Week 1
[note=Got an Topic Idea?]Send me a PM. Remember, we are discussing any topic relating to world design (but not system design), so fire away.[/note]
[ic=Philosophy Archive]
Week 1 - The Cost of Magic (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?70759)
Week 2 - Villains (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?71232)
Week 3 - Genre Conventions (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?71697)
Week 4 - Design Method (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?72101)
Week 5 - Characters (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?72445)
Week 6 - Theme (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?72962)
Week 7 - PCs in the World (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?73123)
Week 8 - Politics (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?73352)
Week 9 - Government (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?73505.last)
Week 10 - Alignment (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?73709.last)
Week 11 - Magic Items (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?73886.last)
Week 12 - Philosophy (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?74200.last)
[/ic]
Week 1 (August 1st, 2009)
The Cost of Magic
Any magic system has to have some kind of cost for the magic, some balancing factor that prevents it from solving every problem. The more powerful the magic, usually the higher the price the wielder must pay.
In video games, these costs are often some kind of magic points which refill over time or when one drinks blue potions. In a setting designed for written stories, this motif works less well. One wants a mechanic to balance magic without the reader saying, yeah old Galdalf just out of mana bar.
So what makes a good cost for magic? What are the most original you've seen used in games or fiction? What do you use?
For those interested, here's a podcast (http://www.writingexcuses.com/?s=magic+cost) in which Brandon Sanderson, Howard Taylor, and Dan Wells discuss the idea.
I haven't the time to type my response. But i wanted to gloat about being present at that podcast and discussing the issue with Brandon and Mr. Taylor afterward. When I return, I'll share my thoughts and shed light on some clarifications I asked them.
Quote from: JaercI haven't the time to type my response. But i wanted to gloat about being present at that podcast and discussing the issue with Brandon and Mr. Taylor afterward. When I return, I'll share my thoughts and shed light on some clarifications I asked them.
Exciting! But teasing is out of bounds. You are now morally obligated to share. :rambo:
Quote from: PhoenixWhat do you use?
I guess Crystalstar kind of solves the problem easily and cheats a bit, because the "magic" is all item-based and essentially technological (sort of), so it's all based on physical things. If you don't have the right crystals, you can't do whatever it is.
Yes, Reagents and Components (when actually used) do tend to balance things out nicely.
The problem, of course, is that in an RPG (meaning a setting for playing, rather than for writing) you need the mages to be able to *do something* in pretty much every encounter. You don't want them to feel totally helpless, because that's not fun for their players.
The two options I've used are (1) allowing Mages to burn their hit points to cast more spells (always fun), and (2) allowing mages to develop, albeit at a slower pace, some degree of melee skill so they can grab a longsword and go kick some ass, a la Gandalf (to continue the previous metaphor).
I'm also a big fan of "social" control: Dragonlance did this extremely well with the Council and the Towers of High Sorcery and all that (until Raistlin told them all to take a long walk off a short parapet). I use the Wizard's College in Calisenthe, and I use it pretty harshly. I always make sure my magic-using players understand what they are getting into before I let them take the class.
(This is a Rolemaster thing, but I also charge background points for taking a spellcasting class; these are precious and rare points that are only available at character creation which could otherwise give people some pretty sweet things to work with, including huge stat bonuses and special abilities.)
Good topic! I approve. I can't wait to hear what everyone else says.
So first off my list:
Maruts: inborn magic with little or no control; can burn you up.
Noctomancy: You can only use it while asleep
Resonance: Slooow. Also, they have a crippled hand and need to prepare most of their things as devices. (this hasn't been revised yet)
Immanent Word: you have to scribe things
Deathtellers: Very specific powers and severe psychic trauma.
Choirs: Can only have two effects running at once and strain on their body.
Reification/demonology: expensive, dangerous, and risks of short-time possessions and altered personality.
These are mostly on the fluff-level as of yet.
Still, i like limitations that do not involve eventual burnout. Weaker powers on par with natural abilities or a limited use of powers so you'll have to choose which to use.
The coolest limit i can remember was from China Mievilles Iron Council. Here the monks of the Hidden Word can gain access to a secret by forgetting something about themselves. The monk they meet do not know his gender, and as they continue with him as their guide he starts fading away as he forgets more and more of himself. In turn he can know many things, including secret passageways which makes them able to travel at amazing speeds.
Quote from: AcrimoneThe problem, of course, is that in an RPG (meaning a setting for playing, rather than for writing) you need the mages to be able to *do something* in pretty much every encounter. You don't want them to feel totally helpless, because that's not fun for their players.
This is assuming that:
A) Combat encounters are frequent and essential parts of the RPG rather than the odd event necessitated by plot,
and
B) Being a magic user is an option available to Player Characters.
I could easily imagine a sword & sorcery -themed RPG where magic is akin to devil worship and strictly for NPCs only. I could also see a game played as intrigue/detective story, with very little to no combat; a magic user PC might be "helpless" but also the one with the best abilites to discover who murdered the baron...
A system for handling the "cost" of magic that works well with one RPG might not be appropiate for another RPG. A whole lot depends on what kind of role magic users are intended to play in the setting, and what kind of roles
players are intended to play.
I don't see material components as cheating at all. They provide a concrete and understandable method of managing power.
In Mistborn, those capable of using allomancy do so by ingesting trace amounts of various metals. Depending on the type of metal they ingest, they can burn away the metal to use a magic power. The more they use the power, the faster the metal burns up. Some metals, like tin are fairly readily available, though they still have to be prepared and so they can run out. Others are much more valuable.
I'm simplifying what's actually a very elegant system that's won a lot of praise.
Quote from: GhostmanA system for handling the "cost" of magic that works well with one RPG might not be appropiate for another RPG. A whole lot depends on what kind of role magic users are intended to play in the setting, and what kind of roles players are intended to play.
This is a good point. But almost every really popular fiction setting has spawned its own RPG, whether fanfic, Steve Jackson, or even WotC-sponsored. I assume most try to capture the flavor of the magic system, while balancing for any type of campaign. Something else to think about.
Another interesting mechanic is the idea of aging. Brandon mentions it appeared in some story (I don't know which), and it is the main mechanic in the Riddle of Steel.
I like it's elegance. It feels like a real price, while at the same time a mage that needs power can have all he wants if he's willing to pay. Of course, it's been done, so I'd want something like that, but not the same.
I'm not really a fan of aging. In most games it is not as much of a deterrent. Also, different races have significant advantages if they are long-lived or immortal.
A limiter i prefer in many ways (meta-game-wise) is the one where you have to pick between your powers; you can only have a certain number active at any one time. So if you want to be on the offensive you have to let go of protective powers and so on.
"Costs" for magic always tend to bug me. It's too much like the need of a fuel source, which, unless magic is being used as an overt technology/science substitute, tends to dilute its feeling of non-science and makes me feel that the middleman should be eliminated to make it be science. Plus whenever the resource-management angle is mentioned in some form it just comes up as an obstacle for obstacles' sake, nothing else behind the idea.
On the other paw there's the "cost" of being hard to learn. I prefer this method because then there's meaning behind someone not having the right magical level and/or ability: they're inexperienced or they didn't put in the hard work they should have or the story is about to take a new direction, as either the right magical method around the obstacle is sought or they think of a non-magical solution.
With this view someone might get the idea that I'd be okay with a resource cost if the cost had a meaning. Corruption, for example: sacrificing people, magic deals with demons, etc. The thing is I prefer what may seem as a hypocritical approach: that things act like laws of physics and have no moral component, morals occur only in our own thoughts. So corruption and such things should never be tied to a physical force.
But SCMP, what do you do when you have the top level magician with the Super-spell; What's going to keep him from using it all the time?
Or do you just turn down the power so that the Super-spell is fairly innocuous?
You don't have to have a cost. Just have some form of leveling up. For example, have a whole bunch of low powered spells that can be used indefinatly without damaging the game. Offer more of these, at slightly higher power, as the PCs level up.
That could work in a level-based game. Obviously less useful in a game without them : D
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowBut SCMP, what do you do when you have the top level magician with the Super-spell; What's going to keep him from using it all the time?
Nothing. It's the damn
Super-spell.
If the BBEG has already got it you've
lost. That's why the heroes get involved
before he gets it.
If Good Guys get it they either A) win like they're supposed to after going to all that hard work to get it, B) lock it away for some reason behind as much convolution as possible.
The key to realize is that in my system the better the spell is the harder it is to get to the point where you can cast it
at all. And if you do manage to put in all that hard work and all that time, probably giving up your entire life, well they YEAH, you're allowed to use it all you want, you've
earned it.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowThat could work in a level-based game. Obviously less useful in a game without them : D
Also of limited application to fiction.
There has to be something that keeps it from being too easy for the characters in the story--but this can be a consequence in the story. Also, in fiction, waying the cost of magic versus its benefit can be another source of conflict or tension, which is what drives fiction.
Also, to paraphrase Taylor, the cost allows the rest of the world to remain resembling our own to the degree the author desires. By lowering the cost to say, as SCMP mentions, only the effort needed to learn the magic, you likely create a world very different than our own. By raising the cost very high, you limit how crazy people will get with magic.
Quote from: Phoenix......only the effort needed to learn the magic, you likely create a world very different than our own.
Well that does happen to be my style. ;)
But you may be forgetting something: if the cost is learning one only has to raise how much learning it takes to keep magic at that constant level. If we're talking average Medieval life-expectancy of 35 years then if it takes 60 years to get to the good stuff then on average you're not going to get a lot of mages with the good stuff. And they might not live long enough to use it. Heck, what if it takes 35 years of working at it to even
start on magic? Forget about life-expectancy, who's going to spend that much of their life in pursuit of basic-level power? Don't knock learning as a limit till you've thought about how hard it can be.
We're also talking about magic in a vacuum, focusing only on costs while forgetting about other factors that can limit magic. Weakpoints, for one: having all the magic in the world won't save you if there's something that can get around it, be it a special material (or perhaps a common one) or simply a well-thought-out plan. Lack of variety is another one: if all the world's got are spells of divination and other subtle stuff you can be the world's most powerful mage, but you're just as vulnerable as the next schemer to a well-placed sword.
I'm not sure I like costs associated with magic for game settings. One of the modifications to D&D 4e I've really enjoyed is unlimited "basic" magic in the form of At-Will powers. There was nothing fun about using your lone spell in previous editions and then flailing away with a quarterstaff or sling for the rest of the day.
That being said, I think it's tough to not have some built in cost as a storytelling device. I prefer costs that have social ramifications rather than meta-physical. Scarring, taboo, etc. are more interesting to me than some rough and arbitrary boundary imposed by "the universe" or magic itself. The latter just makes a lot of magic systems feel hokey (namely the Wheel of Time, where everyone a main character meets after book 3 is "stronger in the One Power then anyone since the Age of Legends" blah).
I had a few outlines for short stories I want to write (someday). The only people in the stories fantasy world are children. It was actually pretty interesting, as they would study relentlessly to harness a gift that would leave them just as they came to understand and be able to harness its full potential. Such is life.
I don't see how it could fit into a games actual mechanics though. Just a thought.
[blockquote=Sarisa]The only people in the stories fantasy world are children. It was actually pretty interesting, as they would study relentlessly to harness a gift that would leave them just as they came to understand and be able to harness its full potential. Such is life.
I don't see how it could fit into a games actual mechanics though. Just a thought. [/blockquote]I'm planning on similar characters in Xell, the Innocent. They're meant to haev a William Blake/Phillip Pullman feel; basically they're spellcasters who have tons of power during their youth, but it rapidly dwindles and dissappears during puberty.
On the more general topic, my favorite cost for magic is the Lovecraftian option, sanity. Probably best implemented in the Warhammer 40k universe.
Sanity is pretty neat i agree. Warhammer also uses the out-of-control option where the magic either goes horribly awry or burns up yourself.
I tried the sanity variant in Unearthed Arcana (for 3.5 D&D, though it came from d20 Call of Cthulu), but found it didn't work for me or my group.
The options in WFRP sounds similar to that CC, unless that's the same game you're talking about. It worked pretty well.
Quote from: spoiler alertand prior to Rand purifying the source, madness for men.[/spoiler]
Actually, the idea of exhaustion brings me to Shadowrun's drain mechanic. I think it works great for a game system. You can use unlimited magic, but trying magic near your limits is liable to tire you (i.e. deal some stun damage--push it far enough and you can knock yourself out, maybe even kill yourself). I think it's great for games and captures the typical flavor of the cost of magic in many works. Unfortunately, it's not terribly original as a mechanic in literature.
I like exhaustion for a cost of magic mechanic in games, but for the same reason I like 4th edition: physical and mental exhaustion can be used as a cost for all exertion, leveling the playing field in terms of availability of actions across all classes and roles.
You're right, though, in that my main gripe with WoT was the availability of magic and not necessarily the cost. I enjoyed the madness aspect more in the character of Taim than Rand (Therin gets old, but this is probably a product of my opinions on the series than the actual writing) and generally like sanity as a cost for magic. Warhammer, as pointed out, is a really good example; psykers, lashback, Chaos, etc. -- all great stuff!
What about physical health as a cost? Not just life, but loss of blood/limbs/etc? We mentioned forcibles from the Runelords series in another thread, but not here and its one of my favorites. Basically, by using brands that channel a specific trait, the "Grace" or "Strength", etc., of one person can be transferred to another. The process cripples the giver and imposes the cost of care on the taker. It's a really delicate and beautifully thought out system.
I cheat; I dodge the issue entirely.
The whole idea of magic having some kind of cost or currency associate with it is tied up with the idea of magic being vastly more powerful than comparable non-magic solutions. This shows up all over the place: magic is either more powerful or more versatile (or both) than the kinds of things characters can do without access to it. If you treat it that way, of course you need some sort of limiting factor to keep it from getting out of hand. By convention, one of the most commonly-used limiting factors is that magic has limited use before its wielder has to rest.
But if you don't ramp up magic's power to enormous levels in the first place, there's no reason you need a limiting factor.
So, I've scaled things back. Magic still provides mages with unusual abilities in the Jade Stage, and allows them to do things that would be impossible for non-mages. But it doesn't replace conventional, non-magic ability. Mages don't get to wipe out whole battlefields full of soldiers with a flick of the wrist, become invisible, mind-reading super-spies with a couple of incantations, and so on. They get some interesting tools that may help them with these professions and tasks, but they're not catapaulted to excellence simply by virtue of knowing magic. There's still a need for soldiers, sailors, doctors, scientists, diplomats, spies, bodyguards, assassins, and the like-- mages aren't taking their jobs.
So, mages get to flex their magical muscles as much as they like to. Their ability to "magically multitask" is limited only by their concentration, and their power to sustain effects for long periods is limited only by their physical and mental fatigue.
It's important to note that this is exactly the way non-magical skills and concentration and fatigue work. Multitasking with magic uses the same mechanics as playing chess while decrypting a coded message while doing your taxes. Long periods of magic use mentally fatigue you just like marathon calculus sessions, all-night deadline-rush writing projects, or having dinner with your in-laws who insist upon talking about politics constantly. Long periods of magic use physically fatigue you just like long periods of moving boxes, playing basketball, or punching nazis in the face.
I'm really proud of this, and I think it's an important type of mechanic for making magic feel the way I want it to: i.e., not dissimilar from various types of real-world specialized mental disciplines (like being a nuclear physicist, a cardiovascular surgeon, an avant-garde musician, a test pilot of experimental aircraft, etc.) Essentially, it means there's not a discrete "magic system" that I'm working with; just a view of magic that fits fairly seamlessly into the existing system.
As an aside, I think if the heroes don't have access to magic the need for a cost is somewhat mitigated.
In Conan, only evil sorcerers seem to magic, but we don't know that the magic made them evil or if they paid a price for it. Song of Ice and Fire seems similar.
In Conan iirc magic is akin to demon-worship.
As for ASoIaF,[spoiler] can you really say that Daenerys Targaryen is evil?
And the red witch character, is she evil? How about the Onion Knight?
Finally, is Eddard Starks wife really evil because she ressurected?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]No but the witch that does the spell for Daenerys Targaryen is evil.
And the red witch character, is she evil? Maybe.
How about the Onion Knight? Did he do magic?
Finally, is Eddard Starks wife really evil because she ressurected? - she doesn't do magic, she is victimized by it[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I'd say that Catelyn isn't the victim of magic, she's the victim of a sliced throat. And her actions are debatedly justified.
A lot of magic in ASOIAF is sinister, but I wouldn't say it's all 100% evil, in my opinion. The warlocks of Qarth, the magi, Mellisandra etc are all pretty shady characters, true, but who isn't a shady character in that universe? Almost everyone with a sword, with a couple of exceptions, could probably be termed evil, but that doesn't make swords evil. The user, not the tool.
The faceless men seem to be an amoral sect of magic users, for example. Bran and Jon, as wargs, might qualify as "good" magic users. Not that the good/evil binary is particularly useful in ASOIAF anyway...[/spoiler]
All good points Steerpike and Llum.
However, I don't want to derail the topic into a SoIaF discussion. I'll agree that just about everyone in there is shady.
4e system seems to work very well for gaming. But it's explicitly for gaming, and they don't even try to consider the ramifications for a setting beyond the game for many of the rules. The truth is, that mindset (game first, real later) makes the game fun. But I don't think it helps in worldbuilding.
To paraphrase Vreeg, if you allow the 4e system in your world, it will begin to define your world.
Alright, I have to agree with what Luminous Crayon said. Magic doesn't need a "limit" if it isn't overpowered to begin with.
However, from a strictly conwordling point of view, this is how I see it:
The laws of Physics don't have any "limit" in how we use them, nether do chemical reactions aside from those laws that bind the entire universe. There isn't an "imposed" cap on them, so why should magic have a cost?
The most common way I use magic, it's just another part of the universe. It doesn't have any fancy costs attached to it. So the world has to change around magic, just like how our universe would change if gravity was different or something.
Now I know this doesn't really cut it it terms of a gameplay standpoint, so here I think is where Vreegs maxim comes in. Design the system around your setting. Don't make a system where magic users can become anything after a couple spells if that isn't what you want magic users to become.
Another thing is if your going to have magic as "all-powerful, all-versatile" give everyone access to magic, because realistically no one *wouldn't* have magic in that kind of world.
Quote from: LlumAnother thing is if your going to have magic as "all-powerful, all-versatile" give everyone access to magic, because realistically no one *wouldn't* have magic in that kind of world.
That's assuming magic can be gained by everyone.
Quote from: LlumAnother thing is if your going to have magic as "all-powerful, all-versatile" give everyone access to magic, because realistically no one *wouldn't* have magic in that kind of world.
Yes, you are quite correct. However to me this seems like a fair base point to start from. Considering these magic users, they have "all-powerful, all-versatile" magic, realistically can you say that a bunch of non-magic users can beat them? Doesn't seem like it, so this limits your entire "game" to involving non-magic users. So in that case, is there really magic at all if it can't be used because its "too powerful"? Obviously it can, but at what point do you draw the line at throwing undefeatable NPCs into a game?
Quote from: LlumYes, you are quite correct. However to me this seems like a fair base point to start from. Considering these magic users, they have "all-powerful, all-versatile" magic, realistically can you say that a bunch of non-magic users can beat them? Doesn't seem like it, so this limits your entire "game" to involving non-magic users. So in that case, is there really magic at all if it can't be used because its "too powerful"? Obviously it can, but at what point do you draw the line at throwing undefeatable NPCs into a game?
1) I didn't realize you meant "all-powerful, all-versatile" to be "omnipotent" or nearabouts.
2) You can have the
PCs be mages, but there could still be non-magic people in the world.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw2) You can have the PCs be mages, but there could still be non-magic people in the world.
PCs[/i] would be mages. I was talking about a case where there would be no "mage" in the party alongside a "fighter" with no magic kind of deal.
I think there is a general assumption in most, but not all settings, that not everyone will have magic.
In most of these settings, those that have magic are seen as inherently more powerful and dangerous, perhaps even godlike. But they also usually shouldn't be absolutely unbeatable by normal means.
There has to be kryponite.
well, in Arga magic is everywhere, but is extremely hard to control with very high prices. Usually the price paid is something along the same lines of what you use magic for. If you want to fling pure energy that's drawn from the dying world, it drains you physically just as it drains the world - soon you look like a half-burned leper. Dream magic makes you insane, other magic makes you a literal addict, while others slowly mutate you.
I like magic when it's kept very rare, very costly, and very mystical. It doesn't have to be powerful compared to other settings, but in Arga, for instance, it's really powerful because it's so flexible. In this sense, I'm a "traditionalist" in the sense of LotR, and like newer stuff like ASoIaF and, well, that's about all I've read. I don't like standard DnD magic as it's frankly boring, overused, and very not magical.
One thing that comes to mind is the question of magic-as-science that ScMp brought up on the last page. Magic that has a "cost" or a "fuel source" is generally magic that follows the law of conservation of energy.
If your setting has the law of conservation of energy, and magic is bound by it, then magic will involve either moving energy from one place to another, or using your own energy somehow. Moving the energy also requires a certain "expenditure", although one could play with that a little and have it be negligible. For example, tapping into the power of the void is just pulling void-power into this world... using yourself as a conduit could either be effortless or extremely draining, however you wish. Opening and closing such a conduit could be where the "cost" -- if any -- is incurred. By contrast, if you're burning/transforming your own energies, this can be accounted for in terms of exhaustion, mana loss, or lost hit points.
If magic in a given world, however, violates the law of conservation of energy (perhaps that's what makes it magic!)... quite literally anything is possible with enough time and effort. Here you have to rely on limitations on who can use it if you want to keep it from becoming the end-all-be-all of your world's existence, and even then the limitations will have to be draconian because getting something for nothing (or getting 8 newtons of force for the cost of 6) will eventually be leveraged and processed and harnessed and bingo: perpetual motion and limitless free energy.
Just my rambling thoughts for the afternoon.
Actual price tags can also serve as a limiter. If you can only produce magic through artificing (be they scrolls or fireball cannons) you can limit magic to what the PCs can achieve economically. In this case magic wouldn't be so much a defining characteristic of a character as it would be an additional tool in the arsenal.
A permanent price is another option. Although technically Leetz domain, i helped conceive the Athemancers of Arga which work through similar principles. They physically harm themselves permanently to get their powers; if they blind themselves they get an otherworldly sight, if they numb their skin they get an unnatural toughness, if they remove their name and identity they can become unnoticeable.
This is a pretty cool solution since it gives magical powers but at the cost of human powers.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowActual price tags can also serve as a limiter. If you can only produce magic through artificing (be they scrolls or fireball cannons) you can limit magic to what the PCs can achieve economically. In this case magic wouldn't be so much a defining characteristic of a character as it would be an additional tool in the arsenal.
But what do the artificers pay? Why can't the heroes (be they PCs or characters in the story) make the artifacts?
I like the permanent price idea.
Edit: Leetz, I also like the leper/insanity idea.
Quote from: PhoenixBut what do the artificers pay? Why can't the heroes (be they PCs or characters in the story) make the artifacts?
I don't think he's saying PCs can't make the artifacts, only that it costs the PCs time and money to make them rather than being able to fling spells with a word. Whether PC or NPC, an artificer is more limited in the effects he can achieve in the here-and-now, so even really powerful magic can have limits if the most powerful effects would bankrupt a small town to create.
Quote from: AcrimoneFor example, tapping into the power of the void is just pulling void-power into this world... using yourself as a conduit could either be effortless or extremely draining, however you wish.
For that matter, here's another cost:
Maybe drawing all that power from the void into you gives you some sense of being tied into some vast cosmic power far beyond your usual understanding. There may be a real risk of losing yourself in it. In addition, this feeling of vast power and understanding is probably quite enjoyable to many-- I'd think addiction would be a serious risk.
I did something more overt with addiction being the cost of magic in a previous campaign, where magic spells could only be cast in an altered state of mind brought on by certain narcotics. It also had interesting political and economic consequences for the setting as a whole.
Yeah, lately I had been thinking about chemicals as the material cost of magic, which would carry all the usual risks of heroine with them.
Addiction is a good cost, but only if the thing you're becoming addicted to has some other cost. Becoming addicted to magic is a minor threat if the only downside is you get to use even more magic. Particularly in an adventuring game, where a subtle addiction is unlikely to screw up a PC's life.
Actually, that reminds me about what CC said about age being a non-threat to a character. I think it's a minor threat to the player, but a character would think twice about giving up a year of their life. You can't, however, force the player to give it the same weight for a fictional character. It's so much easier to say, well if I die now, all those years are wasted, than it is in real life to realize you just won a fight by giving away a year (or five).
Quote from: PhoenixAddiction is a good cost, but only if the thing you're becoming addicted to has some other cost. Becoming addicted to magic is a minor threat if the only downside is you get to use even more magic. Particularly in an adventuring game, where a subtle addiction is unlikely to screw up a PC's life.
The effects don't have to be subtle. It could destroy interpersonal relationships, which would be important a more roleplaying-oriented game. For that matter, in a more adventuring/combat oriented game, maybe the addicted PC misses critical opportunities in combat being uselessly mesmerized, or stays in some kind of magical trance after the battle instead of getting on with things.
For Urbis, I use the D&D 4E assumptions for ritual magic - that is to say, all rituals require some sort of occult substances which are consumed during it, and the more potent the ritual, the more expensive are the consumed components going to be.
Urbis uses a "universal ritual component" called Azoth (http://urbis.wikidot.com/azoth) (or Residuum for D&D players) - a substance of concentrated magic which is generated by [link=http://urbis.wikidot.com/nexus-tower]nexus towers[/url]. Its availability drives the magical industrial economy of Urbis, and thus has helped shaped society into its present form - including the drive to build ever-larger cities, as these are vital for Azoth generation.
Oh, and adventurers probably will be able to use it for a bunch of nifty tricks, too. ;)
Quote from: PhoenixTo paraphrase Vreeg, if you allow the 4e system in your world, it will begin to define your world.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. (http://urbis.wikidot.com/) :p
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: PhoenixAddiction is a good cost, but only if the thing you're becoming addicted to has some other cost. Becoming addicted to magic is a minor threat if the only downside is you get to use even more magic. Particularly in an adventuring game, where a subtle addiction is unlikely to screw up a PC's life.
The effects don't have to be subtle. It could destroy interpersonal relationships, which would be important a more roleplaying-oriented game. For that matter, in a more adventuring/combat oriented game, maybe the addicted PC misses critical opportunities in combat being uselessly mesmerized, or stays in some kind of magical trance after the battle instead of getting on with things.
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by additional (non-subtle) cost. Risking becoming mesmerized is a low-to-moderate cost, but players would see it as a real cost because it can impede their combat actions.
It should only destroy interpersonal relationships if it has a stigma (another cost) attached to it, or the magic alters the personality (like chemical addictions), or otherwise could interfere with normal functioning. For example, being addicted to drinking water is not something that is liable to destroy most relationships, because we know the worst that will do to the person we care about is cause them to take frequent bio breaks. Being addicted to crack will have somewhat more dangerous effects to body, mind, and social (legal) situation, so it would be a bigger deal.
(New question moved to new thread.)
Phoenix, what if you start a new thread for each new question? Just so that the weeks' questions don't get lost in the conversation and that if the old convo is continuing, it does not get confused with the new conversation?
(Just an idea).
Quote from: Light DragonPhoenix, what if you start a new thread for each new question? Just so that the weeks' questions don't get lost in the conversation and that if the old convo is continuing, it does not get confused with the new conversation?
(Just an idea).
I considered it...It seemed like it might clutter the recent posts list, and doesn't work as well with anyone trying to track the thread (not that works well right now). But maybe you're right, there is a risk of a question being lost on page 13 when people are posting on page 15.
(I'm not sure wether I should post my question here or make another thread)
So, for what I've read, we could conclude that a more or less "realistic" (coherent would be more accurate) setting WOULD NOT have 3E D&D kind of magic ¿Right?
Yeah, I've always had a problem with using up slots. It just doesn't make sense.
You can still post here if the topic is related.
I think speaking of realism in reference to how magic works is inherently tongue-in-cheek. That said, I would imagine the most real, is that which most closely jives with our conception of the cost of magic as it was believed in the real world. And magic, of course, having no distinction in the primitive real world from psychic abilities. Beyond that, I think the most functional and realistic model uses some kind of drain mechanic (ala Shadowrun).
Slots are meant to be a metagame representation of the idea that a caster could only hold so many things in his head at once. The problem is that the representation (like so many representations in D&D) takes on a life of its own and begins to thwart its own logic. The basic premise is drawn from Vance, in whose fiction it probably works better than it does in D&D.
On the other hand, spell points might be equally silly. How you handle it matters a lot.
I can't believe I never chimed in on this one.
In my game, you don't run out of magic, but there's a limit to how many spells you can maintain simultaneously (generally around 2 or 3). Also, there isn't a fixed cost, but there are risks associated with trying something too difficult. Spell utility is somewhat more limited (spells like invisibility and flight affect caster only, and you need a body or some substitute to raise the dead) and casters can only learn a max of about their level in spells (and it takes a looong time to level once you've hit 5+). You aren't limited to a certain number of rituals, but they tend to take much longer, and they aren't the easiest things to get your hands on.
So magic can cost a lot (oops! I summoned Cthulhu and failed to bind him) or a little, depending on how you play.
Quote from: Cap. Karnaugh (aka gnola14)(I'm not sure wether I should post my question here or make another thread)
So, for what I've read, we could conclude that a more or less "realistic" (coherent would be more accurate) setting WOULD NOT have 3E D&D kind of magic ¿Right?
I really do not think we have reached any sort of consensus on that point (or that such consensus is actually possible).
Fuck, I haven't even answered this yet.
*sigh*
First off, there is no realistic in magic, but there is internally consistent and macrofeasibility.
Macrofeasibilty combines within setting fluff as well as character developmental crunch. A lot of systems suffer from Robert Jordan-esque plot additions becasue the creator realizes that there is a min/max hole in the system. Hell, it has happenned to me a few times, though mainly with skills, not magic.
Power level needs to be addressed, and how much magic how many people can cast at what level. One of the problems with many games I have seen is the magic using groups far outstripping the fighting groups at higher levels. Are their any major tier breaks? And does magic feel like magic, or does it feel the same as other skills, but just called magic?
Now, step outside this part of the conversation. Go look at the book thread, and look at the type of magic and the prevalence of magic and high power magic. Remember that your system and power/prevalence frequency distribution will determine MUCH of the FEEL of your setting.
Ressurection and raise dead common? Not as deadly a world. Magic items heavy means that it is harder to make them special. What about mundane magics, since technology (and magic) will always take care of these issues, so if your magic system does nothing with these, how internally realistic is it?
More later. I'm at work, damnit.
(Not strictly related to magic cost)
A high-level D&D caster (lets say 10-15 lvl) would be able to walk across a fortress wall, make a dimensional portal and throw soldiers inside it, polymorph himself to look just like the king...the possibilities are endless, and we're not even close to wish-like spells.
¿How then can you manage wizard NPC's in your world? They would arguably be the most powerful beings on earth.
Yeah, I could make such wizards rare, but eventually my own players would reach that level ¿and then what?
And though I like many of the ideas I've seen posted here, they all make me feel as "punishing" the player who want to roleplay a caster.
Quote from: Cap. Karnaugh (aka gnola14)(Not strictly related to magic cost)
A high-level D&D caster (lets say 10-15 lvl) would be able to walk across a fortress wall, make a dimensional portal and throw soldiers inside it, polymorph himself to look just like the king...the possibilities are endless, and we're not even close to wish-like spells.
¿How then can you manage wizard NPC's in your world? They would arguably be the most powerful beings on earth.
Yeah, I could make such wizards rare, but eventually my own players would reach that level ¿and then what?
doesn't[/i] opine that spellcasters at higher levels will wipe the floor with non-casters that, by level, they're supposedly on an even footing with. That's due in part to the fact that D&D uses the following general formula to describe spellcasters:
They can do
X different tasks, with Y effectiveness, but only Z times per dayNon-casters use this formula, too. But for them, X hardly ever changes, Y increases steadily, and Z is effectively infinite. Casters get their renowned "exponential power curve" because X and Y start out small at low levels but both increase dramatically, and Z (the intended limiting factor) increases as well. I don't think the "limited usages per day" idea is especially effective as a limiting factor upon huge power, but you're certainly not helping its chances of working if the limit becomes more lenient
simultaneously as the pool of power it governs becomes both broader and deeper (and more in need of strict limiting, if you like that sort of thing).
The nice thing about this thread is that it demonstrates some alternatives to this (very broadly adopted, to the point of being taken for granted) model.
QuoteAnd though I like many of the ideas I've seen posted here, they all make me feel as "punishing" the player who want to roleplay a caster.
of power" to be gamebreakingly unmanageable and you consider "reducing a magic-user's power to [less than X amount]" to be undesirably punitive, you've got a bit of a conundrum.
There are two ways to go about balancing magic, in 3E and 3.5E DnD. One is to make it prevalent enough that there are enough magic users available, all in different factions, so that they sort of balance out. There's a certain critical mass where the group almost becomes self-policing. Once that happens, magic becomes widely available by way of scrolls and magic items, and it becomes a question of who can afford what magic, rather than a question of how do we balance magic so other classes can compete.
The second is to make magic use more widely available across the classes. I had an idea to make summoning a feat chain and a series of prestige classes, rather than spells. Anyone could get the feats, and then get into the prestige class they qualified for based on what they could summon and what their stats were.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonIt's all relative, I guess. I disagree with this sentiment, though, and I find it somewhat logically inconsistent to boot.
After all, if you consider "allowing a magic-user [X amount] of power" to be gamebreakingly unmanageable and you consider "reducing a magic-user's power to [less than X amount]" to be undesirably punitive, you've got a bit of a conundrum.
Probably put myself too much in the shoes of my players :D . I've never tried anything too "out-of-the-box" with them, but I guess is time for them to grow up and leave the hack'n'slash!