I had this idea yesterday. What if spells got more 'expensive' the more you used them, and conversely got cheaper the less you used them? Would that mean that spells drifted to a more or less right cost?

Admittedly this would probably be easier to keep track of in a computer game.

The more you use it over what period of time?

Ever? That means steadily escalating costs, not a drift to a right cost. Eventually, you will be pretty much used up, not able to afford to cast spells any more. So kid wizards rule, and old gandalfs drool. Intriguing.

Per game world time unit? You would need an efficient timekeeping mechanism, which the vast majority of games systems do not have. "Let's skip ahead" and the like would be problems. This and the next case would do the "drift to a right cost" bit.

Per real world time unit? This means meta data, and meta rules - tough on immersion for some folks. This would be very good at making the supply and demand float work to its highest efficiency.

-clash

Quote from: Age of Fable;490197I had this idea yesterday. What if spells got more 'expensive' the more you used them, and conversely got cheaper the less you used them? Would that mean that spells drifted to a more or less right cost?

Admittedly this would probably be easier to keep track of in a computer game.

It would work - Would also be some work - But, as we say in Hero System, what is the in-game special effect? Meta-rules without an in-game reason are poor sauce.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;490212It would work - Would also be some work - But, as we say in Hero System, what is the in-game special effect? Meta-rules without an in-game reason are poor sauce.

Let's say it's tattoo-based magic: You tattoo specific sigils onto your skin and then channel mana through them to cast your spells. In the casting, however, some residual "charge" is left behind in the tattoo. This will dissipate over time, but while it lingers you have to push more energy through the tattoo in order to achieve a discharge. (You can't tattoo multiple instances of the same spell on yourself due to arcanic interference.)

In terms of managing the system, it wouldn't need to be too difficult if you just use the proper bookkeeping: Each time you cast a spell, mark one of the boxes next to the spell. The cost for casting the spell is equal to the number of boxes you've checked. At the end of each period that you're interested in tracking (day, week, month, whatever) simply erase one check box from each spell (down to a minimum of one).

The open question is balancing the right number of mana points to give the character. Also: Do you refresh mana points on the same interim as refreshing spell costs? (It might be more interesting to, for example, refresh a character's mana supply daily but only refresh spell costs weekly. Or, in a system like D&D4, you might refresh mana points after each encounter but only refresh spell costs daily.)

Quote from: Age of Fable;490197I had this idea yesterday. What if spells got more 'expensive' the more you used them, and conversely got cheaper the less you used them? Would that mean that spells drifted to a more or less right cost?

Admittedly this would probably be easier to keep track of in a computer game.

I did the opposite once, taking into account the practise/familiarity in terms of the spell success.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;490230Let's say it's tattoo-based magic: You tattoo specific sigils onto your skin and then channel mana through them to cast your spells. In the casting, however, some residual "charge" is left behind in the tattoo. This will dissipate over time, but while it lingers you have to push more energy through the tattoo in order to achieve a discharge. (You can't tattoo multiple instances of the same spell on yourself due to arcanic interference.)

In terms of managing the system, it wouldn't need to be too difficult if you just use the proper bookkeeping: Each time you cast a spell, mark one of the boxes next to the spell. The cost for casting the spell is equal to the number of boxes you've checked. At the end of each period that you're interested in tracking (day, week, month, whatever) simply erase one check box from each spell (down to a minimum of one).

The open question is balancing the right number of mana points to give the character. Also: Do you refresh mana points on the same interim as refreshing spell costs? (It might be more interesting to, for example, refresh a character's mana supply daily but only refresh spell costs weekly. Or, in a system like D&D4, you might refresh mana points after each encounter but only refresh spell costs daily.)

Sounds like it could work.

PS The idea came about because I was toying with the idea of a roguelike where spells were randomly generated, and I wondered how you'd decide on the spells' costs. It might work better in that context, because of the large amount of bookkeeping required. For example it'd be easy to write code such that every time you cast a spell the cost went up by 1, and every time you moved there was a certain chance that a randomly-chosen spell you knew would have its cost reduced by 1.

I was once fiddling with a mechanic of "gathering" magic energy for spells.

 A player would roll a number of dice--and count up their value. The GM rolled dice for an opposing roll based on a number of factors (natural magic levels, counter elemental forces--casting a fireball near a lot of water, and then lost a few dice equal to the skill of the caster.) Then both pools were rolled and compared. The high one succeeded.

 Meaning if the character's pool won, he had enough energy and cast the spell. If the GM's roll was higher the energy wasn't there for the spell at this time. You had to at least have a skill of X in order to gather magic energy in the first place, but there wasn't any difficulty accept getting the energy once you knew how to do it. (Of course foes could counterspell, get out of the way, and resist spells in a similar fashion)

Spells are muscles.  Using a muscle causes lactic acid to build up, inhibiting use of that muscle.

Quote from: Age of Fable;490197I had this idea yesterday. What if spells got more 'expensive' the more you used them, and conversely got cheaper the less you used them? Would that mean that spells drifted to a more or less right cost?
 
Admittedly this would probably be easier to keep track of in a computer game.

I like the idea. That was sorta how it worked in the MMO Asheron's Call. Everytime a spell was cast the spell became weaker for everyone else in the world. It was a cool gimic but I don't think it added much to gameplay and (afaik) wasn't retained in AC2 or any of the other games Turbine has done since then.
 
The only effect it had on the world is that the magic-users always practiced with the crappiest spells so as to not deplete the spell-economy of the good magic. (Xp was only gained through use, so if you wanted to get good at casting magic casting "harm self" a hundred times earned just as much XP as going into a dungeon and magicaly killing a hundred cat-men.)

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;490212It would work - Would also be some work - But, as we say in Hero System, what is the in-game special effect? Meta-rules without an in-game reason are poor sauce.

It makes me think of real world supply shortages. I can build stuff easily in my toolshed, but once I run out of batteries for my cordless drill I have to switch to a less efficient process. And likewise after I use all the nice lumber, then I gotta waste time monkeying around with crappy lumber. And if I was really building like my life depended on it, I might even start pulling nails out of the the walls in my house to finish the task at hand. Not because it's efficient or ideal, but because shortages present difficult choices.

One obvious emergent feature of this rule is that spellcasters will either be stretching to have as many different spells as possible that all do the same thing, or else cycle through the same set of spells in sequence (by the time you've cast the fifth spell in your repertoire, the first one's cooled down; lather, rinse, repeat).

I was planning to have the *total* amount of 'cool down' be a constant - not the amount per spell. That would partly deal with this objection, but not entirely.

Quote from: Age of Fable;490889I was planning to have the *total* amount of 'cool down' be a constant - not the amount per spell. That would partly deal with this objection, but not entirely.

That doesn't sound particularly useful. What do you imagine the point of that would be?

I imagine it would be a bit like heat in Battletech.  You can fire low end spells fairly consistently, but a big spell will wipe you out for a while.

This is all reminding me a bit of S. John Ross' Unlimited Mana rules.