[UA] Risking it

[rowan at media.mit.edu]

> As I left
> the
> debate, I pointed out the problem I had with many skeptics who do not
> adhere
> closely enough to Spinoza's Dictum -- just because I can't make it
> happen
> again doesn't mean that it never happened.  In UA, I think that the
> first
> time it happened, the Universe gave the proto-Adept a free hit, so to
> speak.
> It tied into something the character was already fairly obsessed about,
> and
> hinted at a greater truth.  Much later, after studying and sacrifice,
> the
> character develops a degree of control over these forces that are
> difficult
> to comprehend.  The control is not total.  The universe still exacts its
> tol
> l on the Adept through the paradoxical actions that generate charges,
> and
> even then, the magick does not flow exactly as it should.  

and

> I still think drugs work in a consistent manner.  I
> think, next time, I'll run a game where magic works
> with a sort of law of diminishing returns.

Very cool... that was the same thought I had upon reading that post. 

UA caught my fancy because of the notion that magic-users really have to PAY for 
magic. That magic isn't inifinitely repeatable, because eventually you fire the 
chamber with the bullet in it or you run out of limbs to cut off or you run out 
of memories and sanity. But I'm interested in making the sacrifices even more 
explicitly permanent in their consequences.

This would open up big incentives to tap younger, fresher power sources for 
working magic: the image comes to mind of the aging necromancer, his powers 
fueled now only by tapping the vitality of young sacrificial victims. It also 
creates more of an incentive to teach apprentices.

-Matt Norwood

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua