I never claimed it would be easy. In fact this long, long thread should probably prove by its length, that creating an effective low magic game isn't easy at all. As far as your "going over the classes" it really depends on what the magic limitation is, to effectively choose or adjust a caster class to fit. I'd more than likely create a limited half-caster for divine and one for arcane with defined limitations on spell access, thus casters would be entirely new classes and wouldn't infringe upon existing casters, and being half-casters means that the other half of the class would give them more survivability in a low magic game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it actually enjoyable to anyone to not get to play during portions of the game? Because that is what your asking. It often makes for a tense and interesting sorry. But it makes for a crummy game when you tell someone to sit there and do nothing while other people have fun, because if you had fun it will ruin everything for everyone and you'll have to be punished for it.Sure. That's part of the enjoyment of playing a magicuser in a limited magic setting.
It's obviously wrong to impose limits without warning players beforehand, but if everyone knows about them (including the uncertain nature) what's the problem? If you don't like that uncertainty or lack of definition, you know not to play a magical character or not to play at all.
Yeah - dont say that. Say "If you play a wizard, here are the limitations. If you dont want those limitations, dont play a wizard. If you dont want to play in a game where wizards are limited, dont play in this game".
It's not adversarial. I like these games. That doesnt mean I think everyone should be limited. I'm not arguing for a change to the base assumptions of Pathfinder or suggesting any kind of overhaul. This thread is about tweaking Pathfinder to be low-magic based on the assumption you want to play a low magic game. Ruling out narrative restrictions on aesthetic grounds is one thing - a lot of people won't like it. But that doesnt make it always wrong.
As I have mentioned before, most of the time, games that have these sorts of limitations shouldn't have classes like the wizard where the overwhelming majority of the thing they do is arbitrarily limited by narrative means. That isn't fun, thats obnoxious. In a story, a character sitting there and doing nothing because its someone else's turn, is just fine, the specialist gets to shine. In an rpg thats an actual person, spending hours of his actual life, watching other people have fun.
I've played magicusers in these kinds of games - another that I remember was that certain kind of magicusers really struggled to learn new spells (they were all terribly rare). I knew that when I made my character and enjoyed the game (even though I had severely limited spell choices).
It might not be a game you're interested in, but how can that possibly be obnoxious if it's all up front and clear from the beginning?
Indeed, IH has been mentioned a few times in the other threads I've linked in the OP. But is IH to be considered PF? If one wants to stay in Pathfinder, what inspirations can be drawn from Iron Heroes, in terms of Spells, Gear and Creatures?If I remember correcty, Monte Cooks' "Iron Heroes" might be a good resource for GM's looking to game this way.
Acana Evolved might be more of a "slightly less magic" rather than a "low magic" approach. Spells are considerably weaker than Pathfinder standard but have an interesting gradiated approach.
Full Bab Sneak attack is NOT overpowered in Iron Heroes: Executioner.
That is the inspiration I learned.
Porting the class fixes the Rogues problems. Give the Executioner Trapfinding/rogue talents if want trapspotter and other tricks.
It might not be a game you're interested in, but how can that possibly be obnoxious if it's all up front and clear from the beginning?
First, you cant really be up front about how narrative elements will play out. Baring alot of first hand knowledge ahead of time about the setting and how things go, if you present a player saying narrative element x will limit your use of ability why, what that actually MEANS in game play wont be apparent until it happens.
Second, knowingly being excluded doesnt make it any less wrong. If we go back to my video game example, even if I tell you up front, the guy playing the snes gets to play all day and the guy playing the xbox one only gets to play 10 minutes on the hour, it doesnt alter the level of jerkiness aside form the fact that no one is surprised.
And really here im talking less about things like spell availability (assuming at least SOME spells are available) and more about things like magic being shunned, or mages being hunted/enslaved, or your mind is corrupted if you cast spells, stuff like that. Restraints on power are what they are, you can then choose if you want to deal with it or not. Restraints on getting to participate for fear of outside backlash, is a jerk move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've managed to be clear enough up front about what the limitations are going to be. I've played in games where wizards didn't get any choice as to spells they got in their spell books, where magic use was illegal where the more you used magic the more risky it became.
I like playing in those games. Telling me it's wrong to do so with other people who like playing in those games just seems weird to me. I don't really have any way to argue with "there is a right way to play and a wrong way".
In my view, there's lots of ways to play. "Jerkish" is about how you treat people, not about what you like. I have no doubt that if we played a game with narrative restrictions on magic and a spellcasting player was unhappy with how it was playing out, they'd be allowed to change their PC, we'd tweak the rules or we'd abandon the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might not be a game you're interested in, but how can that possibly be obnoxious if it's all up front and clear from the beginning?
First, you cant really be up front about how narrative elements will play out. Baring alot of first hand knowledge ahead of time about the setting and how things go, if you present a player saying narrative element x will limit your use of ability why, what that actually MEANS in game play wont be apparent until it happens.
Second, knowingly being excluded doesnt make it any less wrong. If we go back to my video game example, even if I tell you up front, the guy playing the snes gets to play all day and the guy playing the xbox one only gets to play 10 minutes on the hour, it doesnt alter the level of jerkiness aside form the fact that no one is surprised.
And really here im talking less about things like spell availability (assuming at least SOME spells are available) and more about things like magic being shunned, or mages being hunted/enslaved, or your mind is corrupted if you cast spells, stuff like that. Restraints on power are what they are, you can then choose if you want to deal with it or not. Restraints on getting to participate for fear of outside backlash, is a jerk move.
I'm not sure I understand. A fair number of DMs have mentioned using those plot devices like magic is shunned, or comes with a price. I don't see this as de facto jerkiness (nice to put those two side by side!), but first as a way to convey the flavour of a setting, while allowing certain classes, with limitations.
Another example would be how clerics were handled in some of the previous editions, where spells granted were more closely tied to behaviour vs deity's ambitions.
From what I've read, I understand it as emphasizing the gaming aspects, or emphasizing the storytelling aspects of the game. The game has both aspects, but everyone will favour one over the other. Of course, if you prefer the gaming aspects, you'll frown over such things as limiting casters, for what they remove from your game, but if you favour storytelling aspects, you might actually like those limitations, for what they add to your game.
Nothing wrong with each, but they'll attract different players and DMs, that's all.
Restraints on power are what they are, you can then choose if you want to deal with it or not. Restraints on getting to participate for fear of outside backlash, is a jerk move.
Its a "jerk move" if the GM doesn't tell the players before a game begins and before they draw up their characters. If, however, the players fully understand all restrictions or retraints up front, choose their character classes based on them, then everyone should be expectant of what kind of challenge that will mean. If a player responds negatively to the circumstances - the "jerk move" is on them.
If casting spells causes CON damage (for example), a player may opt not to play a caster to avoid such, yet they may still choose to be a caster and just be careful on spell use. Nothing "jerkish" about that.
I've seen several examples of low magic magic campaigns, even a few outside my own table, and none of them were sprung on the players as a surprise after the game starts. In all such games, the conditions of magic were made up front, and nobody was surprised. I haven't seen any games where the players weren't aware of the conditions before the start of the game.
I'd agree it would be a "jerk move" if a GM surprised his table after the game began, but I've never seen an example of that ever happening.