[Forum Philosophy] #1 - The Cost of Magic

[Steerpike]

[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]

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[Llum]

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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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.

That's assuming magic can be gained by everyone.

[Llum]

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.

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?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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?

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.

[Llum]

2) 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.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[O Senhor Leetz]

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.

[Acrimone]

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.

[Superfluous Crow]

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.  

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

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.

[Pair o' Dice Lost]

But 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.

[sparkletwist]

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.  

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.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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).