Kill Your Television, removing Geasa from the game Options

[Kagetenshi]

In light of all of the recent flamewars over the relative capacities of the Awakened versus the Mundane, one recurring point has struck me. Whatever the mundane can do, the Awakened can do with some temporary restrictions. Geasa make cybermages and cyberadepts much more feasible, resulting in a much smaller tradeoff; this is especially true for Adepts, where a lack of magical TNs to make results in no penalties for broken geasa beyond the inability to use the Powers so geased. Thus, I propose the following houserule:

Geasa, in the form of limitations taken to compensate for magic loss, shall henceforth cease to exist. Geasa taken to reduce the cost of Adept Power Points or as part of the Geas Initiation Ordeal shall continue to function as they currently do (noting that they are unremovable).

This causes a few effects:

More downsides to cyber/bio. It doesn't take it out of the realm of possibility, but now the user is clearly and presently giving up something.

More hazard from Deadly damage and stimpatches. I don't see this as an unbalancing disadvantage, really.

Increased value of additional initiations. When you've got a greater potential to lose magic permanently, you're going to want to replace that magic or shore it up somewhat pre-loss.

Thoughts/opinions/flames/knife fights?

~J

[Moon-Hawk]

I actually played that way for a long time. Things were good. Usually one mage, usually one adept, and the rest were big cyber fans. No one complained, they just took it as the way things were.
Last campaign, we decided to start using the real rules.
Current campaign, they're ALL FRAGGING ADEPTS except for the full magicians. The combat roles are all adepts, the face is an adept, the fragging decker is an adept.

I'm starting to think that the geasa to offset magic loss rule is the problem, too.
However, I would suggest one change to your proposed house-rule. I would still allow geasa to offset magic loss in the case of deadly damage or stims. I mean, it's not like they did that on purpose.

[Fortune]

I'd have no problem with this rule. But then again, I rarely use Geasa to offset my characters' magic loss anyway. :)

[Bigity]

I would prefer to allow geasa for involuntary things, such as injuries. But for elective cyber-implant surgery, I kind of like this idea.

Not sure how you would start the burnout path though.

[mfb]

i haven't had a problem with people abusing the geasa rules, myself. one player tried, but i says to him, you take that geas and i'll tell what you can do with it. and he was all, i want my momma. so it was cool.

seriously, though. i solve the problem by making geasa limiting. if i think it's going to be too much of a stretch to enforce a given geas, i'll just tell the player to pick another one--i'm not unreasonable about it, i don't use geasa to crush characters while cackling over the smoldering corpse of their character sheet.

[BitBasher]

For a goodly long time now I have considered either removing gaesa all together or making them severely more limiting, like making it take a free action to fulfill any one gaesa.

I just think many gaesa represent no penalty whatsoever.

[Xirces]

I think mfb's right here - it's not the geasa rules that are the problem, it's the leniency of the GM in letting players get away with non-restrictive geasa. Even the talisman geas should be something for a player to think about - if he know's that some of his power is tied up in an object what will that do to his state of mind and protectivity of it. There's no rules for this, but it should be a roleplaying thing...

[Demonseed Elite]

I don't have anything against this house rule, but it's never been necessary in my games. Like mfb, I run the geasa as GM. Players can express an interest in taking one, but I'm very engaged in the process of what it actually is and how it is handled in game. If they take one, it's no easy street. They will likely regret having to take it. But that's the trade-off. That's kept it pretty balanced in its use.

[Demosthenes]

And I think an object connected to a talisman geas should have the mage's astral signature all over it (after all, there's a magic point in there!)...

In general, I don't have a problem with the rules for Geasa, but my most magic-happy player sees geasa as a serious limitation. Then again, my most magic-happy player hasn't actually properly read the SR magic rules in over 5 years...

[Kagetenshi]

[Lindt]

*whips a knife at you*
But yes, MFB is right. Its a GM problem. Having literally created a geas adept, it has its serious downfalls.

[Kagetenshi]

Like what? Keeping in mind again that the only drawback for an adept in breaking a geas is the temporary loss of the power geased.

~J

[mfb]

i don't tend to allow more than one talisman, personally. unless the character is obsessive-compulsive, or something, i have a hard time seeing someone carry around five lucky or special objects.

[fistandantilus4....]

I've been trying to decide for a while if I should require geas as an initiation ordeal at some point (say high grades like 8+, althugh no one's ever gotten that high, just theoretical) to limit a mage's power a bit, My only problem with the idea is that a geas in my idea at least, is really restricting. What kinds af geasa do your players take that they can shrug off so easily?

BTW, with my idea of the required geas, they can still shed it later w/ initiation if they want. Just slows down their magic gain a bit.My ideafrom this came from 1)MiTS saying that yuo may or may not allow reusing ordeals, I decided they have to use them all before they can reuse one. 2)horrors- certain stronger horrors can only "feed" in certain ways. Just gives them some restriction on calssification on their growing power. Thoughts?

[Veracusse]

Rarely do I ever have players that take gease; sometimes I wish that they would just for the rping experience. However, gease for magic loss due to voluntary cyber replacement, etc. should be fairly strict with little or no gm leniency. Geasa for any other reason could be fair at best. When I have awakened pcs with geasa, or other conditions, such as totem modifiers, I pay close attention to their limitations. I think that in itself offsets the imbalance. Plus, I agree with mfb, I choose the limitation for the gease not the players. They can choose what the gease might be, but I interpret what the effects will be in the game.

Veracusse

[Moon-Hawk]

Some of them are certainly worse than others.
Talisman, for example. If someone takes a talisman geas, as a GM I feel that I am obligated to take that talisman away from them at least once, but how many times can I honestly do that before it becomes hokey, contrived, and stupid? Now if the Talisman were bigger or something that they couldn't take everywhere, like a guitar or gun, then it takes care of itself, but I've seen WAY too many necklace/bracelet/ring Talismans lately. I could disallow jewelry talismans like that, but then I feel like I'm being too mean, since it's listed as an example of a good talisman. As a result, it's not something they have to think about or deal with on a regular basis, it's never an issue except when the GM goes out of his way to take it away.
Condition is another easy one to abuse (since it could be anything), but it's also easier to stop if you're paying attention when they pick it, so I don't mind so much.
Most of the other ones; time, fasting, etc; are quite limiting on their own. Incantation and Gesture are both good in a game of stealth, certainly. It's kinda hard to stealthily wave your arms around.

[Xirces]

The thing about jewelery is that it does get taken off - I don't wear a lot, but I'll take my rings off when I go to the gym, swim, do the washing up, work in the garden etc (and in the case of my wedding ring, when I go out...) and I sometimes forget to put them back on. If part of my power was tied to it, I'd be more careful about taking it off and very careful, possibly to the point of paranoia, about where I leave it. As it stands, if it goes missing, then all I've lost is a lump of gold (with some sentimental value). For a mage to lose his geas talisman is a big problem and that will be reflected in the way he treats himself and the object.

There are plenty of times when a ring may be removed by other parties - your friendly doctor for instance any time you're having extended care or surgery. Where is it kept then?

I don't advocate screwing players in contrived situations, but making use of the natural fear of such a restriction is a good idea™.

[Kagetenshi]

[Moon-Hawk]

Mechanically, jewelry talismans can be very cheesy, even though they satisfy the spirit of the talisman geas wonderfully.
IMG, talisman is chosen more often than all other geasa combined, despite the fact that my players know that it WILL be exploited at least once in a very inconvenient way. YMMV

[DarusGrey]

I agree that the problem is more of a gm player relationship issue then a rule one...



Cheesiest thing I've ever done in SR was geas "loud incantation" to my one adept's Smashing Blow ability (if your blowing out a wall with your fists..more noise ain't gonna hurt that much..hah)

[Nikoli]

IMO about talisman Geasa, though it's not in the books, is that it's signifigance should be visible on the astral. Someone with perception should see it is tied somehow with your abilities and could reasonably guess it is either a focus or in some other way a crutch for you're continued power useage.
TN 4 Intelligence test
1~2 Successes: Connected to target's abilities
3~4 Successes: Possibly a focus
5 or more:It's a talisman, no inherent magic placed within it, however a good target nonetheless.

As far as cheesy Geasa, you have only the GM to blame. Had a player try use gloves to fulfill their Talisman geasa, of course I tunred that one down because a reasonable person would wear gloves on a run (provided gloves wouldn't stand out). The trick is to work with the player and find something limiting but not insane while maintaining fun.
If it doesn't have a downside, it isn't a limit.

PS, player ended up going with Nocturnal for the geasa, which worked more in line with their totem (Racoon) and their personality (night owl) yet provided me with a very simple method for ensuring the geasa was enforced. Player refused to go meets that weren't after sundown (though at least one Johnson wanted to meet in the middle of the day, so party had no magic backup)

[Moon-Hawk]

Interesting idea. That is one of many possible solutions to de-cheese the talisman geas.

[hahnsoo]

[Nikoli]

lol

[nezumi]

I agree with Demosthenes. In fact, I would make a talisman appear to be a focus on the astral, and enforce all the rules relating to that. Any mage happens to be popping around, they'll know it's a good thing to aim for. It won't make a huge difference on the physical plane, but you'd better have your magey friend around to protect your butt otherwise.

I also like Biggity's idea... letting the GM choose > )

In general, there are too areas where I feel compelled to pooch PCs to the point of giving them a direct and clear warning: geas and flaws. After all, they're getting a lot of power from these things, but it's no free ride.