| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been at the tabletop thing long enough to recognize code-words like "realism". Rarely, it means verisimilitude, which means your probably in store for a pretty enjoyable, engrossing game. More often than not, though, it means "get ready for the GM to waste your time".
Your post had the word "realistic" in it, so I was responding only to your post regarding that. I agree, that verisimilitude is the goal, not realism. I didn't bring up "realistic", you did.
Your definition if "low magic" is pretty high on magic, I must say. Mostly when I think of low magic I think of worlds like Conan, Thieves World, or Iron Heroes. Those are pretty good world/systems and worth playing. Your definition of "low magic" seems to mean "past level 10, you're cut off at the knees" and sounds boring.
And your definition of low magic is pretty low. To me a low magic PF setting would include up to 3rd level spells (something like E6, which I consider a low magic game). High magic to me, is about one shot kills by spell, bringing the dead back to life, and other things that high level spells have in result. I would go as far as saying a low magic game would stop at 9th level. So "cutting off the knees" issues wouldn't even exist. Higher levels would almost require a much higher level of magic to apply.
I consider playing a low magic game a diversion from the games I normally play, and would unlikely purchase an existing game like Conan or Iron Heroes to do so. I'm not that interested in a low magic game enough to want to spend money on it. I'd only play one for a short campaign and rely on my own rules only. I've done it, and it was fun for my players or so they told me. It definitely isn't for everyone.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would pay Paizo money for a low magic Pathfinder setting, or even just a set of guidelines and variant rules to that effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say Low-magic allows for a certain type of immersion. DMs and players are able to feel immersed in their standard high magic fantasy Pathfinder games. Some themes are more difficult to convey in high-magic; therefore low-magic has its place.Yeah, I should correct that, low-magic helps makes the game feel more immersive in the types of setting that many GMs run.
Now if you're running a setting where cities are floating on in the sky on rocks, lords get resurrected every time an assassin tries to make an attempt on their lives, and wizards run taxi services, then low-magic makes no sense (or you're playing in a sci-fi setting ;p).
Granted, it wouldn't fit into D&D/Pathfinder well, but Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos fantasy series has a lot of that... in the first book. It's got three obviously different kinds of magic and psychics.
One could argue that there are sci-fi elements in other places in the series, but it is undoubtedly a fantasy setting. Then again, it's so high magic it is not even funny... but it is definitely cool. Just saying...
Even so, I think that if I ever want to run something in the vein of LotRs or Conan with Pathfinder, I think I'd just make it E8 and call it a day. No, it is not perfect, but cut a few spells and leave the powerful, in game (plot) effects to NPC monsters (caster liches) and you might be set. Then again... I'm kind of lazy that way.
If your kind of fun is finding unexpected problems through insufficiently thought out and poorly play-tested rules changes, then use 3.PF for a low magic campaign 'cause you'll have loads of fun.
Except that there's nothing unexpected about the problems, since dozens of people across dozens of threads like this have already pointed out where the problems are likely to be.
At some level, low magic 3.PF is like buying one of those miracle carburetor that runs on water and lets your car get a million miles per gallon, or an Internet-advertised "cure Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about."
No one is surprised that it doesn't work except for the poor fool who decided to try it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when it does, nobody believes it, or the players are accused of not playing One True Pathfinder. And the world continues turning....
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, people sure are upset and defensive about how other people want to play the game. Why all the sarcasm, ridicule, and hostility?
I've personally played in and run several low-magic campaigns and they've always worked out just fine. Fun was had by all at the table. To each their own, all right?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, people sure are upset and defensive about how other people want to play the game. Why all the sarcasm, ridicule, and hostility?
I've personally played in and run several low-magic campaigns and they've always worked out just fine. Fun was had by all at the table. To each their own, all right?
No, your fun is badwrongfun, and the only thing that awaits you down that path is wailing and gnashing of teeth. The only way to have fun is to follow the Core Book path to The One True Game. Stray but a little and you shall be damned to misery for all time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fully admit that many variant games I play based on Pathfinder are not TRUE Pathfinder, but as mentioned several times now - who cares? What does it matter that my games might not be fully Pathfinder in every game? As said, I love the PF toolset for creating fun games for my friends. With the amount of options available many variant games can be created out of the same toolbox, even if not all the tools are used, and some are added ad-hoc. Neither myself, nor my players are keeping score at how closely our game cleaves to the Pathfinder - most of my games aren't designed for publication, nor intended to be shared with others, they are just for my table. And to be honest, those few low magic games we ran, the rules we determined to be useful in a low magic game required some changes as we leveled up and the power levels increased - tweaked as we go. What worked from 1st - 3rd level required some tweaking the higher we went. There were no single set of variant rules that worked for every level. I played it by ear, and adjusted as we went along.
Undoubtable some have tried to work with one set of rule variants for low magic and failed. That doesn't mean that everyone's attempt would fail. You just need perservence and common sense to make most anything work.
I fully admit that many variant games I play based on Pathfinder are not TRUE Pathfinder, but as mentioned several times now - who cares? What does it matter that my games might not be fully Pathfinder in every game? As said, I love the PF toolset for creating fun games for my friends. With the amount of options available many variant games can be created out of the same toolbox, even if not all the tools are used, and some are added ad-hoc. Neither myself, nor my players are keeping score at how closely our game cleaves to the Pathfinder - most of my games aren't designed for publication, nor intended to be shared with others, they are just for my table. And to be honest, those few low magic games we ran, the rules we determined to be useful in a low magic game required some changes as we leveled up and the power levels increased - tweaked as we go. What worked from 1st - 3rd level required some tweaking the higher we went. There were no single set of variant rules that worked for every level. I played it by ear, and adjusted as we went along.
Undoubtable some have tried to work with one set of rule variants for low magic and failed. That doesn't mean that everyone's attempt would fail. You just need perservence and common sense to make most anything work.
No one (that matters) cares about whether or not someone is playing CRB RAW only Pathfinder. What most people (who do matter) care about is when they are talking about Pathfinder, say on a messageboard, and are having a conversation about how weak the Rogue is. Then someone interjects that "No, Rogues are totally fine in Pathfinder." Only to be asked "OK, how then?" and find out that that person isn't playing Pathfinder. Their comments don't contribute to the discussion at all and detract from that topic. *THAT'S* when it matters whether or not you are playing Pathfinder. Of course, if such people would disclose "In my Pathfinder games, we let falling Rogues apply sneak attack to their fall damage and we ban X, Y and Z class, and we don't allow Pageant of the Peacock, and Rogues have a list of new Rogue Talents therefore Rogue isn't weak." Because then we *know* that they aren't talking about Pathfinder and explain as such to them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or .. we could say that everyone's definition is different and yours/theirs/ours isn't the only one. Whether you believe that someone's definition of how they play, what rules they use or do not use are the "right" ones, and so on are insignificant.
Or in shorter terms, who decides who matters? Who here has been ordained the Lord Almighty of Pathfinder to make that determination?
No, everyone's definition is not different. When I talk about Pathfinder I'm talking about RAW Pathfinder. Always. Unless I disclose otherwise.
I don't know about you, but I don't think the opinions of people who care about whether someone is playing Pathfinder "correctly" matter, but maybe you can tell me why they do knightnday. I'm genuinely curious what value they could have.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have as much or as little value as anyone else's opinions. Attempting to dismiss opinions you dislike because they don't hit the bar on "playing the game right" is trying to control the conversation.
I could say "people who try to shove their opinion of what is the right way to play shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the discussion", but that isn't my decision. This isn't my message board and it isn't my conversation to control.
Their opinions and ways of playing are valid. While you may be talking about strictly by the book RAW Pathfinder with no deviation, that doesn't seem to be the common definition.
Whether you think or care about others opinions isn't significant. It's a public message board holding a public conversation. It isn't yours to control.
While the whole "That's not Pathfinder!" issue is a thorny one, I do think it's fair to say that most discussion of Pathfinder assumes something reasonably close to RAW. If you wanna jump into a Rogue thread (or any other balance one) and insist that the Rogue is fine whenever you play it, the fact your game features a rogue with 4-level casting, Full BAB, d10 HD, and massively buffed Rogue Talents is rather relevant.
While that may be true for the rules forum and certain specific threads in other forums, there's no reason to assume it as standard in _all_ threads. Like, for example, this thread, which to a large degree has turned from "Why low magic?" to "WHY YOU SHOULD NOT PLAY LOW MAGIC!!!!!!11one".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one (that matters) cares about whether or not someone is playing CRB RAW only Pathfinder. What most people (who do matter) care about is when they are talking about Pathfinder, say on a messageboard, and are having a conversation about how weak the Rogue is. Then someone interjects that "No, Rogues are totally fine in Pathfinder." Only to be asked "OK, how then?" and find out that that person isn't playing Pathfinder. Their comments don't contribute to the discussion at all and detract from that topic. *THAT'S* when it matters whether or not you are playing Pathfinder. Of course, if such people would disclose "In my Pathfinder games, we let falling Rogues apply sneak attack to their fall damage and we ban X, Y and Z...
Show me anywhere in Pathfinder RAW that has to do with "low magic" and I might agree with you (which you won't find.) So obviously in a discussion about alternative ways to run a Pathfinder game (which is what running a low magic Pathfinder game implies), Pathfinder RAW is not even a part of that discussion, so why bring that up? Obviously, you must be one of those who don't matter, at least in this discussion. This is not a rules question, its about style of play, so issues of Pathfinder RAW doesn't belong here.
I believe this thread belongs on the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew board and not in the Discussion board anyway.
When I run a standard Pathfinder game, I don't even have any house rules, RAW is the only way I play a normal game. In games that include 3PP material, then I rely on Pathfinder RAW and the specific 3PP RAW as well.
No one (that matters) cares about whether or not someone is playing CRB RAW only Pathfinder. What most people (who do matter) care about is when they are talking about Pathfinder, say on a messageboard, and are having a conversation about how weak the Rogue is. Then someone interjects that "No, Rogues are totally fine in Pathfinder." Only to be asked "OK, how then?" and find out that that person isn't playing Pathfinder. Their comments don't contribute to the discussion at all and detract from that topic. *THAT'S* when it matters whether or not you are playing Pathfinder. Of course, if such people would disclose "In my Pathfinder games, we let falling Rogues apply sneak attack to their fall damage and we ban X, Y and Z...Show me anywhere in Pathfinder RAW that has to do with "low magic" and I might agree with you (which you won't find.) So obviously in a discussion about alternative ways to run a Pathfinder game (which is what running a low magic Pathfinder game implies), Pathfinder RAW is not even a part of that discussion, so why bring that up? Obviously, you must be one of those who don't matter, at least in this discussion. This is not a rules question, its about style of play, so issues of Pathfinder RAW doesn't belong here.
I believe this thread belongs on the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew board and not in the Discussion board anyway.
When I run a standard Pathfinder game, I don't even have any house rules, RAW is the only way I play a normal game. In games that include 3PP material, then I rely on Pathfinder RAW and the specific 3PP RAW as well.
Well RAW, Pathfinder is inherently High Magic. Because it contains not one but FOUR full casters in the CRB. It also contains magic item crafting feats that create magic items with permanent effects. It also contains spells like Teleport, Raise Dead, Plane Shift, Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Time Stop, Miracle, and Wish. Again that's just the CRB, so we aren't even touching on Create Greater Demiplane. That sounds pretty High Magic to me.
My actual point though was agreeing with you that no one should care how people play. People only care when someone brings their houserules into a discussion about Pathfinder. And in Pathfinder the Rogue is weak, no matter what their houserules might say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, then pardon my misreading of your post. I think that in many probable low magic games, rogues would be less weak (though even then, they would still be weak).
Say what you will about the rogue, but that's the first time I've heard them accused of actually being bad at stealth. : / Never had a problem with that before.
Say what you will about the rogue, but that's the first time I've heard them accused of actually being bad at stealth. : / Never had a problem with that before.
Bad at stealth is probably overstating it, but I could see there being argument for quite a few classes doing stealth better than the rogue. The rogue doesn't have much in the way of stealth bonuses beyond just getting it as a class skill, while having spells definitely increases your options for sneaking around. Not to mention that the rogue isn't the best solo combatant, if something goes wrong and he needs to fight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread isn't about how to do low magic, just why people would want to. Or at least that's what it was at the start. Now it's something else.
I think the "why" is obvious. Lots of inspiration for our games come from books and movies. Most examples are a lot lower in magic than a typical Pathfinder game. If we want to emulate the fantasies of media, Pathfinder is just too high of magic to even be close.
I don't get the animosity either. And you're right because of all the "nasty" that's being thrown around, most of us trying to answer the OP question spends more time defending our point of view and getting away from the original point. I find it very sad that intelligent discussion cannot be achieved.
I'm sure some people have had bad experiences in other GM's failed attempts at running a low magic game - that shouldn't mean everyone would share the same experience.
Okay it looks like a few problems are popping up because people don't remember what this thread was actually about...
This thread was asking why people use Pathfinder for low-magic games. It is a legitimate question that has every right to be here (Most games have at least one house rule, even PFS has its own houserules).
For the discussion about what is or isn't Pathfinder see What Does I am Running a Pathfinder Game Mean?
For Low Magic Houserules or E6/E8 or really any modification to the original rules, please make a new thread in the Houserules / Homebrew
And if you know better RPGs for our low magic need, make a thread in Other RPGs and maybe toss us a link and let us know.
Say what you will about the rogue, but that's the first time I've heard them accused of actually being bad at stealth. : / Never had a problem with that before.
It depends on whether or not you use SKR taking 10 rules.
If the guards are taking 10 on perception and you can take 10 on stealth, then sure a rogue can stealth pretty well. If not, they will probably fail.
Say what you will about the rogue, but that's the first time I've heard them accused of actually being bad at stealth. : / Never had a problem with that before.It depends on whether or not you use SKR taking 10 rules.
If the guards are taking 10 on perception and you can take 10 on stealth, then sure a rogue can stealth pretty well. If not, they will probably fail.
It's possible to get really really good at stealth even without that, using Hellcat Stealth and various other stuff. I don't think any of it actually requires rogue levels though.
So I think rogues can be really good at stealth, but not as good as a bard or ranger :P
Okay it looks like a few problems are popping up because people don't remember what this thread was actually about...
This thread was asking why people use Pathfinder for low-magic games. It is a legitimate question that has every right to be here (Most games have at least one house rule, even PFS has its own houserules).
I think the OP is both why do you want to play in a low magic setting at all, and why do so using Pathfinder - so I don't think I've departed from the OP questions. Let's look at the OP question(s) again.
Basically if you are a person that desires low magic campaign, why do you want this? Especially in a magic-heavy system like Pathfinder?
To clarify I'm not saying "If you like low magic so much get your butt in a different system." I'm trying to understand why there are a lot of attempts at low magic. Is it an innate storytelling desire? Is magic just complicated and overpowered? Are you trying to mimic a book or movie's setting and heavy magic disrupts it? Are you tired of all caster parties?
The first sentence (quoted above), in fact, is asking why do want to play a low magic game (at all), as well as the entire paragraph that follows. Even though the second sentence is an incomplete sentence, because its its own partial sentence - those are two separate questions here. (I see two separate question marks.)
My most recent post above stating that the "Why" is obvious..." answers the first question.
Then most of my other posts answers the second question - "why try to do so with Pathfinder", and that is because like D&D 3x, Pathfinder is a wonderful toolbox that can be worked towards any goal. Afterall, the entire d20 revolution of variant games stems from the 3x ruleset. As a live game, Pathfinder becomes the base that alternates can be created from. 3x is not a live (still published) game anymore, so why not use Pathfinder instead of 3x to achieve your chosen variant?
Keeping Pathfinder pure and as is, you have your very high magic game. Modifying that ruleset by removing some of it and/or replacing parts of it with alternate "magic weaker" (or other) rules allows a different take towards many possible goals.
So I disagree that we've departed from the OP question, since 2 different points are being asked, then answered here. If you, Ragnarok Aeon, want to isolate the discussion to the second question only, perhaps you should start a separate thread discussing that, or perhaps Malwing should have specified that as the only question (but he didn't, he asked both questions).
why play low magic?
for starters one needs to define "low magic"
I think a discussion on low magic is too general to successfully define, since many of us have different perceptions what comprises a low magic game.
I think "Why play low magic" is a worthwhile question to ask without getting into specifics into an agreed upon definition at what that means. And I don't think one definition of low magic even exists.
Some possible definitions:
weak magic: magic exists, but cannot do anything really spectacular or requiring a lot of power. Hard to find a positive example, but you certainly couldn't do the examples below.
strong magic: magic exists and can do really spectacular powerful stuff. Example: bringing down a meteor on a specific target (Earthfall). Another example: flying cities.
low magic: magic exists, but is very rare and probably difficult to do. (see Authentic Thaumaturgy or HârnMaster)
high magic: magic exists, and is ubiquitous and fairly easy (for magic users, at least) to do.
I think using these definitions that standard Golarion is high strong magic. Whether a setting can be crafted using the Pathfinder rules which is low or weak magic, or both, is I think debatable. My understanding of the question in the OP is basically "why would you want to craft such a setting?"
My definition of playing a low-magic Pathfinder game:
Notably lower magic than Pathfinder's default.
Exactly how much differs from game to game.
I don't see any meaningful definition other than that-
Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive...
For some. I have had no problems at all totally immersing myself in High magic games for forty years.
Shroudb, I think you misunderstood me. I do like to play various forms of low magic, and in discussions about specific games or worlds, the distinction between various kinds of low magic are extremely important.
But in a general discussion that aims to include all kinds of low magic, such as answering the question "Why low magic?", the only meaningful definition I can come up with is "notably less magic than in default pathfinder".
That seems like it should include all games that people might have that they consider low magic.
If your kind of fun is finding unexpected problems through insufficiently thought out and poorly play-tested rules changes, then use 3.PF for a low magic campaign 'cause you'll have loads of fun.Except that there's nothing unexpected about the problems, since dozens of people across dozens of threads like this have already pointed out where the problems are likely to be.
At some level, low magic 3.PF is like buying one of those miracle carburetor that runs on water and lets your car get a million miles per gallon, or an Internet-advertised "cure Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about."
No one is surprised that it doesn't work except for the poor fool who decided to try it.
Well, let us be fair. LowER Magic, say where you limit magic is some lesser way is certainly do-able.
In our games, more or less it's hard to buy things at Ye Olde Magic Shoppe . Potions, scrolls, sure. +1 times, not a big issue. But there's plenty of loot drops, and the DMs skew it towards armor and weapons a little. If you are a scimitar specialist, a magic scimitar will be dropped. Mind you, NOT specializing is maybe better.
A few spells have been nerfed.
we have 20 pt buy but no points from dumping.
So tweaks within the realm of normal houserules can certainly work.
But PF/Iron Heroes or E6 level games do have issues. (Well, yes E6 works just fine until the PC's are level 8 or so).
Not saying they cant be fun, even with those issues. But, maybe rather than buck those issues, play Iron Heroes?
Low Magic can be defined many ways. But the best way would simply be by spell level, 0-9, and character level, 1-20.
As soon as you take away spell levels and character levels, you are immediately putting a ceiling into play lower then the default game.
Your choice now is where the ceiling is.
E6 seems about the lowest character level that is viable and usable long term in a setting, and pretty much covers 'low magic'.
Level 3 spells are about the top of what you can use and even claim to be low magic. You've got the major cures, excellent healing, fly, fireball, remove curse, decent illusions, okay summons and some minor shapeshifting all covered. These can all be used as dominating factors, but the restriction now is how often and how many times a day, which will be limited if character level is low. Probably the biggest thing you don't have is ranged dimensional movement, as Blink is short range and Dimension Door is next level.
Magic will still be fantastic, and weapons and armor up to +2 exist, but won't be 'mighty'. Since you don't have room to meta up damage spells or their saves, magic is much less potentially lethal then in PF.
Level 2 spells let you levitate, still have illusions and some summons, healing HP is harder and lesser Restore takes care of stats. Scorching Ray is now the high damage spell, and there's almost no AoE's. Greater Magic Weapon/Vestment doesn't exist, so no items above +1. Barkskin is very strong.
Magic will be versatile and useful, but not very strong at all.
Restricting to level 1 spells means Shocking Grasp, Burning Hands and Magic mIssile are now your main damage spells. Shield and Mage armor become quite powerful. You can't stay off the ground or even walk on water anymore, although you can fall off cliffs and float to the ground. You can still cure light wounds, but other injuries are beyond you. You can't even slow poison down. No Continual Flame means illumination is back to torches and lanterns.
magic will be occasionally useful, but neither powerful nor dominating except in special circumstances.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But PF/Iron Heroes or E6 level games do have issues. (Well, yes E6 works just fine until the PC's are level 8 or so).
Admittedly I've never played E6 - but isn't the whole point that the PCs never go past level 6, and then only gain additional feats instead of leveling? Therefore - if it works fine until the PCs are level 8 or so, isn't that basically saying that it works fine forever?
(Again - I've never played E6, though the idea of it intrigues me considering I consider 3-8 to be the sweet spot anyway.)
But PF/Iron Heroes or E6 level games do have issues. (Well, yes E6 works just fine until the PC's are level 8 or so).Admittedly I've never played E6 - but isn't the whole point that the PCs never go past level 6, and then only gain additional feats instead of leveling? Therefore - if it works fine until the PCs are level 8 or so, isn't that basically saying that it works fine forever?
(Again - I've never played E6, though the idea of it intrigues me considering I consider 3-8 to be the sweet spot anyway.)
Sorta. You get feats and some other things (it depends on the system) after that, but not what would be considered a full "level". I like levels 3-8 myself, and yes a lot of games are played there.
So, you can say you have a Level 16 E6 character, but it doesnt mean the same.
Let me put it this way. you are playing and having fun leveling up, looking forward to what you gain next. Then the DM sez no more levels, I will toss you a bonus feat once in a while. How long would you want to play at level '6"?
We had a game where we had fast leveling until 3, then normal until 5, then slow until 7, and then even slower. The playing got a little boring after we had been level 7 for several months.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it this way. you are playing and having fun leveling up, looking forward to what you gain next. Then the DM sez no more levels, I will toss you a bonus feat once in a while. How long would you want to play at level '6"?
I've gotcha.
Frankly - if I was gonna play E6, for one thing I'd definitely warn the players going in.
For another - once they hit 6, I wouldn't continue having the group do standard adventuring stuff. They are among the greatest warriors in the known world! (unlike a normal campaign where there's always someone better)
I'd have them begin forming a power-base. The monk might start his own order. The wizard his own academy. Etc. Perhaps the group even begins to carve out their own kingdom, forming their capital upon the ruins of an ancient city which they've cleaned out of monsters.
Plus - I do love me some feat chains.
As for casters - it seems like in E6 those feats which only increase the caster level for a single spell in your repitoire would suddenly become pretty handy.
A campaign I ran basically the campaign as there were no magic items available in a Thorpe or Hamlet that wasnt someone's heirloom. They had places to buy basic equipment and a blacksmith who could repair or make items, but nothing crazy. But I also di it that if you had an odd weapon, the blacksmith, with help from descriptions from a player, could make a new one/repair one, it would just take a little time.
Funny-off topic story (sorry): the group was sent to an out-of-the-way thorpe to actually deliver an heirloom back to the rigthful family (good aligned party with a Paladin). They get there, and the Wizard of the group hears of a powerful Wizard living in town, and wants to trade spells with him (the party was lvl 3). So they plan to stay for the night so that the Wizards can trade spells the next day. They hear stories of a band of evil creatures that the Wizard has been protecting them from, but they don't get a valid description of the beasties. So, that night the beasties attack, and turns out they're goblins painted in all different colors and wearing bones and whatnot, and the "powerful Wizard" that the Thorpe has been revering is actually a Lvl 1 Sorcerer that's just been scaring the creatures off with color spray, burning hands, and magic missiles. So the group easily wipes out the goblins, and the Thorpe thinks that the party is a group of superheroes, and suddenly the Sorcerer has lost his "fame" and takes off. The look on the PC's faces was hilarious once it all played out.
I think the two most important things to define, in terms of magic in a game setting, is the proliferation of magic items and the status of magic-users.
you also need to define the power level of magic users and what they can get away with as well, in fact, those 2 things are more important than social status or worrying about the profileration of magic items
generally there are things you don't include in a low magic game
1. low grade big 6 magic items, anything below +3 and anything that isn't compounded. big 6 items are always compounded in groups with something else added and are always intended to scale over time
2. plot breaking and module disrupting spells that ruin the theme you are going for, such as fly or teleport in most cases, or potentially create water or purify food in a survival campaign
3. markets that sell more than a handful of magic items a month with the exception of maybe a potion, scroll or wand
4. high powered magical traps
5. high powered magical monsters and magical creatures, while a planetouched could work, a full on demon equal to or better than a vrock will wreck things