The Campaign Builder's Guild

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 (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.   :p

Quote from: sparkletwist

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.

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 day

Non-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.