5e highlights reel?

[radthemad4]

I think I've heard the terms 'high magic' and 'low magic' used to refer to the prevalence and/or highest level of magic in an rpg/setting/campaign. Sticking to that might be easier when talking about rpgs specifically.

The big distinction between low magic and high magic is how common magic is, rather than how powerful it is. So in a high magic setting, you can expect peasants to have some magic in their homes and to be able to buy magical equipment in marketplaces and stuff. In a low magic setting, the peasants have no magic and you can't buy a magic sword. But a high magic setting could have magic items and spells that are comparable to or even weaker than mundane skills just as a low magic setting might have a few casters who can individually overthrow the world.

Indeed, the very most relatively powerful magic people are in low magic settings, because those are the guys who cannot be defeated by other people in their setting. Koschei, for example, has the magical power that he cannot be killed except through specific magical means. Since he lives in a low magic setting, that pretty much means he automagically wins against everything. If he lived in a high magic setting, his magical resilience would entitle him to be CR3.

-Username17

That clarifies the terms, thanks.

[brized]

It would seem "low magic" settings must focus on stories about how magic users leverage their special status to oppress others. If they instead used their magic for the benefit of society the setting would inevitably transform into a "high magic" one, given enough time. See Water Treatment Spells, The Great Leap Forward in FantasyLand, etc.

[Kaelik]

It would seem "low magic" settings must focus on stories about how magic users leverage their special status to oppress others. If they instead used their magic for the benefit of society the setting would inevitably transform into a "high magic" one, given enough time. See Water Treatment Spells, The Great Leap Forward in FantasyLand, etc.

Unless magic was in some way not fungible.

A small amount of magical dragons cannot viably purify water. No amount of specifically inherent localized immortality is going to help the peasants. That doesn't mean that people are oppressors just because of that.

And honestly, like, can you blame a guy if magic only lets him do stuff, and he can't make items or long lasting spells, but he personally is also the most intelligent and capable leader in the world. Maybe choosing to spend his time ruling the world is a more benevolent use of his power than casting water purifying spells every day. Just like we don't call Winston Churchhill a tyrant for not laying bricks in the blasted walls, and instead leading a country.

[brized]

While the first count is technically true, it is only a practical argument for literature or TTRPG settings where magic is not in some way fungible. Do we typically deal with such settings here? Do you play or read any such settings? When people run a "low magic" campaign in a setting where magic is fungible by default, do they typically take all the pains to change the setting to where magic is non-fungible?

On the second count...I'm not sure how the Winston Churchill example even applies here. I must be missing something.

[Kaelik]

While the first count is technically true, it is only a practical argument for literature or TTRPG settings where magic is not in some way fungible.

Do we typically deal with such settings here? Do you play or read any such settings?

A lot of literature settings, in fact, probably the majority of them, feature non fungible magic. So yeah. If you are talking about fantasy literature, that is extremely fucking relevant.

On the second count...I'm not sure how the Winston Churchill example even applies here. I must be missing something.

Winston Churchill was by all respects and excellent bricklayer. He was probably above average. But even if we assumed he was in fact the best bricklayer in the world, it does not follow that the best thing he could do for the world is lay bricks. It is probably the case that leading England through World War II was a better use of his time in the long run than laying really good bricks.

Likewise, if some kind of magician could theoretically purify 1000 gallons of water a day, it might still be the case that he is better off not doing that, and instead ruling a country and using all his magic to attack Demon Hitler.

Because purifying 1000 gallons of water a day is actually going to save fewer lives than using magic to attack Demon Hitler. In a large part because other people can purify water, but no one else can fight Demon Hitler.