Paragraph one and two provide us with the authors view of prison and punishment without discussing law. Being that the prison is not going to be a major part of the story do we need this brief and unconcluded pontification of institutional punishment as a function of a complex society. Do we need this to understand the gaols, is the teaser text not enough?Go to Comment
Well no flies on you....just maggots.
I am with mystic and Mourn this is a surprisingly varied and creative list. If I were to write it I would shoot for a greater consistency of tone and perspective. You seem to jump back and forth between the vague verisimilitude of in-game entries and the hard facts presented with a mind towards narrative wiggle room that defines RPG specific content. A comparison of Numbers 12 and 13 is good example of how this write-up lacks a constant tone or perspective.
Still a “fun” bunch of maggots.
This is great, I love shadowrun (hate the system love the setting) and I thank you for opening up the gates of shadowrun specific content. But also Casa de Vulva, this kind of silly minutia is just the sort thing gets the game table rolling. Well played.
I like the tone and I like the way this is written. You present the piece as rumor and heresay about rumors and heresay...so you have achieved a mysterious tone. But beyond on that this offers very little in the way of story.
You say you have stories "Jaroth may take the form of a rogue military general drawing artillery power from a new-found source, or a master thief who's grown weary of picking through the belongings of wealthy humans. He may, in fact, be an avatar or high-ranking cleric of some dragon god, exacting vengeance for some misdeed; or a tormented land baron, cursed to be hunted mercilessly for all time (alternatively, the dragon could be the one who's cursed, forever bound to frustratedly hunt Jaroth, a construct specifically designed to perpetually evade pursuit)."
But then you don't tell us the stories. Yes we could fill in the details ourselves, but then why bother writing this at all?
A post on an entirely extraneous game mechanic like this, for me, forces the issue of what these types of rules bring to the game. I am personally conflicted on things like this. Using this in game does not add a new narrative tools, not really, it could potentially slow the action done and it is more details with which to argue. Why do we need spell mishap tables and do we need to invent new constraints on players ability? Does adding these sorts of specific constraints improve the versatility of the playing experience? Do we need more rules?
Yet at the same time, I like these things that add to the “realistic feel” of the game. Saying I cast a spell, has an empty feel to do it, if you can describe the process by which a spell is cast and by extension how that spell can be miss cast you make the game world richer. The gaming group paints a better picture for the collective imagination when the process by which a character acts is more detailed then swing and miss. Also these details give the players more tools with which to exploit the world. When there are more strings attached to in game concepts and items; the more likely a player can unravel it and that is a good thing. So I am torn on what the net result of these types of things will be on the game. Further study is no doubt needed.....
Go to Comment
Okay, about this post: It is well written and straight forward. Chaosmark assumse so much about the nature of magic and casting that this almost seems like a system specific expansion. We may as well pull back the curtain and post some casting time and spell per day numbers. Yet the general concepts are developed enough, each type of casting, that player can easily envision them and use them. A well organized and useful post