Adam Smith's an actual figure in history? I guess its true that you learn something new each day. I actually just thought of two random, common names, not the Father of Modern Economics. Anyway. Right now, Adam Smith is defined by his murders. Maybe I should make a list of crimes he's committed, or a short bio (detailing the huge inheritance he got, sustaining all his plans- what, you thought napalm came cheap?). But if I do do that, it will happen tomorrow. Or the day after that at the latest. Go to Comment
What is enjoyment? What is happiness? Why do you like the taste of pizza? Why do you like the color blue? Adam Smith has no motivation to kill. If you want to say that it makes him feel more powerful than everyone else, fine. If you want to give him a reason to kill, fine. But my Adam Smith enjoys, for hobbies, making bird houses, cooking and decorating cakes, and killing random strangers. Go to Comment
Good solid start to a magic system. Would be even more awesome if you had a graphic with the different symbols on it to use as reference. But a somewhat normal rune system.
Where does the magic for the runes come from would be good to see. And can anybody draw the runes once they know them? This isn't that complex so not hard to memorize. What keeps others from using it, what needs to be done to complete the rune to make it active...stuff like that.
Palladium uses a system very similar to this and is Extremely detailed... to much so IMHO. But just to get a better idea on how they implemented it you should look that up for what to do, and what NOT to do. Go to Comment
As it is, it still feels somewhat less comprehensive than it could have been. For example, there is no information on how to tune magnitude of spells or is there no way of doing so? This sub doesn't really say. Can one craft something more complex from using more than 1 rune?
Overall, though, I do like this particular rune system and the way you have written it up, I esp. like the history section. Go to Comment
I think the most useful part of this is the clear separation of responsibility between the runelets -- the "noun" + "verb" + "trigger" idea is rather nifty, and gives me some ideas to use in the future. I don't think this is really a full system as it stands, but it's definitely a great start.
I would also like the graphics, but that's because I'm a sadistic GM, and would actually make my players memorize and draw them if they wanted to cast spells. Go to Comment
I thought about doing graphics for each runelet, but decided against it. The players would just say that they draw this outer circle runelet with this noun runelet, and that verb. They wouldn't bother with picture, just the names. So I saved some work. If a DM sees this and decides to make some graphics for it for there game, they can.
Though I had originally thought that only wizards can do it (actually, it was more like a 'common knowledge' or assume thing- I never actually thought which class it should to), now I think that anyone could do it. I would say that if you arean't a wizard, you should have to dedicate a certain amount of time (maybe 2-3 months, to practice art, and to memorize the basics), and not do anything in that time frame. A wizard would just start with the knowledge, because it would be assumed that they had taken a class on it at some point.
And where the magic comes from... I'll ponder on that. Go to Comment
Well, from a compositional perspective this is not a bad submission. There is plenty of detail, and the majority of the bases have been covered. The subject matter is going to be provocative, but that is probably the intent. If the intent was to be provocative, I think it needs to go further into the matter. Why do they milk humans? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to milk cattle or some other herbivore ruminant? The amount of milk produced is decidedly greater that what a human can produce. What do they do with the gathered milk? Drink it like whiskey, make tiny cheeses out of it? Do they eat humans, use human vellum to make their scrolls and books?
The logic behind this is flawed.
a) humans treat cows as animals, as cows show no evidence of intelligence not culture, just a herd. You specifically state that Yothats breed out intelligence from their flock, hence are aware of that trait.
b) As described, Yothats lack the capacity to stand against humanity for long. Sure, they are big, but organized into tribes 50 strong - which will fall one by one; their social structure does not support acting in unison for any extended period of time.
c) societies with units of 50 will not have bankers, or even guilds. These rely on a large number of individuals living in a society to support their existence. Go to Comment