The Forge Archives

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.

Quote from: xiombargIt'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.

All good advice. My sincere thanks for taking the time to sludge through it and write up a response. Seriously, man, thanks!

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

Expect it shortly.

QuoteIn 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?

QuoteWhat 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?

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.

Not to say you can't use the Sorcerer dice pool vs. dice pool system if you like it, and steal ideas from Sorcerer, 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, rather than filling in the parameters of the specifics normally required for a Sorcerer game? If Immmortal, the game, didn't exist, and you had to flesh everything out for a Sorcerer supplment, how much rules-changing and exceptions to the standards set by Sorcerer would you have compared to any of the current mini-supplements?

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. Perhaps Sorcerer captures the relationship with the Vox and Himsati perfectly -- but what about the relationship between mortals and the Immortals? Consider this: In a sense, aren't Immortals more demons than human, from a Sorcerer perspective? Does that make it a different game?

Take what I say with a grain of salt, tho. Like I said, I never understood Immortal, and while I feel I understand Sorcerer, I've never actually got to play it. So those are things to keep in mind. I'd be interested to see how a playtest of these rules went.

Quote from: xiombargWell, 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.

I'm not sure what you mean here by being different from the standard bond -- other than the obvious -- so let me see if I can explain my logic and give an example from elsewhere.

Shards are nothing more than a dominating alien parasite kept on a short leash. They contain fragments of the mind of the otherworldly creature whose body they were once a part of, a mind that desires nothing less than the reassembly of its body and the destruction of the world and everything in it; as such, it tries to tempt and corrupt its host into fulfilling those desires and giving over to the Beast.

I'm sure you see the paralells there, and while I would agree that the relationship is different: the immortal doesn't willingly summon and bind the Shard, I'm not convinced it is a stretch to fit.

Even though parasites and possessors can be placed within unwilling hosts, and because the infection by the Shard happened so far in the past (millions of years), IMO these are non-issues: that the Immortal continues to exist by using and because of the powers of the Shard, rather than cast himself into oblivion is the important relationship to me.

This isn't new precedent, either. Check out the Urge mini-supplement: the sorcerer-demon relationship is very different there from "standard" Sorcerer play. In Urge, your demon is part of you, it isn't summoned there and bound, nor is it banishable. The Urge is a Possessor demon, but one that does not have full control over its host.

Also note that there is no mention of sorcerous rituals whatsoever, besides the note that the Urge cannot be Banished. Given these major differences, would you suggest that Urge would work "better" with its own non-Sorcerer system?

The reason I'm bring this up is because I'm not quite certain what to do with your push for a different system. I'm slightly insulted because I have to wonder -- given that you admit to never having played either game -- how familiar you really are with Sorcerer, and thus how do you know what works for it and doesn't work for it? And whether it works for Immortal?

Now, I'm not saying you can't feel that way, but as input it is of really no use to me. Ok, you think maybe a different system would work better...and?

I'm sure you'll agree that it is difficult if not impossible to work with vague notions, and so I need something a little more substantial to understand what, precisely, you mean. What would help me out here would be some suggestions and actual examples as to what that different system might look like and why it would work better.

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

This is one of the problems I'm very consciously trying to get away from. Both editions of Immortal focus heavily on the mystical abilities of an Immortal (as well as skills, etc) and I find that detracts from the atmosphere of myth and legend. By not placing so much focus on the "kewl powerz" the game can focus on what the Immortal is rather than what the Immortal's powers are.

As you feel differently, may I ask what about more mechanical focus upon the Serenades would create more meaningful stories, and how would they help address a Narrativist Premise? How are Serenades central to Immortal, other than all Immortals having them?

QuoteBut 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.

Sinning is its own roll already, mind you, so this criticism does not apply to it that I see, nor Religarium either (though I need to detail the mechanics and use of the latter section more), but I think your lack of Sorcerer play may be showing through here:
Everything in Sorcerer is a modifier to other rolls. Humanity, the most central mechanical element of Sorcerer, is used mostly as a modifier to other rolls.

Here's a breakdown of a couple of the items, to hopefully explain what they're doing where they are. Let me know if it helps or if you still have the same concerns after reading this:

Taboos work the same way the non-numeric portion of Price works in Sorcerer, you just end up with more of this aspect of the Price based on your desires and behaviors in game. Conversely, Taint is the numeric portion of Price as written in Sorcerer.

So, to use an example directly from the Sorcerer book: if Harry Scarborough were an Immortal, he would have a Taint of 1 and a Taboo that caused fear of and in physical combat. Thus, in that situation, he would roll one die less when trying to hit or injure somebody.

The only difference here is that you can have more than one trigger for the Price, whereas in standard Sorcerer, you usually have only one trigger for your Price (though Sorcerer & Sword has rules that make you add a second trigger for your Price in exchange for one extra point to distribute among your scores and a Humanity maiximum, so there is definite precedent).

Reading them over, I realize the rules here are slightly jumbled, as I have Taboos causing other effects, like Special damage from silver and such. I've rewritten it as follows, which I hope makes more sense:
"the Taboo may result in the touch of silver causing pain (being touched by silver invokes the Price for the Immortal's next action), or result in him losing control of himself to the beast within when the moon is full (the Price reduces all Will rolls against Possession when the moon is full)."

Here's how it all works together:
1. Sinning adds Taboos (by triggering Religarium), but it doesn't make your Price worse.
2. Taint increases when the Shard is used to Serenade against others, or when you use the Taint itself as bonus dice.

Taint is like the Shard's infection, and it uses your weaknesses for its own gain. That's why when you fail a roll modified by the Price, bad things result.

I'm just not certain how that relegates either to the background -- just because they modify other rolls -- unless you are saying that the Price in standard Sorcerer is relegated too much to the background and shouldn't be?

This is the problem I am having in understanding your specific criticism: in Sorcerer, bonus dice are what game-play is about from a pure mechanical standpoint...your statements indicate that you feel bonus dice are somehow unimportant to Sorcerer play, however.

I'm not sure I really follow, so let me try to explain my position:
As with standard Sorcerer, you achieve bonuses or penalties to your dice based on the poignancy of your play. It MEANS something about your character that you have 2 dice worth of Taint, because you wouldn't have gotten those penalties without doing something worthy -- something you had to ask yourself: is it worth it? over.

This is a big deal to me, because it helps highlight something central to the conflict in the Immortal metastory: the question of whether the Beast is actually right in its behaviors and desires. The Immortals believe it is not...and that's all they have to go on, their own belief about it. And ultimately, then, what seperates them from the Beast? The Beast and its servants, after all, believe themselves in the right.

Here we have mechanics that help centralize that conflict and that question. Is what you are doing right...right enough to consider doing this thing? What are the consequences if you do? These you know, short term, gaining Taint, adding to your suffering, giving hte Beast inside you more control and power, and long term you have no idea what sorts of problems it may cause...but what are the consequences if you don't?

QuoteAlso, 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.

I was afraid of that. One of the shakiest items for me currently is how I handled Immaculum, and I wasn't happy with it myself. I can easily remove the bonus it provides to Humanity and let it reside simply as detailed.

The reason I set it up as bolstering Humanity, however, was that the Immaculum you gather from worship helps buoy you against your own inhuman nature...the human faith keeps you floating, like Grace (detailed in "The Sorcerer's Soul"), even when you're mired in the pitch of your own black soul...that belief keeps you from falling completely away from your human soul by chaining you to the anchor of your worshippers' perception.

Thus it makes it very important to have worshippers (or to Sin alot) and behave precisely as they expect, so their own faith is reinforced -- like a feedback loop. (I can see I'll need to detail this a little more)

Quotebut 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...

Actually, I'm surprised to hear you voice the opinion I have bent them very hard or that it is obvious I have done so. I stated in the Actual Play thread about this that unacceptable "bending" was one of the very items which would have cancelled this adaptation from my list.

Bending the rules to fit is why I still haven't produced the "Modern Fantasy"-style Sorcerer I've mentioned wanting to do so often in the past. Are you perhaps looking at certain concepts I've altered -- such as what demons are -- and not rules, specifically?

QuoteImagine 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?

Kirt, I'd appreciate it very much if you could detail which rules you see which exist in my adaptation that do not exist in Sorcerer. For my part, given what Charnel Gods and Urge have both done, I'd say I'm well within the established boundaries of acceptable alterations.

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

I'm not certain what you mean by that, given that "demons" are undefined in Sorcerer, except conceptually as "a transgressive thing that gives you powers which ultimately may not be worth having due their price."

How does that describe the relationship of mortals to Immortals?

Now, you could certainly play the game as Immortals summoned by and bound to particular mortals, providing them with this and that in return for getting "stuff" they want and need, but that wouldn't be Immortal.

QuoteI 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.

An answer to this is really the best way to explain my feelings on the issue: Those guiding principles as detailed over in the other thread in Actual Play are what I judged everything against. I feel I have captured exactly what I'm going for (for the most) part via the mechanics.

The few places I haven't meshed Sorcerer's play style and drive with the meaningful bits of Immortal are why I'm asking questions here.

Again, thanks for your comments, they've given me a lot to ponder (even where I've disagreed).

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.

Quote from: xiombargWell, I apologize for any insult I've accidentally given.

NP, I wasn't insulted -- poor choice of words -- just...frustrated.

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

Somewhat. But I'll take one person giving me excellent input to no-one giving me any.

QuoteIt'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.

Ahhhh. Ok, you objection makes much more sense now.
Yes, I agree, I need to spell out the Need of the Shard and its Desire more clearly. I thought there was something in there about the Motif being the Shard's Need (or its Desire), but I could be wrong.

(Finding that even I'm not certain is definitely telling!)

QuoteFor 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 mention a few rituals being used throughout the text -- not including Serenades -- but never really detail it in regards to the relationship between demon and sorcerer. These interactions should definitely be specified, as you suggest.

QuoteI 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?

Less "insulting" and more useful, definitely. I can see a number of places I need to clean up the text, and plenty I am sure I am missing.

Unfortunately, I'm particularly bad at knowing what needs examples and how and where to put them in the text, moreso the latter than the former. This conversation has shown me a number of places where they will be necessary.

QuoteThat 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.

More likely the former than the latter.

Quoteyou 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.

Yes! Need to add that into the Religarium/Faith part there...you either get it through overpowering mortals and stealing it from them (whether this be using fear against them, a physical contest of some kind -- I'm thinking of the story of the angel wrestling Abraham(?) -- or some other method based on force) or through their direct and freely given worship.

And since you have to spend it to use it, you have to "keep up appearances" or you just don't get any more because your faithful lose faith in you.

Quoteisn'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.

In 2nd Edition it is. In 1st Edition, it is "Soul Power" which you can shift around to contribute to other rolls of your dice and which power Serenades.

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.

Quote from: xiombarg* 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?

It was my first place-holder example. I'm going to change that to Kashan, and put in some text that showcases the increase of Taint and Taboos at work so a reader can see how it works out in play.

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

Ack, I missed that. No, Religarium should not create Taboos. Taboos should only be created by failed Sinning or the Ennui caused by Avatars. I've changed the wording for clarity.

Religarium can change: scores (Stamina, Will, Lore only), score descriptors and physical appearance. I note that the word "ability" in there is misleading as well.

The Narrator can alter the following with Religarium: Stamina, Will and Lore Scores, Score Descriptors, the appearance of the Telltale (ie: glowing eyes, glowing blood, wings, fangs, etc.), inflict Temporary or Lasting Injuries (as per non-lethal Special Damage, where the "Demon's Power" equals the mortal's Humanity), and physical appearance.

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

My bad. You've got the right gist of it. I probably started typing that in, then had a thought about something else nearby and went to type that in, forgetting to come back and finish the first sentence. I've completed the thought now.

Quote* 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?

Taboos and Taint are never gained at the same time. However, the section you're referring to is talking solely about mortals and the Price they gain for giving out Immaculum.

I did realize after posting the update that I needed to break this off into a seperate section about mortals and how to deal with them in the game, precisely because it might cause confusion...and hey! It did!

Quote*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.

Er, that's exactly what it says: "To summarize the necessary rolls involved in a Power check, one must roll against Possession by the Shard and roll against Humanity to avoid losing a point of Humanity; if lost, the Immortal gains a point of Taint." (remember, lose a point of Humanity and you gain a point of Taint)

I'm still concerned at the amount of rolling this might require, because the Shard is going to push them into situations where they will have a better chance of coming through by using their Motif and rolling the additional dice of Power it grants. But overall, I'm coming to think it might be the best way to handle it after all.

Most of the stuff you mention after this point is in sections I didn't update (at least not very much), thus I will be taking all you've said about those bits into consideration when doing so! However, there were a few things I can answer and hopefully clarifiy for both you and me:

Quote* 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.

It is. Taint is just the numerical portion of the Price.
What about that section made you believe it was seperate from the Price?

And I just now realized I didn't list the idea of going into the Dominions under the section on removing Taint...I think I will update that and ditch the current rule about spending Immaculum to do it. I'm thinking that as it seems too easy a way out from under the penalties caused by Taint.

On the other hand, it does burn up Immaculum. On the other other hand, sneaky players might just spend Immaculum every time they gain just one point of Taint, thus easily overcoming it.

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

Serenades are important, but not central to play, like demon Abilities are important in regular Sorcerer, but not central to play. That is, you can't get by without them without completely changing the game, but they aren't what play is about nor should they be the focus of play.

I want to reduce the centralized aspect of Serenades-as-superpowers -- as the "gotta have" bits of Immortal, what players focus on about their characters -- without removing them entirely.

Does that make sense?

(For the same reasons, I wouldn't remove the summary of what to roll for a Serenade from the Actions chart...the Actions chart is wrong right now, anyways)

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

Danke! And again, thank you for taking the time to read through it and comment, it is very much appreciated!

QuoteMost 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. :)

Excellent! That gladdens my heart to hear it!
I'll post another notice here when I've made more changes and updated the remainder of the text (or at least a goodly portion of it).

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...

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

The part that confused me was this bit:

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

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.