I was being a little facetious, in order to go with the whole repetition/alliteration thing. Won't happen again. Allow me to, instead, mention again a previous example I stated that has yet to be refuted by the "Geasa are candy!" crowd.
"It's like a limitation stating that your IA:Pistols only works when you're firing a pistol."
Full Version: Geasa
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| I was being a little facetious, in order to go with the whole repetition/alliteration thing. Won't happen again. Allow me to, instead, mention again a previous example I stated that has yet to be refuted by the "Geasa are candy!" crowd. "It's like a limitation stating that your IA:Pistols only works when you're firing a pistol." |
No problem. I was being painfully literal.
I am sure there are many rules lawyers who will explain why their adepts have the mindset that destroying a drone is the same as "killing" a drone and disrupting a spirit equals "killing" a spirit.
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (Critias) I was being a little facetious, in order to go with the whole repetition/alliteration thing. Won't happen again. Allow me to, instead, mention again a previous example I stated that has yet to be refuted by the "Geasa are candy!" crowd. "It's like a limitation stating that your IA:Pistols only works when you're firing a pistol." |
Ok, is someone now going to suggest that IA:Pistols only when firing is a limitation because you can't use it when cleaning your pistol?
I wouldn't put it past them.
"IRL, I spend at least 25% of my time after I go shooting, disassembling and cleaning my handgun! That means if my IA doesn't help with that (not that it helps with that regularly, in the rules), I deserve a 25% discount on my power cost! My IA: Pistol is still there, it's just not doing anything! Mars chicken liver sourpuss cream cheese!"
"IRL, I spend at least 25% of my time after I go shooting, disassembling and cleaning my handgun! That means if my IA doesn't help with that (not that it helps with that regularly, in the rules), I deserve a 25% discount on my power cost! My IA: Pistol is still there, it's just not doing anything! Mars chicken liver sourpuss cream cheese!"
Hehe, actually a Geas that compulsively requires the Adept/Mage to clean his weapon after each round of combat would be kinda harsh.
Failure to clean the weapon before using it again breaks the geas. And cleaning should involve disassembly or special cleaning fluids if a melee weapon.
Failure to clean the weapon before using it again breaks the geas. And cleaning should involve disassembly or special cleaning fluids if a melee weapon.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca @ May 19 2005, 05:36 PM) |
| IN the end it depends on the GM. That is a very good reason why all gease are subject to GM aproval, by canon. |
Indeed, but how does he decide what to allow or not to allow? Is he going to disallow a canon example of a geas? Is he going to refuse a Talisman geas that follows canon? While by canon, he has the right to refuse any geas that he feels is limiting, by canon, can he feel that a certain geas is not limiting?
There is a very good reason why the book provides examples and guidelines.
Also for IA: Pistols Geased to using pistols, you lose that when you default to pistols.
Holy Deja Vu, Batman!
How about spell shroud: Only when in the target area of a detection spell?
Missile Parry: Only when targetted by a projectile weapon?
Suspended State: Only when alive?
I'm going to bed.
How about spell shroud: Only when in the target area of a detection spell?
Missile Parry: Only when targetted by a projectile weapon?
Suspended State: Only when alive?
I'm going to bed.
Alright.. the Improved Ability: Pistols...
1) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators'?
2) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators' on a character who only uses Ares Predators (has specialization
?
1) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators'?
2) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators' on a character who only uses Ares Predators (has specialization
?| QUOTE (Dawnshadow @ May 19 2005, 08:11 AM) |
| Alright.. the Improved Ability: Pistols... 1) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators'? 2) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators' on a character who only uses Ares Predators (has specialization ? |
I would allow neither.
For the simple reason that they are both variations of the Talisman Geas, but are both easier to fulfill.
If you bind yourself to a specific Ares Predator, which you take the time to bond to you as per the bonding talismen rules, then sure.
Note though, that a talisman must have 2 defining characteristics if replaced later. An Ares Predator is certainly complex enough that another could replace the first talisman if lost. (EDIT: Your talisman limits could be set at, 1. it has to be a pistol and 2. it has to have a certain engraving.) - The engraving could even be the Ares logo, meaning you can potentially make talismen for this geas on your pistol skill using any Ares Pistol, or the engraving could be your personal mark, opening up for use of all types of pistols, but giving your identity away if you lose one of them.
Also note, that the rules mention nothing about preparing more than one talisman in advance. So if you bind both your Ares Predators to you, then the geas is fulfilled using either of them. But they are still specific guns, and picking up a third generic AP will not work for the geas. - Until its bound to you by ritual.
You know you can simply geas all those powers to : Cannot be taught. No need for all that dancing around what is a limitation, you gotta be insane (although I am), etc crap.
| QUOTE (Dawnshadow) |
| 1) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators'? 2) Who would allow 'Only when I'm using Ares Predators' on a character who only uses Ares Predators (has specialization ? |
I'd allow both. Ask around here and tell me if our gunfreaks DON'T have a pistol (or rifle or shotgun, etc.) that they're partial to. Tell me if they DON'T have a pistol (or rifle or shotgun, etc.) that they're a bit more proficient in. If you have a specialization in a certain kind of firearm, that means you've spent more time focusing on it. It also means that being psychologically dependant on that firearm (to the extent that your juju doesn't work when you're not using it) isn't unreasonable.
Yes, I know a geas is supposed to be a limit, but some of these last posts have convinced me that some of us believe that "limit" = "rape player in the ass."
"Uhhh... Ok, I have improved pistols but it only works when I'm naked, standing on my head, covered in cottage cheese, and yodeling. How's that?"
| QUOTE (Smiley) |
| "Uhhh... Ok, I have improved pistols but it only works when I'm naked, standing on my head, covered in cottage cheese, and yodeling. How's that?" |
Don't forget "... with a beer in each hand, so I can't hold a pistol!"
"...blindfolded, on fire..."
"...dancing the funky chicken..."
| QUOTE |
| Yes, I know a geas is supposed to be a limit, but some of these last posts have convinced me that some of us believe that "limit" = "rape player in the ass." |
There's a long middle ground between 'rape player in the ass' and 'give player stuff for free'.
I agree.
The way I see it, the awakened and unawakened were pretty well balanced before geas entered the mix. The system worked, and it worked pretty well. So logically, geas should not give mages a significant advantage over their unawakened brethren. After all, there's no equivalent for the unawakened, just more ware.
So it's my feeling that the downfalls of a geas should just about balance out with the benefits. If you geas a point of essence to get some cyber, the geas should restrain you about as much as the cyber helps you.
Geas aren't meant to be a bonus or a fun thing. They're a restriction, a flaw. If you don't make them into flaws, there's no purpose in keeping them in the game, except to pooch mundanes.
So it's my feeling that the downfalls of a geas should just about balance out with the benefits. If you geas a point of essence to get some cyber, the geas should restrain you about as much as the cyber helps you.
Geas aren't meant to be a bonus or a fun thing. They're a restriction, a flaw. If you don't make them into flaws, there's no purpose in keeping them in the game, except to pooch mundanes.
I don't mind the balance of geasa that much, voluntary or involuntary - mostly due to the fact that chromies never suffer essense loss - and they can choose alphaware and betaware to make their essense go further. What I don't like is that finger-wigglers can take geasa for magic loss that is attributed to gaining cyberware/bioware. Losing some magical ability is supposed to be the cost of gaining the bennifit of cyber. If they chose a geas to keep that magic point, it better be damn limiting, and if I'm GMing it certainly won't be a talisman geas attached to the peice of cyberware that was just implanted.
| QUOTE (Smiley) | ||
I'd allow both. Ask around here and tell me if our gunfreaks DON'T have a pistol (or rifle or shotgun, etc.) that they're partial to. Tell me if they DON'T have a pistol (or rifle or shotgun, etc.) that they're a bit more proficient in. If you have a specialization in a certain kind of firearm, that means you've spent more time focusing on it. It also means that being psychologically dependant on that firearm (to the extent that your juju doesn't work when you're not using it) isn't unreasonable. Yes, I know a geas is supposed to be a limit, but some of these last posts have convinced me that some of us believe that "limit" = "rape player in the ass." "Uhhh... Ok, I have improved pistols but it only works when I'm naked, standing on my head, covered in cottage cheese, and yodeling. How's that?" |
The situation you describe is already in the books. The Talisman Geas.
Its not doing harsh things to anyones rectum to take a Talisman geas.
The only hitch is that the player has to spend a week doing a bonding ritual with his gun. Then he's all set.
You cannot simply make a geas that is merely limiting the player to use a generic kind of item, when there, in the book, is a limitation to a specific item.
Its a fairly small distinction, but its not unnoticeable. And its NOT rape.
If I wanted a talisman geas, I'd have specified it as a talisman geas.
Condition geas: examples: drunk, sit in lotus, unwounded.
My interpretation: Must be doing something, or satisfy some physical condition. To my mind: "using Ares Predators" is a condition. If it was a talisman geas, then I could be holding a predator in one hand, or wearing it in a holster, and I could use the power with any pistol.
A talisman geas is fundamentally different. It requires 3 specific details, and the power works so long as you have the talisman on hand. Replacing it requires 1 hour meditation. (1 hour per force of spell, assuming force of spell is equivalent to one magic point)
Condition geas: examples: drunk, sit in lotus, unwounded.
My interpretation: Must be doing something, or satisfy some physical condition. To my mind: "using Ares Predators" is a condition. If it was a talisman geas, then I could be holding a predator in one hand, or wearing it in a holster, and I could use the power with any pistol.
A talisman geas is fundamentally different. It requires 3 specific details, and the power works so long as you have the talisman on hand. Replacing it requires 1 hour meditation. (1 hour per force of spell, assuming force of spell is equivalent to one magic point)
Ok, so we are speaking the same language now.
What I am trying to get across to you, is that a conditional geas should not be so obviously more lenient than another existing geas. In this case the Talisman geas.
Simply using any Ares Predator is very much more lenient than having to use an Ares Predator your character is intimately familiar with.
A conditional geas that would be ok, would be an act or other condition that requires some kind of extra concentration. Holding an Ares Predator does not, by itself, demand extra concentration to be focused.
Meditating on the feel of the gun, the weight in your hand, instinctly knowing how much you have to pull down to counter the recoil after the first shot, minute tugs done within splitseconds of each round fired. - Now that would be a geas.
And its a geas that could be broken by a violent outside interference, massive noise, shouting on the radio of panicking friends, heavy gunfire directed at you etc.
What I am trying to get across to you, is that a conditional geas should not be so obviously more lenient than another existing geas. In this case the Talisman geas.
Simply using any Ares Predator is very much more lenient than having to use an Ares Predator your character is intimately familiar with.
A conditional geas that would be ok, would be an act or other condition that requires some kind of extra concentration. Holding an Ares Predator does not, by itself, demand extra concentration to be focused.
Meditating on the feel of the gun, the weight in your hand, instinctly knowing how much you have to pull down to counter the recoil after the first shot, minute tugs done within splitseconds of each round fired. - Now that would be a geas.
And its a geas that could be broken by a violent outside interference, massive noise, shouting on the radio of panicking friends, heavy gunfire directed at you etc.
The condition geas is less leniant then the talisman geas.
The talisman geas is valid even if you've got the predator stuffed in the holster. The condition is valid only when you're using the predator.
Beyond that.. the examples I gave of condition geasa were canon ones. Straight out of MitS. How are any of them broken by "violent outside interference, massive noise, shouting on the radio of panicking friends". Heavy gunfire, maybe (if it hits..) and the condition is 'unwounded'.
Oh.. and the talisman geasa would be : pistol, accepts a silencer, Ares logo.
The talisman geas is valid even if you've got the predator stuffed in the holster. The condition is valid only when you're using the predator.
Beyond that.. the examples I gave of condition geasa were canon ones. Straight out of MitS. How are any of them broken by "violent outside interference, massive noise, shouting on the radio of panicking friends". Heavy gunfire, maybe (if it hits..) and the condition is 'unwounded'.
Oh.. and the talisman geasa would be : pistol, accepts a silencer, Ares logo.
| QUOTE (SuperSpy) |
| I don't mind the balance of geasa that much, voluntary or involuntary - mostly due to the fact that chromies never suffer essense loss - and they can choose alphaware and betaware to make their essense go further. What I don't like is that finger-wigglers can take geasa for magic loss that is attributed to gaining cyberware/bioware. Losing some magical ability is supposed to be the cost of gaining the bennifit of cyber. If they chose a geas to keep that magic point, it better be damn limiting, and if I'm GMing it certainly won't be a talisman geas attached to the peice of cyberware that was just implanted. |
It isn't canon but I'd treat a gease to compensate for voluntary cyberware as a voluntary gease. No shedding.
| QUOTE |
| Condition geas: examples: drunk, sit in lotus, unwounded. |
If you have to be drunk, that's an obvious disadvantage, since it would involve TN penalties to all your actions (I can't imagine anyone actually taking this except for roleplay reasons.) If you're sitting in lotus you can't be running away, have TN modifiers for melee (prone), etc. Unwounded geasa are obviously limiting at least some of the time...All of the conditions they list in the book have real, genuine drawbacks. What's the genuine drawback to 'Must be shooting' as a geasa to IA:Pistols? I'm not saying that you can't rationalize a justification for why it makes sense; I'm asking what the drawback is that balances out the benifit.
Bottom line: Every GM has his own playing style, with his particular threat levels, chances of deadly wounds, expected power levels, predominence of magic, etc. In my games, the players start out on the lower end or middle of the power scale, magic is more predominant than many other GMs here, deadly wounds are uncommon but not unheard of (especially in the beginning), and geasa will impede the character's use of magic between 25% and 50% of the time.
If you want to make it easier for your mages to take geasa and get more points, than that's your perogative. But it wouldn't fly in my game.
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| ...geasa will impede the character's use of magic between 25% and 50% of the time. |
Damn, that's a little harsh. Why pay for and geas magic at all if half the time you're not going to be able to use it anyway? Might as well not even bother.
| QUOTE (Smiley) |
| Damn, that's a little harsh. |
THAT is harsh?? 25% is kind, IMO.
But lets take it apart...
1) The original alternative was no bonus to magic at all (no geas), which is still worse than an impediment 25-50% of the time
2) Suppose we say a mage has an impediment 50% of the time. He can either take the geas, and cast half the time at force 4 and half at force 6, or not take it and cast all the time at force 5. It seems like the penalty is equivalent to me, on average it's a loss of 1 magic point, and that's the penalty that he was hit with in the first place, right? Supposing the geas effects him less than 50% of the time, it's a net gain.
Of course, this isn't touching on adepts, who would have lost that power anyway. It's certainly a gain for them, since at least now they CAN use those powers sometimes.
3) Adepts get a 25% decrease in cost for their powers. So it makes sense about 25% of the time they can't use their powers. It's still balanced. You might not think it's balanced for 50% of the time, but I've seen people get that extra 1.5 power points, and it's scary.
4) When buying cyber, the essence cost determines how much power they lose. Sticking with our 50% number, that means it's effectively have a magic point. So lets say he gets 2 points of cyber. He can effectively lower that to 1 point of magic loss (2 geased points that work 50% of the time). The alternative way of getting that much power and cyber would be to get deltaware.
So the mage has the option of getting the equivalent bonuses of deltaware at chargen, as opposed to the street sam who get it... never? (I have as of yet to see anyone get deltaware).
Yes, I'd stick with 25-50%, and I feel that's generous. Are you seriously suggesting you give your PCs geas which affects them LESS than 25% of the time? I call that a freebie.
Call it whatever you want.
why not get a geas if it's not going to impede you, smiley? why doesn't everyone geas all their magic? it's not like geasa are hinderances or limitiations, right?
| QUOTE (Smiley) | ||
Damn, that's a little harsh. Why pay for and geas magic at all if half the time you're not going to be able to use it anyway? Might as well not even bother. |
DING DING DING, GOLD STAR!
That's the whole POINT. They're not supposed to be attractive. Contrary to the vocal minority's popular beleif, Geas aren't just the "Alphaware" of Adept Powers. They're bad things. Get that into your heads.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be restrictive, nor have I ever. But why would an in-game character take a geas that horsefucks him half the time? He or she would take one that allowed him or her to keep the use of their magic for the maximum percentage of the time. If, in your game, that's 50%, fine. Take a Midol.
Seriously there is a reason the book calls them Taboo
| QUOTE (Dictionary.com) |
| adj. Excluded or forbidden from use, approach, or mention: a taboo subject |
Taboo ... is a bad thing NOT in fact this
| QUOTE (Dumpshock) |
| Adj. Use it all the Fraggin' time , its like Free stuff! Yay! wow look free Puppies ! |
Geasa are not suppose to give you an edge ... they are a crutch that your magic is hampered by
also its a know fact that Geas' hate puppies
Gaes is your punishment for something else.
By accepting your punishment, you get to play with all your toys again.
Of course, this breaks down with phys-ads and their "take a gaesa to get more points" concept. Personally, i think the point costs need to be re-evaluated, they are far too steep.
By accepting your punishment, you get to play with all your toys again.
Of course, this breaks down with phys-ads and their "take a gaesa to get more points" concept. Personally, i think the point costs need to be re-evaluated, they are far too steep.
| QUOTE (Smiley) |
| He or she would take one that allowed him or her to keep the use of their magic for the maximum percentage of the time. If, in your game, that's 50%, fine. Take a Midol. |
Actually, if you look back, the maximum should be 75% of the time, which is pretty generous.
And I'm not sure what midol is for. Isn't that the fiber bars for if you haven't pooped in a while? Or is that muslin?
| QUOTE (Critias @ May 21 2005, 03:33 AM) |
| That's the whole POINT. They're not supposed to be attractive. Contrary to the vocal minority's popular beleif, Geas aren't just the "Alphaware" of Adept Powers. They're bad things. Get that into your heads. |
Contary to the vocal minority's popular belief, Geas are only bad things if you let it to be bad. Get that into your head.
Involuntary geas is not something you want to take (see defination for involuntary). If your GM wants buttf**k you through Involuntary Geas, too bad. Because that is Involuntary and Involuntary things are usually bad. Whereas Voluntary Geas are only bad if you are stupid or retarded or insist on not thinking or something to that effect.
There is a canon downside to voluntary geas, though. You can't get rid of it. Typhon, what used to be taboo 20/30 years back, may not be taboo now. What is taboo now may not be in 20 more years. It is called progress, get with the SOTA.
| QUOTE (toturi @ May 20 2005, 03:46 PM) | ||
Contary to the vocal minority's popular belief, Geas are only bad things if you let it to be bad. Get that into your head. Involuntary geas is not something you want to take (see defination for involuntary). If your GM wants buttf**k you through Involuntary Geas, too bad. Because that is Involuntary and Involuntary things are usually bad. Whereas Voluntary Geas are only bad if you are stupid or retarded or insist on not thinking or something to that effect. |
In fact, for mage geasea at least you have to be careful that you don't activate the geas more than 25% of the time, and should probably use it less, even much less. That +1 to all magical TNs per geas possessed, not per geas broken, that you get when you break even a single one really screw up mages, and is IMO what makes them fair for mages.
The problem with adept (involuntary) geasea is that they effectively get something for nothing; even if they break the geas they're no worse off than if they hadn't taken the geas in the first place. This is why you'll often see adepts with two or more points of powers geased off; they don't really lose much unless you really make those geasea count. This is why the cyberware talismans mystify me; they tend to be used with adepts more often with mages, and also tend to be invoked less often than, say, a mage's Gesture geas. Adepts need to feel the pinch *more* often than mages, not less.
toturi, where is your canon support for the idea that geasa are not bad, assuming that the definition of "bad" includes "limiting the use of a character's magic"? hell, the book even encourages the GM to disallow geasa that aren't limiting enough, right there in the section on voluntary geasa. what makes you think that geasa aren't supposed to be bad?
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Adepts need to feel the pinch *more* often than mages. |
That statement gets my Vote. 1-2 Magic points lost, in my experience (Both as GM and Player) tend not to effect Adepts in the slightest, only when you get to 3+ Magics points Geas'd does it become a mild concern.
Because I do not include "limiting the use of a character's magic" in "bad", since there is no canon defination for "bad". And the fact that "bad" is not used in the canon description of geasa.
One thing I've noticed myself (and this thread seems to reflect) is that adepts loose magic a lot more often than mages. It makes sense from thier roles. Adepts specifically have powers that relate to combat, resisting damage, and even healing injury. Not all of them take those roles, but in general they will get hurt more often, and more seriously, than a mage who is equally cautious about things but has a wider range of ways to "sidestep" violent conflict, or resolve it quickly.
Either geas (involuntary, for injury related magic loss) should impact adepts less, or they should be less likely to loose magic from things that would cause magic loss for a mage. The later obviously isn't true, but it seems (to a point) that the former is.
Either geas (involuntary, for injury related magic loss) should impact adepts less, or they should be less likely to loose magic from things that would cause magic loss for a mage. The later obviously isn't true, but it seems (to a point) that the former is.
*shrug* okay, toturi. in your world, limitations on your magic can be a good thing. that doesn't change the fact that geasa are, and should be--according to the book--limiting.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| *shrug* okay, toturi. in your world, limitations on your magic can be a good thing. that doesn't change the fact that geasa are, and should be--according to the book--limiting. |
According to the book, that's what they are. I am not arguing that they should not be limiting, I am arguing that they are! Not bad, but limiting. The question is how limiting? Every adept power has limits. By the book, how limiting does a geas need to be? With certain geasa, we know how to define those geasa and how limiting they should be. With other geasa, the defination is not as clear.
There is one set of geasa rules for magicians and another for adepts. I didn't write the books, I just run by them.
| QUOTE (nezumi) | ||
Actually, if you look back, the maximum should be 75% of the time, which is pretty generous. And I'm not sure what midol is for. Isn't that the fiber bars for if you haven't pooped in a while? Or is that muslin? |
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| There is a canon downside to voluntary geas, though. You can't get rid of it. |
But how is that a downside in Toturirun? In Toturirun, geasa aren't seriously limiting in any meaningful way, so why does it matter that you can or can't ever get rid of it? If a geas doesn't even make you break your stride, who cares if you're stuck with it forever? Not being able to get rid of a not bad thing is not bad. Being locked into eternal marital union with Natalie Portman (or whoever) is not punishment, just because it is forever.
That's like saying "Yes, it's horrible, my checking account stays at a million dollars, no matter how much money I spend or how many deposits I make! Woe is me!" The downside is that it's stuck at a million bucks regardless of how much you put in there. You'll never get to see a million and one dollars on your balance statement. Oh noes! The upside is that Toturirun is like eating candy, so you can spend umpteen hojillion dollars and that checking account stays right there at a million (so there's no real drawback).
Geasa are meant to be limiting. If your Geas is not limiting, it is not what it is meant to be. You should not get something for nothing. You, or your GM, needs a head check (or needs to be cutting everyone else in the game similar breaks).
I'm still convinced that toturi is just playing Devil's Advocate.
| QUOTE (Me) |
| Geasa Bad! |
| QUOTE (Toturi) |
| Geasa Good |
| QUOTE (Dead Horse) |
| Stop Beating me! |
You know what we can go on for hours with this contest so I'll give you this Toturi , if your GM feels that Geasa (Something that Cannon Defines as a crutch for your magic) shouldn't actually impose any inconvenience for your character , then congratulations , your GM is super nice and you should be thankful . also I belive Geasa don't necessarily have to do bad things to your brown-eye , I just think you shouldn't be able to get your magic back for nothing , or in the case of the adept get something for nothing ... but again I could debate this all night so instead I'm going to just say that reguardless of what we think is the right and wrong answer it still just falls to the whim of you GM to decide .
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Being locked into eternal marital union with Natalie Portman (or whoever) is not punishment, just because it is forever. |
Well say you're an elf. In about thirty years or so, even with Natalie Portman, things are gonna start drooping...
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ May 21 2005, 09:53 PM) | ||
Well say you're an elf. In about thirty years or so, even with Natalie Portman, things are gonna start drooping... |
Especially if she shaves her head (I am sure some men find women with shaven heads sexy).
Dissonance: shhhh...
I'm enjoying myself.
I let someone take an "always on" geas for improved adept reflexes and senses, meaning I got to spring the "no reflex trigger" and "no dampaning smells, noises, and lights" rules on him all the time. It seemed lenient, he and I both initially thought it would be no big thing, but I let the guy talk me into it, and it was great. He ended up with just what he said his character was supposed to be - a Wolf themed adept made jumpy and feral by his own powers. After a while, he wouldn't go in places like nightclubs or even malls, because he kept hurting and almost hurting bystanders and getting in horrible brawls. I also let the guy take a "visibly supernatural" geas where his KH manifested as short talons, he had sharp eyeteeth, wild hair, amber eyes. In the sixth world, anything goes fashion wise, but it was still enough to earn him some explaining from time to time. The important thing is, we both got what we wanted from the character - I got to restrict him, but I made him feel like a brooding badman antihero while I did it, so it was a good collabrative experience.
I think the important facet of a geasa from an RPing standpoint, is that if the guy got extra points or got out of magic loss for it, it should come up from time to time. It doesn't matter how he wants it to look or what he wants to call it, it should just reach out and bite him now and again. Making that happen with the right plausability and frequency is where I come in as GM. Character building and roleplaying are just ways of juggling numbers - you pay BP and karma for an ability, and if you stretch that with a voluntary limit, I will make it come up. That's what the option is - it's more customization, but more vunerability. But I'll do it the same to everyone - the claustrophobe is going through a vent shaft at some point, the 'hunted' guy's enemies are coming after him, the 'night' geased adept will get jumped at noon - but I'm going to ding all of them at the same, infrequent rate. I want them to suddenly remember their limits when once and a while - I don't want them to feel nagged.
Also, Dawnshadow - you guys need to be more careful. Those characters only get one skin, man
I think the important facet of a geasa from an RPing standpoint, is that if the guy got extra points or got out of magic loss for it, it should come up from time to time. It doesn't matter how he wants it to look or what he wants to call it, it should just reach out and bite him now and again. Making that happen with the right plausability and frequency is where I come in as GM. Character building and roleplaying are just ways of juggling numbers - you pay BP and karma for an ability, and if you stretch that with a voluntary limit, I will make it come up. That's what the option is - it's more customization, but more vunerability. But I'll do it the same to everyone - the claustrophobe is going through a vent shaft at some point, the 'hunted' guy's enemies are coming after him, the 'night' geased adept will get jumped at noon - but I'm going to ding all of them at the same, infrequent rate. I want them to suddenly remember their limits when once and a while - I don't want them to feel nagged.
Also, Dawnshadow - you guys need to be more careful. Those characters only get one skin, man
Concur.
Actually, JohnnyCache...
I think they're on their third skins. Fire and such.. really nasty..
I think they're on their third skins. Fire and such.. really nasty..
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.