you'd be okay with a system where all the spells that currently exist still do (modulo game-breaking things), but are divided into smaller piles. That would seem to be "magic does everything" to pretty much the same degree as currently exists, but would obviously not have individual characters that could do everything.

Yes, that would at the very least be better for both flavor and balance, in my opinion (probably still not ideal, since D&D spells can do so, so much, but better). I suppose a better way of describing my opinions would be "one type of magic shouldn't do everything", just like I don't think a science-focused game should have a single science skill that can be used from everything from building cars to shooting nukes to curing cancer.

IMO, being able to participate is not "boring"; the inverse, OTOH, is.

I'm not saying characters shouldn't be able to participate in areas outside their expertise. The fighter should be able to join a stealthy mission, the rogue should be able to fight in a war. The key is that they shouldn't be superior in every context. With some preparation a D&D wizard can greatly contribute — often outright solve — pretty much any type of challenge, often easier than the supposed specialists in the area (out-stealth the rogue, out-fight the fighter, etc.).

[Segev]

He can do every mechanical effect. But that's the point. Because magic divorces themes from mechanics, the thematic limitations (or lack thereof) don't matter to mechanical power. If you give someone the powers "area blast", "summon minions", and "long distance travel", it doesn't matter if those are three Necromancy effects, two Necromancy effects and an Evocation effect, or one each of Evocation, Necromancy, and Conjuration. It's the same set of powers.

And "area blast" could be a strength-based hurling of high-kinetic spears or a volley of arrows shot at high speed or by the fist-full or a leap into the middle of the AoE and hammering the ground so hard with your three-point landing that you create a blast-wave.

"Summon minions" could literally be having an army, or a small squad of subordinates.

"Long-distance travel" could be a flash-step, or that same AoE leap done less destructively, or a really good mount.

[Quertus]

I'm not saying characters shouldn't be able to participate in areas outside their expertise. The fighter should be able to join a stealthy mission, the rogue should be able to fight in a war. The key is that they shouldn't be superior in every context. With some preparation a D&D wizard can greatly contribute — often outright solve — pretty much any type of challenge, often easier than the supposed specialists in the area (out-stealth the rogue, out-fight the fighter, etc.).

The problem here is, the wizard is defined by "finite resources". Should "infinite resources" ever be better than finite resources? Intuitively, everyone who ought to be involved in a conversation about balance should answer "no", that obviously wouldn't be balanced.

The issue, then, is that, by dent of their finite resources, Wizard gets to be (potentially) "best" at most everything, whereas infinite resources characters get to be "best of the infinites" at only narrow fields.

This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of high or low magic, merely with the distribution of answers in a particular system.

My proposed solution has long been to make Wizard's spells be "at will", to simplify the balancing equations, and then drag the other classes by their bootstraps, kicking and screaming, up to the level of "useful".

The solution of attempting to silo magic, or otherwise make it so Wizards cannot participate… still leaves us with characters who cannot participate, rather tautologically. Which was kinda the problem we set out to solve in the first place, was it not?

Lastly, the buffed Rogue will outperform the self-buffed Wizard. Any party that has a skilled Rogue, but relies on the buffed Wizard, is suboptimal.

[Batcathat]

The problem here is, the wizard is defined by "finite resources". Should "infinite resources" ever be better than finite resources? Intuitively, everyone who ought to be involved in a conversation about balance should answer "no", that obviously wouldn't be balanced.

The issue, then, is that, by dent of their finite resources, Wizard gets to be (potentially) "best" at most everything, whereas infinite resources characters get to be "best of the infinites" at only narrow fields.

Sure, infinite versus finite resources is one way of balancing classes but I think most people familiar with D&D would say it's not enough to balance its classes. More encounters per day can lessen the imbalance but hardly erase it.

My proposed solution has long been to make Wizard's spells be "at will", to simplify the balancing equations, and then drag the other classes by their bootstraps, kicking and screaming, up to the level of "useful".

Sounds good, I'm not a fan of Vancian magic anyway so it's another two-birds-one-stone suggestion. I'd still want to limit what magic can accomplish in addition to that, but that's personal preference.

The solution of attempting to silo magic, or otherwise make it so Wizards cannot participate… still leaves us with characters who cannot participate, rather tautologically. Which was kinda the problem we set out to solve in the first place, was it not?

Depends on whom you ask. As previously stated, I don't mind every character not being able to participate in every challenge (or at least, not being able to participate as much as other characters) as long as the "I can't help much with that" situations are fairly evenly distributed among the characters.

I also enjoy characters being out of their element on occasion. The fighter having to sneak around or the rogue having to win a fist fight can make for a more interesting experience than the reverse. (Of course, it shouldn't be overused so the players feel like they never have the right skills for the situation).

Lastly, the buffed Rogue will outperform the self-buffed Wizard. Any party that has a skilled Rogue, but relies on the buffed Wizard, is suboptimal.

So the wizard on their own isn't as good as the rogue with the help of a wizard? Still doesn't feel super balanced.

[vasilidor]

A part of the problem with DnD is it advertises itself as you being able to play Conan, While punishing players who want to play Conan. The game starts falling apart once you get passed level 12 or so and Martials got left behind around 6th.

[noob]

A part of the problem with DnD is it advertises itself as you being able to play Conan, While punishing players who want to play Conan. The game starts falling apart once you get passed level 12 or so and Martials got left behind around 6th.

Also for playing Conan you need to multiclass between the right classes and it is not as straightforward as people would expect.

[Gnaeus]

So it can't keep up at the high end? Pity. Would you play it if you knew that the game was going to start at level 15 or 17?

Agree that it would outperform at low levels..

In a game where creating a god or turning into a balrog is a legit legal option, and I don’t see how Ice Assassin and Shapechange and Gate don’t get you there, nothing that isn’t a god can compete without heavy DM fiat.

OTOH, I have little desire to play in a 9th/epic game, except maybe for the last few sessions of a long campaign right before we finish the BBEG. So I can’t say that’s much of a drawback for me. As far as I can tell that’s a play range that sees little play and what it does see is warped.

So your position is that in any case where your position isn't false, it's true? That's not exactly a daring claim. Frankly, within the parameters you've defined, even unmodified martials are close to reasonable. It's precisely the high-level, high-optimization environment that people care about in the context of these discussions. "The vast majority of games" happen at or below playtesting levels of optimization .

I just don’t think that’s true. When I hear discussions of high magic v. Low magic, I don’t assume that that takes character level into account much at all. I assume a low magic DM is talking about balance problems like magic item marts and the Druid’s bear outperforming the monk. If you regard a high magic game as the stuff that happens at the broken edge of RAW or at 17+, Im likely to conclude that your answer is correct, but about as relevant as if you proved that druids are the best in the game at running flower shows. Probably true. Never seen it come up or expect to in a game I want to be in.

Don't confuse "ending the fight" with "winning the fight". Yes, you need to deal damage. But if your enemies are locked down, you don't need a full character's worth of resources spent on dealing damage. Simply getting the biggest numbers isn't important. What matters is getting the most cost-effective numbers. You'd be better served by a Dread Necromancer, DMM Cleric, or Druid, all of whom get "good enough" numbers while also getting a full suite of spellcasting.

Sure. But a Beguiler gets as many skills as you do, and is also a full caster..

Beguiler is a full caster, but he is absolutely playing the same game as a gestalt Warblade//rogue and I’m not at all sure he is playing it better. The beguiler isn’t a master of rewriting game assumptions like “do saves matter” or “are you in the dungeon or are you actually on your demiplane astrally projecting”. When the DM says “Ok, the trap set off a heightened, maximized fireball. Make a Reflex Save vs DC 26 or take 84 damage.” The Warblade says “well, I could take that, especially with my improved evasion halving it, but since I don’t think we are in combat I will use a maneuver to auto succeed” and the beguiler says “smolder”. As the saying goes, it’s hard to RP when you’re dead. When words like “Shadow Miracle” start coming out of your mouth the WB//Rogue needs to retire. But until then I think he and the beguiler are likely to share spotlight pretty well. Beguiler is rarely if ever useless, but its best options are often party buffing, meaning a WB/Rogue to cast that greater invis or haste on is a godsend, or save or suck effects, which, curiously, Warblades can do pretty well also. Not as well vs multiple targets but better against SR or other anti magic defenses. All I can say is id feel comfortable as a WB//Rogue next to a beguiler. I think I’d save him more resources than I cost him.

The same is true with the DN or even the Druid. I play a lot of druids, and the only thing that IMO really gives an edge to a Druid over a rogue//WB is aberration wildshape into a dharculus or wisp. But even that doesn’t help the party, it just takes you out of potential for harm.

[Crake]

The challenge of the wet paper bag doesn't exclude anyone. I'm playing a decrepit grandmother, and she's fine. No, you can't play Hulk, or Captain America, or even Captain Hobo - this is a wet paper bag campaign, and their paper bags are too dry. Why can't you get that this doesn't exclude anyone who is appropriate for the campaign?

Please tell me that you're saying something that makes more sense than that. Because, if that's what you're saying, then you're saying that the problem is that characters have abilities that allow them to overcome challenges.

Inversely, that the problem is that low-magic characters are allowed in high-magic campaigns, where they cannot participate in high-magic challenges. That the problem is that 3e printed classes other than Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Archivist - characters who can actually participate.

-----

To say that again… I played with two people for whom the rules of Candyland were beyond their comprehension. For them, the problem was that "high-complexity" challenges excluded people, and that this was why people enjoy low-complexity games, with low-complexity challenges that don't exclude people. Of course, you can't bring high-intelligence people to those challenge, because they'll trivialize them.

Is this really the hill you want to stand on?

EDIT:

Oh, it's a labeling issue. Just like Fighter wasn't labeled "weak sauce", GMs don't think to panel their games "you must actually have told to enable your participation"?

I guess I kinda figured "you must know your colors, the concept of a path, and be able to count to two" was kinda implicit in Candyland. Which is to say, "I didn't know that I needed tools" is kinda an odd argument to make.

You talk like every game exists in a perfect world where all the characters are equally capable and the GM is perfect in setting expectations and everyone always has fun with everything.

Life isn't perfect. Games aren't perfect. Disparities exist. People get left out. Other factors notwithstanding, people get left out less in low magic games than they do in high magic games. People who get left out of games don't find the challenges in said games meaningful. Ergo people tend to find challenges more meaningful in low magic games. Try to avoid false equivalencies and ad absurdum fallacies thank you.