|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 18, 2015 22:08:44 GMT -6
I am considering running an OD&D Wilderness campaign and am reading the rules in OD&D. I am trying to figure out how much I want to change the rules before running the game.
The reactions of the Fighting Men and Clerics seem reasonably within the bounds of some kind of fantastic medieval framework. But I do not like the rules for the Magic-Users. Passersby who are NOT HOSTILE to the MU are sent on a geas to get treasure. Others are assessed a toll of a magic item and if the passersby have no items, the toll is 1,000 - 4,000 GP. This kind of behavior doesn't fit the kind of game I am interested in running. It would be much more interesting to have even a slightly fleshed out NPC and role-play the encounter.
If you have run wilderness campaigns of this sort, did you play MUs this way? How did it go?
If not, what did you do instead, or what would you do instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 18, 2015 23:20:29 GMT -6
I think this is more of a sword and sorcery trope. I don't run a wilderness campaign in this way, but it's appropriate should your fantasy milieu cleave tightly to the genre. In a low-magic campaign like my own, spell casters enjoy the anonymity and isolation superstition provides their profession. The study and practice of eldritch rites benefit from the quiet and undisturbed obeisance to the unseen, be it in the attic residence of the old quarter, or among the dolmens on the hill. They are not particularly interested in adventurers, infants and lowly maids will feed the dark entities. Performing magic is about establishing and sustaining a contact with an entity(ies)that will become a guide and guardian to them, possibly a tormentor or nemesis to others, and all taking shape as the spells of the caster.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 18, 2015 23:59:48 GMT -6
I think this is more of a sword and sorcery trope. I don't run a wilderness campaign in this way, but it's appropriate should your fantasy milieu cleave tightly to that genre. Any examples? The only thing I can think of that seems to fit that sort of plot element would be a geas for a specific item. It seems like a very limiting approach. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 19, 2015 0:36:01 GMT -6
That's a good question, and I am certain others here, much better read in the genre than myself, could provide some useful examples. Geas for a specific item is a strong example, and there are many ways by which to deepen this motif. A company of adventurers is sufficiently more qualified for the task of exhuming or recovering the item(s) from a dungeon than a mage. Now, imagine if the party is geased to retrieve a spell book known to be in the possession of another mage, rumored to have taken up residence rather anonymously in the old quarter of the city. This mage could be a rather nasty adversary and offer a lot of opportunity to ply your imagination. The tome, itself, could be perilous to handle, ensorcelled with a host of curses (increased chance of wandering monsters, combat and save disadvantages, etc.), spells inscribed in an ancient tongue long lost to thought, and harboring a secret exceeding its sorcery. More spell casters could be engaged, ones to decipher text and lift the curses,only to find as long as the object is within one's possession the curses remain operative. The book might act like an artifact bringing on paranoia and possessiveness, impelling part of the company to split off, possibly becoming lost within, beneath or outside the city and thus imperiled.
Magic users belonging to the genre traffic with demons and thus are not entirely human, having given up some of their humanity to manifest these entities. Moreover, by their supplications or manipulations, they may themselves have risked becoming inimical to much of humanity. Hence they are not to be trusted. 'Limiting' I might take to be "well-defined", offering some boundaries by which a magic user is recognized and the latitude to express multiple figures.
Geas, then is a way of describing a wizard's nature, his natural hold over the minds of non-wizards, it is something essential to being a wizard; a sort of unfriendly version of Gandalf's forming of the company of 14, though one might interpret that as a geas as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 19, 2015 5:43:28 GMT -6
I think this is more of a sword and sorcery trope. Any examples? The only thing I can think of that seems to fit that sort of plot element would be a geas for a specific item. It seems like a very limiting approach. Keep in mind, however, that the wizard is probably doing some sort of research and would prefer not to leave his tower. Perhaps he needs some spell components like horn of a unicorn or scales of a dragon. The characters annoy him and he can make them go away and solve this problem of getting stuff from the wilderness. Win-win.  As far as literary examples go, I think they are mostly like you suggested -- a plot element. There are many examples in Leiber's stories where Fafhrd/Mouser encounters Ningauble/Sheelba who sends him on a quest in exchange for knowledge or whatever. Lin Carter's Kesrick and Jack Vance's Cugel the Clever are both sent on quests at the whim of a magic user. You could argue that both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" are examples of where a wizard (Gandalf) manipulates events such that the characters (Bilbo or Frodo) have to quest into the wilderness at the whim of the wizard. In many of these cases, the wizard's role is often simply the start of the quest or the cause of the side-adventure. This works well in a Wilderness campaign because it adds a layer of structure to an otherwise semi-random hex crawl. Many Wilderness games start out with characters methodically working their way throuh hexes, clearing them out of monsters the same way they clear out rooms of a dungeon. A wizard's side-quest gives some nice options and allows for the GM to steer the action a little. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jun 19, 2015 7:38:04 GMT -6
I am considering running an OD&D Wilderness campaign and am reading the rules in OD&D. I am trying to figure out how much I want to change the rules before running the game. You don't have to change the rules at all. The stated reactions, type and number of guards, etc., are all for off-hand adventures, on the Outdoor Survival board. But immediately after this board is introduced, the text continues: "Exploratory journeys...are handled in an entirely different manner." So there's nothing requiring you to run your wilderness-encountered Magic Users in any particular way. If you have your world fleshed out and detailed, of course you should roleplay the Wizard instead of relying on a table. Anyway, that's my take on it. Hope you find it of some use. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jun 19, 2015 11:43:59 GMT -6
I think this is more of a sword and sorcery trope. I don't run a wilderness campaign in this way, but it's appropriate should your fantasy milieu cleave tightly to that genre. Any examples? The only thing I can think of that seems to fit that sort of plot element would be a geas for a specific item. It seems like a very limiting approach. Good example. Most high level magic-users are too busy to run their own errands, and they sure as hell aren't going to pay anyone to do so or risk their life summoning an elemental to play fetch the magic-lamp. So wizards are going to offer players the ultimatum: A. Go do this bothersome task for me B. Give me that magic thingy you're holding so I can pay an efriit with it to do the job instead of you C. I can turn you all into toads |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 20, 2015 7:41:35 GMT -6
It does not say "Passerby who are not hostile to the MU", it says "MU...will send....by geas if they are not hostile (comma)".
"They" can be read as you are reading it, or it can be read as referring to the MU, being dependent on his alignment.
I read this section as the suggested automatic reaction of the castle inhabitants (the MU in this case)- no need to roll for random reactions. I also see a strong influence of Fuedalism with these suggestions. It emphasizes the importance of land ownership and the risk of trespassing on others territory.
So, if the MU is Chaotic, all bets are off- no geas, no toll, no forfiture of magic items. Only death remains as an option for the pc's because they have trespassed.
This can also be seen under the entry for Clerics. "Generally Evil High Priests will simply attempt to slay Lawful or Neutral passerby who fail to pay their tithe."
You might want to be a more gentle GM and still roll for a reaction or roleplay the encounter to see where it goes, though.
If your setting does not contain the same sort of tropes that these suggestions support, I would simply ignore them and use the random Reaction Table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 9:52:12 GMT -6
I've always seen these rules as ways to put plot hooks into the campaign. The wizard sends out his servants who invite the PC's to a dinner complete with lizardman dancing girls and a view through a portal to a strange alien world. After dinner, the wizard makes an offer you can't refuse before settling down for the night. That sort of thing. More Hammer than Conan.
IMC, however, wizard aren't harassing the locals, they are forming guilds and shaking down the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 20, 2015 10:50:23 GMT -6
Hedgehobbit wrote:
So more like a CEO, LoL! I imagine this eventually affects the locals, local mages, and the economy, but I get the picture you are painting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 11:43:11 GMT -6
There is some great discussion here, thanks. I will respond later when I have a bit more time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 12:42:13 GMT -6
1) Gary was influenced VERY strongly by Dying Earth. Dying Earth wizards are complete and total @$$holes. Read "Rhialto the Marvelous". Conan will kill you but only if you get in his way, Fafhrd and the Mouser will steal your purse but then buy you dinner and drinks with your own money because it amuses them, but a Dying Earth wizard will do whatever he wants to you just because he can.
2) As pointed out, it says "if they are not hostile." RP the situation to find out if they're hostile or not. The wizard might be impatient but within the bounds of decency but I've seen player character say dumb crap like "Give us gold or we'll kill you" to high level magic users. Let them reap what they sew.
3) "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign." Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 1, p.4 (TSR, 1974) Do what you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 20, 2015 13:49:38 GMT -6
The wizard sends out his servants who invite the PC's to a dinner complete with lizardman dancing girls and a view through a portal to a strange alien world. After dinner, the wizard makes an offer you can't refuse before settling down for the night. That sort of thing. More Hammer than Conan. It reminds me also of Jack Vance's wizards in the Dying Earth stories. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 14:11:19 GMT -6
"If not hostile" leads to the MU attempting to geas the player. This is of course a hostile move itself, and can lead to far worse outcomes that the hostile case of toll collection. There are ways to come up with plot devices to justify this but it still bothers me.
I am familiar with a couple of the literary antecedents mentioned here. In these cases though there is an existing relationship (at least in the instances I am thinking of) between the wizard and the geased individual. Ningauble and Sheelba have outcomes or desires in mind when they send F&GM on errands. In one of the Vance stories the protagonist stole something from the geasing wizard. I can see a way to apply the rule as written to a small number of encounters (and it will take more thought).
This is unlike the situation with the Fighting Man and Cleric encounters which I could see applying numerous times in even a short campaign, without seeming odd or forced.
Another interesting point here is that alignment is not seen as prescriptive of behavior in any way other than by categorizing the participants. As written, a wizard of Law would geas a non-hostile Lawful character.
I could see using this one time in an OS-based wilderness campaign, but no more often than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 20, 2015 14:39:01 GMT -6
To me, the wording smacks of Arneson's influence.
In the FFC he says, "Good guys took prisoners, paid taxes, and would undertake missions for the King, etc. Bad guys turned all their loot over to their leader, never took prisoners (unless it was part of a Geas). They also stabbed each other in the back at the first opportunity. Everyone else was in the middle....On mixed expeditions, everyone was obliged to try and kill Neutrals due to the latter's lack of 'Purity'."
Arneson also used a random reaction table which he called a "Basic Hostility Table". It used percentiles to determine reactions based on alignment. Lawfuls automatically attacked Chaotics. Chaotics attacked Lawfuls at 80%. Lawfuls and Chaotics were equally hostile towards Neutrals at 50% and Neutrals were even hostile towards Neutrals at 30%.
Arneson even has a note that reads, "Chaotic and Lawful Magic Users will fight each other automatically. Lawful vs. Lawful MU will never fight each other."
As for literary influences, I agree that Vance is obvious and even Leiber seems appropriate. I wouldn't rule out Welsh and other folklore, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 14:49:09 GMT -6
To me, the wording smacks of Arneson's influence. In the FFC he says, "Good guys took prisoners, paid taxes, and would undertake missions for the King, etc. Bad guys turned all their loot over to their leader, never took prisoners (unless it was part of a Geas). They also stabbed each other in the back at the first opportunity. Everyone else was in the middle....On mixed expeditions, everyone was obliged to try and kill Neutrals due to the latter's lack of 'Purity'." Arneson also used a random reaction table which he called a "Basic Hostility Table". It used percentiles to determine reactions based on alignment. Lawfuls automatically attacked Chaotics. Chaotics attacked Lawfuls at 80%. Lawfuls and Chaotics were equally hostile towards Nuetrals at 50% and Neutrals were even hostile towards Nuetrals at 30%. Arneson even has a note that reads, "Chaotic and Lawful Magic Users will fight each other automatically. Lawful vs. Lawful MU will never fight each other." As for literary influences, I agree that Vance is obvious and even Leiber seems appropriate. I wouldn't rule out Welsh and other folklore, either. Any specific stories? I am not familiar enough with Welsh or other folklore to know of any but I am interested to read up on it. Does this theme occur in Norse or Icelandic stories? Regarding the Anderson connection, that is very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 20, 2015 14:57:17 GMT -6
Off hand, specifically, no. But the Welsh folklore leads directly to Arthurian legend. So, the whole Merlin, Morgan Le Fay, and quest for the holy grail sort of thing. But there are also other distinct and seperate tales outside of Arthur and his knights too. I guess a good reference might be W. Jenkyn Thomas, The Welsh Fairy Book, 1907. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 20, 2015 19:07:39 GMT -6
Just poking around a little on the internet and it seems that the idea of a geas or geis has it's roots in Irish folklore. Wiki- GeisIt's interesting in that it has similarities to the Celtic (Welsh) tynged. The word and idea could also be compared to the Norse wyrd, which suggests ones predestined fate or destiny. It can be both a blessing and a curse. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 20, 2015 19:29:34 GMT -6
Just poking around a little on the internet and it seems that the idea of a geas or geis has it's roots in Irish folklore. Wiki- GeisIt's interesting in that it has similarities to the Celtic (Welsh) tynged. The word and idea could also be compared to the Norse wyrd, which suggests ones predestined fate or destiny. It can be both a blessing and a curse. Interesting stuff, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 22, 2015 14:27:12 GMT -6
If the wizard is lawful, in reference to the historicity of the word geas, have the wizard tell of his divination and astrological studies that says the adventurers were fated to arrive at his castle and that their purpose was to do XYZ for the wizard. Giving the players the opportunity to ignore or follow the wizards foretelling. Evil wizards just cast a geas.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 23, 2019 17:11:13 GMT -6
Read “The Seven Geases” by Clark Ashton Smith
|
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Jun 5, 2020 18:50:32 GMT -6
I am considering running an OD&D Wilderness campaign and am reading the rules in OD&D. I am trying to figure out how much I want to change the rules before running the game. The reactions of the Fighting Men and Clerics seem reasonably within the bounds of some kind of fantastic medieval framework. But I do not like the rules for the Magic-Users. Passersby who are NOT HOSTILE to the MU are sent on a geas to get treasure. Others are assessed a toll of a magic item and if the passersby have no items, the toll is 1,000 - 4,000 GP. This kind of behavior doesn't fit the kind of game I am interested in running. It would be much more interesting to have even a slightly fleshed out NPC and role-play the encounter. If you have run wilderness campaigns of this sort, did you play MUs this way? How did it go? If not, what did you do instead, or what would you do instead? Eyes of the Overworld and Cugel's Saga by Vance follow this trope (Vance's take on the mechanics of a geas: A small sentient alien entity of barbs and hooks, named Firx, is attached to the main character's liver to encourage his "unremitting loyalty, zeal and singleness of purpose." Firx's only form of communication with its host is to slash at his liver.). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2020 5:27:13 GMT -6
Super old thread and not sure the OP is still interested, but I got some clarification about how this might work by reading a "Gaming with Gronan" post at Blogofholding a while back, and refreshing myself on it over my morning coffee today. A Geas spell doesn't necessarily kick in right away. It can be like the scene from Godfather 1. "Someday - and that day may never come - I will require a favor of you." Thinking of it this way certainly inspires me as a referee. It's not necessarily gonna kick in right away. The Mage might not even have a task in mind right away, but he lays a tether on your mind so he can chime in later at any time and from any distance. It's like the moment in Star Wars when Order 66 kicks in and the formerly docile, obedient Clone Troopers mow down their own Jedi generals. You might find yourself on the sixth level of Castle Blackmoor being chased by women's libbers when suddenly the voice in your head demands you bring it a shrubbery. (That sounds absurd but apparently it's the kind of humor used by many of the founders of the hobby.)
|
|
