Heya,

Something I've mentioned on and off for the past two years has finally recieved my full attention: an adaptation of the game Immortal utilizing the rules and style for Sorcerer.

Sorcerers are Immortals: one of the gods worshipped by mankind; your struggles and deeds are the stuff of myth.

Your demons are the living crystal shard which makes you immortal and the beast you were created from. The Need of the Shard is to control you and the Need of the Himsati is related to some primal, animal desire of whatever it is that you once were.

Humanity is defined as your selfhood and self-control. If your Humanity is utterly lost, you become a slave of the Shard...if you let go of your Humanity even momentarily, the powerful presentient beast you once were casts you away.

Sorcery is the control of your demons (and their supernatural powers) to do your bidding; this is dangerous because it allows them the chance to wrest control from you...stripping away what you are and have become through the faith of man.

The Shard also contains Avatars: other gods who once were, before they were forgotten or fell from power. They lurk in the Immortal's mind, whispering and attempting to control him -- but they aren't real, they're just "ghosts."

There's more detail about all this and other items on my website.

I'm interested in feedback both from those who have never played Immortal as well as those who have. Definitely very interested in what the Sorcerer community thinks about this conversion. Does it work? Does it fit together well?

Is there anything lacking or mucked up? If you were running a game of this, how would you do it and what would you do with it?

As an aside, I'm kinda curious how you came to understand Immortal well enough to adapt it to anything. Man, that rulebook is confusing.

It is well established, even by the author, that the 1st Edition rulebook is confusing, but that's really not topical here. But, given your reaction, how do you find my adaptation?

What parts need work to be clarified? Is it easily read enough that you could run a Sorcerer game with it...and based on the material on that page, what would you do with it if you were running it?

I have the 2nd edition, the one with Claudia Christian on the cover, as well, which kinda helped me understand the 1st edition a bit... but only a little.

As for your adaptation, about one-third of the way through, I started getting that heady, confused, whirling feeling that I got with 1st edition Immortal. I jumped down to some of your explainations at the bottom, and that helped a little... and added some more confusion.

I'm not sure I'm the best test case, since I never fully understood Immortal, and your adaptation is thick with Immortal's terms and concepts. Some of your strightforward explainations of things helped me understand Immortal a little more, but I certainly wouldn't be comfortable running it using the rules you've presented.

One piece of advice I'd have is to reverse the order you put things. Explain what Immortals are, what a Vox is, etc. -- do this FIRST, before your quickie breakdown of how things work, thick with Capitalized Terms in Bold. I ended up jumping around a LOT to even begin to understand it, and, to be honest, in the end I gave up.

It's really tough for me to give specific advise as to what needs to be clarified, except: EVERYTHING. I mean, really. If you're going to use HTML, throw some links in there, a glossary, SOMETHING. Cross-reference, man, it's important. With no offense intended, it certainly gave me that Immortal feel -- that is, that there's something cool here that I totally don't understand, and the author can't be bothered to explain to me in a straightforward fashion. Admittedly, your work added to the puzzle pieces I have -- I kinda understand that an Immortal is a Shard-infected animal, plant, or, uh, fire that for some reason (which I still don't get) is moulded by human belief, which is more than I used to understand.

I think the problem is I own Immortal, but I've never played it. It very much strikes me as a game that you need someone who's already into it to explain it to you.

Personally, I'd like to see an Actual Play thread on the Immortal LARP that spawned this, explaining how the LARP worked, why it was cool, and how you actually came to understand Immortal well enough to enjoy it. That was the part of the rules that made the most sense to me -- why you did it, and in what context they were created -- with more Immortal fans, which explains a lot about it.

In particular, I don't see why you don't just write your own ruleset -- it seemed to me that while yeah, it kinda has the Sorcerer "demons that buck your desires" aspect, it calls out for a ruleset that is specific to its subtlries.

xiombarg wrote: It's really tough for me to give specific advise as to what needs to be clarified, except: EVERYTHING. I mean, really. If you're going to use HTML, throw some links in there, a glossary, SOMETHING. Cross-reference, man, it's important.

Personally, I'd like to see an Actual Play thread on the Immortal LARP that spawned this, explaining...

In particular, I don't see why you don't just write your own ruleset -- it seemed to me that while yeah, it kinda has the Sorcerer "demons that buck your desires" aspect, it calls out for a ruleset that is specific to its subtlries.

What subtleties of Immortal specifically are you referring to that I'm missing with this adaptation, or that you feel would be better served by a different system?

xiombarg wrote: Well, it seems to me that the relationship between the immortal and his Vox and his Himsati is subtly different from the standard Sorcerer/demon bond, enough so to ask for a new system altogether. Too many exceptions to the standard Sorcerer rules.

Serenades, in particular, seem important enough to merit a more central role in the mechanics.

But most of all, I feel like the whole Religarium/Immaculum/Sinning/Taboo/Taint thing seems too important to be relegated to what amounts to a modifier to other rolls.

Also, I dunno, Immaculum boosting Humanity doesn't sit well with me... I feel almost like it's "too easy" to fob off Humanity problems using Immaculum, which is very unSorcerer, unSorcerer enough to warrant another system.

but it seems like you're bending Sorcerer very hard to get it to work, more so than any of the Sorcerer mini-supplements, even Schism...

Imagine if this were a Sorcerer mini-supplement, not an adaptation of another game: How much of the supplement would be extra rules...
how much rules-changing and exceptions to the standards set by Sorcerer would you have compared to any of the current mini-supplements?

Consider this: In a sense, aren't Immortals more demons than human, from a Sorcerer perspective? Does that make it a different game?

I think it's worth going back to first principles and trying to understand exactly what you're trying to capture, and seeing if the mechanics capture it.

Well, I apologize for any insult I've accidentally given. Yesterday was my "accidentally piss people off" day -- I managed to anger my boss at work with what I thought was an innocuous email that same day.

A lot of your points where you disagree are valid. As I said, I've never gotten to play, which is why I specifically added that disclaimer. Also, given that admission, it must be frustrating that I'm the only one giving feedback at the moment. :-)

Now, on to specific points...

I'm familiar with Urge, the fact that the Vox isn't Summoned/Bound isn't my objection. As your point out, I'm articulating poorly, and I apologize for that. It's just that the Vox doesn't seem to have a Need... You talk about it, but I'm not sure what it should be. Obviously its Desire is to re-join into the crystal entity again, but that should be different from the Need that one has to satiate in order to prevent rebellion.

For that matter, how does one Punish one's Vox? IIRC, one doesn't Punish the Urge, either, but perhaps this needs to be spelled out.

I guess my desire for a new system, perhaps, is not so much because Sorcerer is actually a bad match, but because the text doesn't make it clear why it's a good match. Is it less insulting to consider it in that light? That yes, you have thought about it, but perhaps you haven't communicated it... or perhaps I'm just not smart enough to "get" it, I dunno.

As for the point on Serenades... well, if your design goal is to get away from the focus on Senenades as k3w1 p0w3rz, then you've achieved your goal, while keeping them in there.

As for the Religarium/Immaculum/Sinning/Taboo/Taint thing, I'll concede the point... I'd like to see it in play, though.

Regardless, I do think your re-write clarifies it a bit. My only remaining suggestion is the discussion of the mechanics, in full, that you put forth in your post to refute my point about Religarium/Immaculum/Sinning/Taboo/Taint might be profitably put in the text itself -- it certainly made a lot more sense to me than what's currently in the text. Certainly your examples were very helpful -- perhaps the text needs more examples?

On Immaculum: Glad to know we agree on something. ;-D Instead of Immaculum modifying Humanity directly, perhaps it could be rolled under certain situations to increase Humanity, or to stave off Humanity loss? I'm brainstorming here, so bear with me. But I'm thinking that perhaps you could emphasize the feedback loop you're talking about -- instead of it being an automatic benefit, you have to sort of "keep up appearances" in order for it to do you any good.

As for the other stuff, well, I can only repeat my grain of salt comment. Like I said, it might be the problem isn't that Sorcerer is a bad match, so much as it needs to be clearer why it's a good match... or maybe I'm just an idiot. I can be pretty thick at times. :)

Another idea for the Immaculum thing: IIRC, isn't Immaculum something you *spend* in standard Immortal? Perhaps instead of just adding to Humanity, you can "burn" Immaculum to get a bonus to a particular Humanity roll.

xiombarg wrote: Well, I apologize for any insult I've accidentally given.

Also, given that admission, it must be frustrating that I'm the only one giving feedback at the moment. :-)

It's just that the Vox doesn't seem to have a Need... You talk about it, but I'm not sure what it should be. Obviously its Desire is to re-join into the crystal entity again, but that should be different from the Need that one has to satiate in order to prevent rebellion.

For that matter, how does one Punish one's Vox? IIRC, one doesn't Punish the Urge, either, but perhaps this needs to be spelled out.

I guess my desire for a new system, perhaps, is not so much because Sorcerer is actually a bad match, but because the text doesn't make it clear why it's a good match. Is it less insulting to consider it in that light?..
...Certainly your examples were very helpful -- perhaps the text needs more examples?

That yes, you have thought about it, but perhaps you haven't communicated it... or perhaps I'm just not smart enough to "get" it, I dunno.

you could emphasize the feedback loop you're talking about -- instead of it being an automatic benefit, you have to sort of "keep up appearances" in order for it to do you any good.

isn't Immaculum something you *spend* in standard Immortal? Perhaps instead of just adding to Humanity, you can "burn" Immaculum to get a bonus to a particular Humanity roll.

Cool. Not much left to say, then, except that I look forward to the next draft. I will say, however, that this is the clearest version of Immortal I've read so far.

Excellent, and thank you, Kirt!
I've just finished working up the second draft of the rules, following most of your suggestions, and I hope I've clarified...well, everything. I'd very much appreciate how you think it reads now, as well as anyone else who reads it at this point.

Note that I've only finished updates through the topmost of the Shard section, though I have made a few changes in the sections beyond it.

Some notes on this and changes from the previous version:
I have not yet internally hyperlinked the document, but I have attempted to explain each thing in order, without referencing anything that has not yet been explained in the text. Obviously, this was not completely possible, but I did provide notes when it was unavoidable and I was forced to mention an aspect of the game that had not been discussed yet.

I also made certain to make the explanations in such sections independent of the section being referenced by stripping out the jargon and just explaining the necessary concept, so that the rule would be immediately graspable without needing to reference new jargon in order to use/understand it. I'm hoping this will help do away with the problem you mentioned of having to skip around in order to grasp what was going on in the text.

As well, there is a brief summary of what Immortal is "about" at top, which I hope will help some of the clarity issues, and I've scattered design notes and examples throughout the document. I need to add more examples, however, and I've also included a space for a glossary.

BTW, things in red are things I'm not certain about including. You'll note one very obvious place in regards to the use of a Shard's Power to boost a roll. I am worried that the decision I've made there will require too many other rolls.

My problem: I want certain uses of supernatural powers to cause Humanity checks, and I want certain things to cause the Shard to drive the character (ie: Possess him).

I'm considering making failed Power rolls result in Possession checks only, and removing the Humanity check entirely. This would mean that Humanity is only lost through the use of failed Serenades.

However, I like the fact that a failed use of the Shard's Power results in a Possession check, or at least a possible Humanity loss, as it shows how the Immortal's failure to live up to his faithful's expectations causes the faith that sustains him to waver.

Interesting...I just realized how to explain the faith deal given that your worshippers aren't always present: your own belief in yourself and what you are as a god can waver if you fail. Simply, you have broken from the conceived image that sustains you.

I may reverse this, so that failed Serenades result in Possession tests, and failed Power-boosted rolls result in Humanity loss tests. It breaks from standard Immortal, though, in that Taint was gathered by failed Serenades, so I need to really consider it.

Anyways, read it over and feel free to comment. I'll make note of it here again when I update the remaining sections.

Wow, I'm impressed. It is quite a lot clearer. I really like the design notes. The "see below" sort of cross-referencing is excellent. Impressions and suggestions gleaned as I go through the text:

* I'd keep the first red bit, it clarifies a logical question more or less immediately.
* Who is Holmes? Is he a starting character? If so, why his is Taint so high? Did you use the Sorcerer & Sword optional bits, perhaps? I thought Kashan was the example... You might want to expand the Kashan example instead, and then say Holmes is a character that's gained Taint and Taboos through play, as an example of that.
* Can Religarium cause Taboos? It's kinda implied in the Religarium section that it might, but it doesn't explicitly say that.
* Nit-pick: I think you left a bit out of the second paragraph of the Immaculum section. "The Price comes into play when the worshipper attempts to behave ." Behave in what way? Hmmm, re-reading it, I think I see what you meant. How about: "The Price comes into play when the worshipper attempts to follow the teaching or emulate the Immortal."
* Also in the Immaculum section, you talk about gaining a numerical Price, and the Price "coming into play"... I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean Taboos are gained, in addition to Taint? Since you've introduced the concept of Taint and Taboos at this point, you might want to use those terms in the Immaculum section.
* Wow, the stuff on Courts is really neat. ;-D
* I'd keep the second red section as well, at least up to the DESIGN DECISION bit. I'm not sure I understand the last red paragraph there -- I thought you only had to roll against Possession and Humanity if the Power roll failed.
* I dunno if I'd keep the third red bit. I kinda like the simplicity of the current system. That's entirely a personal preference, tho.
* Avatars & Ennui: "If the check is failed..." Which check? A lot of checks were talked about in the previous section.
* I would mention that the Shard is also called the Vox at the start of the Shard section, as it isn't mentioned before the end of the Avatars & Ennui section. Also, I'd mention earlier, in the text itself, that the Shard's Need is to undermine the Immortal's own plans, and (IMHO) some discussion as to what this means is probably in order -- how badly must one damage one's own plans to fulfill the Need and quiet the Shard when it's in Rebellion? I also assume that that Need does not have to be met regularly, like a normal Sorcerer demon... If so, this should probably be mentioned.
* the Himsati: Can one only use Abilities from Sorcerer, or can one use the Mystical When you say Abilities, I assume you mean Powers from Sorcerer as well as the Mystical Abilities mentioned for the Shard? This nitpick can be cleaned up, I think, by just putting "(as the Shard)" after the word "Abilities" in the first paragraph...
* I'd keep the red bit in the Himsati section, it makes sense.
* I think the Himsati section needs a big example of "cutting loose" with the Himsati, all the rolls involved, and why that's advantageous.
* Under Other Demons, I'd like to see an example of an Immortal binding his Avatar, and what advantages this grants him.
* Hmmm, I'd like to see more detail on how Scions work. I assume this section is kinda a placeholder for now.
* Ditto Mystech...
* I get the impression that a Familiar is kinda like a "stock" Sorcerer demon, serving a more human Sorcerer. Am I right?
* Hmmm, okay, I didn't understand that Taint and Price are seperate until I read the bit in the "Taint and the Dominions" section. I thought Taint was just the numerical portion of the Price.
* You might want to explain what Serenades are before going into the mechanics of them. I know you don't want to focus on them, but you might have to go into more detail anyway, if you're going to have them at all. (Personally, if you don't think they're all that important, you may want to get rid of 'em entirely...)
* I like the Actions list, but I'd lose the Serenade bit. You are trying to de-emphasize them, right?
* I like the sample character. Perhaps a discussion of his creation, step-by-step, could be put here?

Overall: much better. You obviously put a lot of work into it, and it shows.

Most of the stuff I mention are nit-picks. I am largely left feeling I could run Immortal using these rules, which is a first for me when it comes to Immortal. Heck, it made me want to run Immortal using these rules. So I look forward to your next draft. :)

Anyone else wanna comment? I think Raven could do with some additional pairs of eyes, here.

xiombarg wrote: * Who is Holmes? Is he a starting character? If so, why his is Taint so high? Did you use the Sorcerer & Sword optional bits, perhaps?

* Can Religarium cause Taboos? It's kinda implied in the Religarium section that it might, but it doesn't explicitly say that.

* Nit-pick: I think you left a bit out of the second paragraph of the Immaculum section.

* Also in the Immaculum section, you talk about gaining a numerical Price, and the Price "coming into play"... I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean Taboos are gained, in addition to Taint?

*I'm not sure I understand the last red paragraph there -- I thought you only had to roll against Possession and Humanity if the Power roll failed.

* Hmmm, okay, I didn't understand that Taint and Price are seperate until I read the bit in the "Taint and the Dominions" section. I thought Taint was just the numerical portion of the Price.

(Personally, if you don't think they're all that important, you may want to get rid of 'em entirely...)

Overall: much better. You obviously put a lot of work into it, and it shows.

Most of the stuff I mention are nit-picks. I am largely left feeling I could run Immortal using these rules, which is a first for me when it comes to Immortal. Heck, it made me want to run Immortal using these rules. So I look forward to your next draft. :)

Cool! Let me know when the explainations you just gave make it into the text, and I'll give it another look-see. I think most of the explainations you gave me (such as what can be modified by Religarium) need to go in the text, obviously.

That section on mortals would be great... I didn't realize that the Price talked about in the Immaculum section is the Price for the mortal worshipping the Immortal, rather than for the Immortal. What do mortals "get" in return for their worship? Anything?

As for the rolls involved with the Shard, I think that's something that needs playtesting in order to decide. I'd leave it in for now.

I understand why you still want Serenades, but in that case they need to be explained more. But since that's part of the area you haven't touched in the revision, no biggie yet...

What about that section made you believe it was seperate from the Price?

Taboos are what trigger the Price.
Taint adds to the Price.
The Price is what is rolled and the sum total of these.

xiombarg wrote: What do mortals "get" in return for their worship? Anything?

It's that "Taint adds to the Price" seems to me, to mean that the Taint and Price are seperate. The example at the end, Sharakai the Dragon, enforces this -- he has a Price of -1 but a Taint of 0, which implies they're seperate.

Okay, that all makes sense. You'll want to include that bit on mortals getting nothing from faith in the bit on mortals, just to be clear.

This might be outside the purview of the game, as it sort of overlaps (I suspect) with the original Immortal material, but you might want to have a note about how the Immortals feel about their worshippers and what they think they can do for them. I mean, I may not pray to God hoping for a bonus... but I bet a lot of Vikings prayed to Thor thinking it'd give them an edge in combat. Now, if Thor can't really help most of the time, but he DOES exist, how does he feel about that? What's the "usual" Immortal take on this issue? If this is covered in one of the Immortal supplements, you might wanna point to that...

Since you want to focus on that aspect of Immortal, this could be an important question.

(Just brainstorming, mostly... Again, looking forward to the next draft...)

Having recently read over your stuff. I must say: Immortal has never looked more clear or coherent.

Looking forward to any expansions or clarifications you'll add to this. I'd *love* to play this, and who knows? Maybe my one group (who is becoming interested in Sorcerer) will be willing.

Thanks for the comments and kind words, Spooky!
If you do play a session or two, let me know how it goes, I'd love to hear some actual play feedback on it!

A note for everyone: I've updated the page again with expanded examples, finished up the sections on the Shard and the Himsati (minus examples), and clarified the section on Avatars (and split it into its own section). There are a couple optional rules added in blue text. Again, let me know if it all makes sense as written.

I have a few concerns here-and-there, but most of those will have to be examined in actual play (so again, if anyone DOES, let me know! I'll do the same).

xiombarg wrote: but I bet a lot of Vikings prayed to Thor thinking it'd give them an edge in combat. Now, if Thor can't really help most of the time, but he DOES exist, how does he feel about that?

What's the "usual" Immortal take on this issue? If this is covered in one of the Immortal supplements, you might wanna point to that