The Economics of Enchanted Items

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Railstar

I absolutely agree with you. Usually I delve into the setting to get around not being Wealthy, usually I just say "what's the market demand for the spell?" And "Does the wizard have connections to access buyers with?" Or "How do you advertise?" Which becomes especially complex for a necromancer or similar wizard. Can you necessarily sell 3 moonlight-level Continual Light spells every hour? For the price expected of it?

The reason I chose Continual Light as a sample spell was specifically because we know the GURPS value of having of having a torch-equivalent light: it's at least $2, because that's the value of a torch. So if a basic wizard can find 3 people every hour who want a torch-equivalent that will last for about 7 days and are willing to pay $10 for that torch-equivalent, he's set. And since he's selling 7 days of torch-equivalent light for the price of 5 torches, he should probably have buyers. And that's before you consider that magical lights don't consume air, can't be put out by water, and don't set things on fire, which means they're even more comparatively valuable to miners, sailors, and people who need light in the rain.

The point of the thought experiment was that in the absence of a vast oversupply of mages, any given mage can be at least wealthy by just casting Continual Light spells. If you have a setting where mages do other things that cast Continual Light spells, then mages should be making even more money doing those other things - a wizard who can make $22/day by enchanting would probably prefer to make $20-200/hour by casting Continual Light spells, but a wizard who can make $2000/day by enchanting isn't going to spend much time casting Continual Light for money.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Wrong. There are two separate requirements: caster and assistant know spell at 15+, and final item power must be 15+. Trading energy for skill only increases item power, it has no effect on the first requirement.

To refute your statement Anthony...

Page 15 as you allude to above, refers to Ceremonial casting. In that, we see that spells cast with ceremonial casting take 10 times longer, energy costs are normal costs, can be cast as a circle - requiring a skill 15+ leader. In addition? Spectators can contribute 1 energy per spectator and mages with skills less than 15 AND know the spell in question, can contribute 3 energy maximum to the process.

Note however, that Slow and Sure Enchantment on page 17, is entirely different than the Circle of Magic process for quick and dirty.

1) spectators may not contribute energy to the process.
2) At least ONE mage must be present, but multiple mages MAY work together to reduce the time required to complete the Enchantment. (this is particularly important later in the description...
3) the specific reference to allowing extra TIME to be used in an enchantment, refers not to the rules of the circle as such, but to the section on Time for Energy as noted below in the quote...

"This method can be combined with “energy for skill” (p. 15/B151), to let a
mage take a very long time and increase his effective skill."

So, the entire process listed, got its OWN section under slow and sure enchantment, not under the section titled "Tradeoff: Energy for Skill". Stressing this again...

"This is using TIME for Skill, not ENERGY for skill" in a ceremonial casting that does not meet the descriptions of normal ceremonial spell casting.

As if that weren't enough? The rules are specific about the worth of any given magic item created.

All values of a magic item are based upon a skill 15 mage with a power 15 Item. Any power values above 15, are to be calculated using the Energy for Skill (or TIME for skill as it turns out) rules. A Power 16 item is worth +20%, a power 17 item costs 40% more, a power 18 item costs 60% more, a power 18 item costs 80% more, and a power 19 item costs 100% more (ie is double the cost of a power 15 item). A power 20 item therefore, costs three times what a power 15 item costs.

What changed in GURPS 4e that casts into doubt the ability to use extra time at all, is the fact that the specific line quoted above is absent entirely under Slow and Sure enchantment rules. Was it a victim of oversight? Perhaps a victim of "word count budget" and something had to be removed to make room for the extra stuff in GURPS MAGIC for 4e? Was it removed entirely because someone wanted it specifically removed? Your guess is as good as any. <shrug>

In any event, in a sidebar on page 106 of GURPS CLASSIC MAGIC, we have this for an interesting contrast (ie, not present in GURPS MAGIC for 4e)

"The average town wizard earns $15 to $20 a day — as much as any other artisan. An enchanter or alchemist earns around $25 per day. This assumes that magic is common in the world. If magic is rare, all jobs go up by a level of wealth. If magic is very rare but socially acceptable, all jobs go up by two
wealth levels, and jobs above Wealthy earn double pay."

As a final thought - agree or disagree (and I don't want to argue this strictly without acknowledging that opposing views MIGHT be valid)...

Page 107 lists jobs and their requirements to hold said jobs. It lists under comfortable income, Enchanter, which requires a skill 15+ in order to earn $50 x Enchant skill per month.

Flips side of that?

A skill 11 Enchanter, using the rules as I suggest they were intended, would require not 100 days to create a 100 energy enchantment to power level 15, but would require 200 energy days. 100 to reach power 11, an additional 100% (or 100 days) will get him to skill 15 (and hence, power 15). Problem is, he can only sell it for normal market price as if it were enchanted by a skill 15 mage taking 100 days to make. Net result? An enchanter with a skill of 11, takes twice as long to earn the same money, or in effect, makes HALF the income for the time spent. Oddly enough?

Comfortable Wealth level job is worth TWICE that of a normal level job.

So, short of going to KROMM and asking him outright, either interpretation holds water. More importantly?

GURPS FANTASY 1st edition had the SAME rules wording regarding trading time for skill as GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition (aka GURPS CLASSIC MAGIC).

Again, the mystery of why those words were used in two editions of GURPS MAGIC and left out entirely in the final one, just doesn't make sense. Under the newer rules? You can't trade time for skill at all. Period.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

The reason I chose Continual Light as a sample spell was specifically because we know the GURPS value of having of having a torch-equivalent light: it's at least $2, because that's the value of a torch. So if a basic wizard can find 3 people every hour who want a torch-equivalent that will last for about 7 days and are willing to pay $10 for that torch-equivalent, he's set. And since he's selling 7 days of torch-equivalent light for the price of 5 torches, he should probably have buyers. And that's before you consider that magical lights don't consume air, can't be put out by water, and don't set things on fire, which means they're even more comparatively valuable to miners, sailors, and people who need light in the rain.

There are downsides to Continual Light for these people - the duration is random, and it starts from the moment the spell is cast. Thus for someone equipping a ship for a long sea voyage the spell isn't actually that great. A mage who can come along and cast it and other useful spells might be useful though.

The point of the thought experiment was that in the absence of a vast oversupply of mages, any given mage can be at least wealthy by just casting Continual Light spells.

In town to people who want their home lit, and lights to walk at night, mostly, I think.

[gmillerd]

Isn't one of the limiters for common enchantment (if such a thing is desired) similar to the "Controlling PC Enchantment" (M17) ... Rare Materials, Side Effects, and Additional Expenses?

While it may be a myth that gems (earth diamonds) are very scarce, there is a terrestrial limit to precious metals / materials. There is skill and effort needed to refine such items, cutting gems and ornate metal working isn't without man hours and training. It may be in the nature of such a thing that if there is a way around scarcity that the requirements inflate ... "spell component, the finest car available" sounds great ... until hypercars are available and now that spell is extremely annoying. Feeding it Jonckheere Coupes's was a hardship back in the day, now feeding it Michael Schumacher's garage is pricy.

While a lot of settings have guilds and magic organizations, it is also a good place to look to for limits. I am sure there is a Lightbulb Conspiracy to be had at some level here. Who would make garden hoe of fertility without limits or be allowed to do so? (Lexmark failure by design page print limits)

The Wizarding may not standardized under HTML and SMTP, but rather fight for Domino and Notes to the death. The "Breaking" college may fill a niche market demand where various "factory" enchants can easily be undone or countered because they are known to have a flaw that was unknown when the enchant was rare and "garage" level. Such as the mechanics of Bigby's Crushing Hand being vulnerable to Tactile Illusion problem and enchantment gloves that are based on that enchantment theory are easily made to harm the wearer with simple "script kiddie" cantrip spells.

While an magical bounty sounds like instant Star Trek (food for all, posterity for all), its hard to believe that fear and militarization wouldn't back lash at the moment of one nations rise over another. The dawn of the Orkish people's unification against man.

Privacy concerns and exploitation would be amazing, scrying and knowledge might be society's undoing alone (South Park Troll Trace). Create Servant, Create Warrior, Summon Elemental, etc ... I would hate to see the Che Guevara equivalent that comes forth from all that abuse.

To me it seems a lot like Cyberpunk with more scarcity and potentially more dystopia with the actual supernatural issues.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by hal

To refute your statement Anthony...

Page 15 as you allude to above, refers to Ceremonial casting.

Actually, I was unable to dig up my 3rd edition Magic, so I checked the enchantment rules in 3ER (p152), which I would expect to not differ substantially from magic, and that is quite clear -- in paragraph 1 it states "To create a magic item, the caster (and any assistants) must have skill 15", in paragraph 2 it states "An item's Power must be 15+".

[scc]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Most people seem to assume that they don't, but as the rules don't say anywhere that they don't, and just about any other skill use can get them, why should they not?

None of the examples take advantage of the non-combat +4 and I'm pretty sure that Kromm has said it doesn't apply.

For enchanters with Enchant under 15, first you have to ignore the rule that says there's no effect, then there's the bit where their magic items will have a lower Power, meaning that they'll probably only work in high or very high mana areas.

Enchanting uses a slightly modified Ceremonial rules, the most important are that no unskilled participants and that every person within the enchanting area imposes a -1 to the roll.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Actually, I was unable to dig up my 3rd edition Magic, so I checked the enchantment rules in 3ER (p152), which I would expect to not differ substantially from magic, and that is quite clear -- in paragraph 1 it states "To create a magic item, the caster (and any assistants) must have skill 15", in paragraph 2 it states "An item's Power must be 15+".

Correct, but what is in GURPS MAGIC is NOT what is in B151. To be specific, the ability to trade TIME for skill (which is what the final POWER value is based upon, is - at least to me, rather specific. It is the same way with the Power for Energy for Quick and Dirty. The final adjusted skill is what determines the power rating.

[scc]

Trading time or energy for skill not worth the effort in any setting where astrological modifiers are in effect as something like this in red silk (Probably NSFW) grants a +3 to enchanting.

[hal]

Originally Posted by scc

Trading time or energy for skill not worth the effort in any setting where astrological modifiers are in effect as something like this in red silk (Probably NSFW) grants a +3 to enchanting.

As always, the GM has to determine what they want for their campaign. Any rules introduced after the fact (ie the initial structure) may or may not fit together with all other aspects of the game. The problem with Astrological modifiers is that the start times and finish times have to coincide in such a manner that sorely limits the window of production. So - instead of being able to start one project and finish, then start the next in a reasonably short period of time, we end up with having to backtrack as to when a project must finish, subtract the time required, and start by that time.

Having said that, if that's what you want for your campaign, and it lends flavor to it sufficiently that players recall the campaign fondly after it is done, then - you've done as you should. ;)

The point of emphasizing the ONE little line of roughly 23 words, is that apparently, people neglect to realize that a skill 12 Enchanter can actively create Enchanted Items for sale with a power of 16 if they take twice as long to enchant than the skill 15 enchanter, or they can get the project done in 1.6 times the normal time required for a power/skill of 15.

In the end? It opens up things a little for those trying to determine just what is or is not possible when world building for their campaigns. Instead of making every NPC mage a "Super Mage" with enchant at 15+ and a whole bevy of spells also at 15 - the GM can now start working with lesser point value mage characters to achieve a background story.

Keep in mind the ramifications of this - four mages, skill 12, working together, taking 1.6 times longer to enchant an item, can produce a viable product. For instance, something that normally takes 400 mage days to produce, when multiplied by 1.6 = 640 days. Dividing by 4, and we get 160 days. That's 160 "Slow and sure" mage days worth of work.

I can't help but wonder however...

Mind you, this is an "Implications" issue from my vantage point - what are the required skill levels for mages working in a slow and sure environment?

Let's take an example.

First Example: Without talking about what those 23 words imply on page 19, and stick STRICTLY with the requirements that the lead enchanter has to have a skill of 15 in order to enchant his item - what skill levels are mandated by those who are helping the lead enchanter? Can a skill 12 enchanter work with other skill 12 enchanters to get the job done earlier? If the answer is yes, this is troubling. Why? Because in theory, an enchanting circle using slow and sure can be comprised of 1 mage with skill 15, and three mages with skills less than 15, and get it done in 1/4 the time. That doesn't seem to make sense in the light of things.

On the other hand, we have this to say about Ceremonial castings, which Slow and Sure is a subset of...

"Circle. Any number of mages can “link” to cast a spell, if they all know it at level 15 or better. They must be physically joined in some way — e.g., holding
hands, touching a common center, etc. Any one of them can act as the caster
and make all die-rolls."

If this is the case, the ONLY way you can get multiple mages to join together to create/craft magic items is if they all have a skill 15+.

As a GM for my own game campaigns, and I had three player characters running mages in the campaign, if they broached this topic with me, I'd likely say "Trading Time for Skill is possible per page 19. However, Slow and Sure enchantments are the only legal means a single mage can engage in ceremonial casting. In order to satisfy the circle rule - all mages working together must have a skill of 15+ in order to do so. Sorry, but four mages with a skill of 12 can not work together to reduce the enchantment time to 1/4 normal."

Otherwise? A mage with skill 15, could work with 9 mages with Enchantment at skill 8, and produce a magic item in one tenth the time, something I don't think was envisioned initially when the rules were written.

But - if a GM wants to go that route and allow it, I'd say "go for it". Why? Magery 2 is required in order to be even allowed to study the spell. It isn't as though there aren't already some obstacles involved. More importantly, unless you're a GM who permits players to simply spend earned experience points in raising Magery - then the original demographics outlined in GURPS FANTASY 1st and 2nd Edition would be a major limiting factor.

This from Fantasy 2nd edition:

"The number of trained mages (or mages in training) is much lower – approximately 1 for every 10 "amateurs." Thus, in a normal-mana area, a prosperous town of 10,000 could expect to have 100 inhabitants who had some magic, and an additional 10 who were fully practicing mages. Some of the latter would be apprentices or specialists." If the ratio of Magery is always 1:10 in that For every 1 Magery 3, there are 10 Magery 2, and for every 1 magery 2, there are 10 magery 1 individuals - the number of Trained (or shall we say "professional") in such a population of 10,000 would be:

100 inhabitants who had SOME magic, 10 who were fully practicing mages, and of those 100 total, we might see maybe 90 magery 1, 9 magery 2, and 1 magery 3 individuals. Maybe.

If you go with the idea that the best suited for magic casting would be those with the higher magery, that's fine. As a world builder, the decisions you make are yours TO make. One GM might not want that, and go another route. Others might like just that kind of limitation because it then limits just how intrusive GURPS MAGIC can be on society. To have only 10 practicing mages out of 10,000? Ye Gads! That's a 1 in 1,000 ratio. A population of 1,000,000 people would only have a total of 1,000 mages who are professionals.

That doesn't preclude having those mageborn who know only 1 or 2 spells working as professional stone masons who happen to know some stone working spells. It doesn't mean that you can't have a few criminal types who know a few spells, but aren't practicing "trained mages". It simply means that the implications of decisions made, will produce a given result - and a GM who likes exploring implications can have fun with it.

On that note, I think I'll beg off on the concept of mages with skill 12 in enchantments. Why? Largely because that entire line of 23 words was removed from GURPS 4e. It becomes a moot point for those who play with only the newest version. I think it is a shame myself, but hey, no biggie. What is perhaps the real shame is that it wasn't included in GURPS THAUMATOLOGY as an option. Why those 23 words were removed and/or forgotten as a concept is what makes me wonder.

[Kax]

Campaigns, pp481, Enchanting: "The caster [I]must[I] use Ceremonial Magic...and he and any assistants must know both Enchant and the specific spell being put on the item at 15+.".

Pretty unequivocal--no casting Enchant for Enchantments on skill 12.