How would you do rune magic?

[notXanathar]

I have some very specific ideas in my head about what I'd want a system of rune magic to feel like, but very few about how I'd implement them. How would you go about doing so, in your system of choice?

[GalacticAxekick]

First, we need to know what game you're talking about. 5e D&D? Pathfinder? Fate? GURPS?

Next, we need to know what you "specific idea about what rune magic should feel like" is.

In my mind, rune magic refers to "magic where spells are carved into objects, and reading them aloud releases their power". In 5e, I might implement that as a 1st level spell called "Inscribe Rune", which basically says:
Casting time: 1 Minute
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours
Touch an object within range that is neither worn nor carried by an unwilling creature, and choose a 1st level spell or cantrip with a casting time of an action or a bonus action that you are able to cast. You trace runes onto the object that imbue it with the power of that spell or cantrip.

When a creature who is touching the object uses its action or bonus action to read the runes aloud (whichever is the casting time of the spell that you imbued), they cast the spell that you imbued, using your spellcasting ability and proficiency bonus.

If you imbue a cantrip, the runes can be read a unlimited number of times within the duration. If you imbue a spell that costs spell slot to cast, the runes vanish after they are read once, and this spell ends. You can expend additional spell slots while casting this spell to allow the runes to be read an equal number of additional times.

If you imbue a spell that can have multiple possible effects (such as Chromatic Orb), you can choose to specify one effect, or to leave it up to whoever reads the runes.

Finally, a creature must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check against your spell save DC to decipher your runes, unless you choose to write them in a known language or unless you tell the creature how they are read.

At higher levels. When you cast this spell with a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can imbue spells of the same spell level into runes.

[notXanathar]

I'm mainly talking about dnd 5e, but wanted to leave it open, because if any game implemented this in a way that felt right to me I'd want to play it, and especially since I often play pf2e.
I personally like the idea of a rune magic system that is reasonably separate from normal spell-casting, but it's a matter of preference, and your spell appears to meet your criteria, so well done.

[GalacticAxekick]

Again, what are your "very specific ideas about what you want a system of rune magic to feel like"?

Anyone can write a system that works for them, but we can't write a system that works for you until we know what you're envisioning. All I know so far is that (A) it involves magic runes and (B) runes are not spells.

[Vahnavoi]

Doing rune magic with no actual runes in play is pointless, so step one is choosing or making a runic alphabet. Step two is choosing how players interact with those runes in a game. A classic way would be that spells are formed or chosen by making a short sentence with runes - so you need basic grammar also and division between verbs, objects and subjects. The runes can be written on playing cards or post-it notes to make handling them at the table easy.

Doing this alongside the cluttered D&D magic system is nonsense. If you want to focus on runes, focus on runes and jettison all other forms of magic in the system. If you want to preserve specific spells or abilities, assign them to some combination of runes.

[JeenLeen]

If putting it into D&D (3.5 or 5e), a lazy if simple method would be a prepared spellcaster like 3.5. You have X "runes" you can have primed each morning, aka, spell slots. But you have to prepare it ahead of time like prepared spellcasting worked in 3.5. This is just refluffing akin to how runes are mentioned in Complete Arcane (or one of the Complete series books in 3.5, but think it was Arcane).

To put a little more thought into it for 5e, I could see
1) you have X Spells Known, where X is more than most classes with limitations of spells known
2) of those X Spells Known, you prepare Y runes each day. These runes are used to cast a spell.
You can add on ritual casting (fluffed as writing elaborate runes). Maybe let a long rest let you refresh spells slots or change your prepared spells, as seems fitting for balance. It's be somewhat akin to a sorcerer or warlock depending on how you want to set X, Y, and how Rests work.

Or you could write a completely new system/subsystem, but then you should elaborate what the goals are more thoroughly.


Doing rune magic with no actual runes in play is pointless, so step one is choosing or making a runic alphabet. Step two is choosing how players interact with those runes in a game. A classic way would be that spells are formed or chosen by making a short sentence with runes - so you need basic grammar also and division between verbs, objects and subjects. The runes can be written on playing cards or post-it notes to make handling them at the table easy.

Doing this alongside the cluttered D&D magic system is nonsense. If you want to focus on runes, focus on runes and jettison all other forms of magic in the system. If you want to preserve specific spells or abilities, assign them to some combination of runes.

That'd be some great worldbuilding, but I don't think it'd be required to make a game system to emulate things. Just like I don't need to know Latin to RP my wizard chanting spell incantations in Latin in-game.

However, I do see some great limitations in that you might want spells to work via grammatical means. E.g., if you need a rune for your target, a rune for the action to occur, etc.

[Vahnavoi]

You don't need to speak a different language to convey that your characters are doing so in a game, yes - but if you don't do something to convey it, it becomes a superfluous detail that's easy to ignore and forget. So if you wanted to make it a point that spells are chanted in Latin, I would recommend that spell names be translated into Latin and players would call out spells in Latin just as well. As a bonus, it makes it very clear when someone is casting a spell versus simply talking about spells.

[Saelethil]

I would probably do something in the vein of wizard/artificer with vancian “casting” (which should be separate from other casting classes). I would also say that the Runes would need to be attached to an object so a rune of Bursting Flame may deal 8d6 fire in a 30’ radius around you or you could carve a similar rune that only does 6d6 in a 20’ radius on a piece of ammunition if you want to use it at range.
I would probably also give them the ability to ritually cast spells that wouldn’t normally be rituals.

[GalacticAxekick]

You don't need to speak a different language to convey that your characters are doing so in a game, yes - but if you don't do something to convey it, it becomes a superfluous detail that's easy to ignore and forget. So if you wanted to make it a point that spells are chanted in Latin, I would recommend that spell names be translated into Latin and players would call out spells in Latin just as well. As a bonus, it makes it very clear when someone is casting a spell versus simply talking about spells.I'd say that's needlessly complicated. It makes spell lists hard to navigate ("What does Nebula Nubes do? How do I find spells with X theme?") and slows down combat "I cast Misty Step" "You can't call it that" "Okay, what's it called in Latin?" "Agnus Gradus"

All you need to do to convey that verbal components are in Latin is tell the players "verbal components are in Latin". When an NPC casts a spell, the DM says "The traveler mutters in Latin". When a player casts a spell, the DM might react "The crowd flinches at the sound of Latin and watches closely to see what happens next". That's it.



Likewise, with runes, there's no reason to invent an entire language or alphabet and force players to engage with it if all you want is to convey t that magic is a language. You could make the entire rune system in plain English, but break each pseudo-spell into rune components that are vaguely grammatical.

For example, if the basic sentence structure is Subject Verb Object (Man Punches Bag, Dog Chases Cat, etc) and if the Subject is always the caster, rune-based magicians could have plain English runes for different Verbs and Objects that they combine on the fly to create magical effects. A Verb (Incinerate) plus an Object (Whom I See) = a Spell (Heat Vision).

Then you could add adjectives and adverbs (Incinerate + All + Whom I See = Heat Vision Cone). You could tie casting time or spell cost to the number of rune components. You could do lots of complicated grammar-like things that actually pay off in terms of gameplay. But don't literally write a new alphabet for it. There's no pay off for that.

[Vahnavoi]

There are plenty of reasons for a game to work with second languages, ciphers and alternate alphabets. The most obvious being actually teaching said second language, the other almost as obvious being that this allows for making actually deciphering the writing into a puzzle of its own. Less obvious reasons include possibility of the second language having desirable qualities your primary language doesn't have - which is the reason why, for example Latin was the language of science and philosophy for a very long time and still continues to be so for some purposes.

Slowing down combat is a non-issue. Once you know what an ability's name is, which you will due to process of choosing and writing it down when making a character, saying it in one language over another is not meaningfully slower. F.ex. saying "Imperio!" or "Crucio!" to convey casting commanding or torturing curse is just as fast as saying "I command!" or "I torture!" with the aforementioned benefit of disambiguating casting of spells from other use of language.

[GalacticAxekick]

There are plenty of reasons for a game to work with second languages, ciphers and alternate alphabets. The most obvious being actually teaching said second languageOkay, sure. If every spellcaster at your table wants to learn Latin or Runic, that's great! But if not, you're just giving players homework.


the other almost as obvious being that this allows for making actually deciphering the writing into a puzzle of its own. Do you mean like, asking the players (who now have a limited latin vocabulary) to translate latin text as a puzzle?


Slowing down combat is a non-issue. Once you know what an ability's name is, which you will due to process of choosing and writing it down when making a character, saying it in one language over another is not meaningfully slower.But the process of choosing spells and memorizing spell names is itself made more difficult.


with the aforementioned benefit of disambiguating casting of spells from other use of language.There is no ambiguity to disambiguate. When I say "I cast command" its immediately clear that I mean the spell. Using English has the added benefit of everyone at the table getting a hit at what to expect.

[Fero]

I recall that GURPS has a cool runic magic variant. If I recall correctly, the runes use a noun/verb system to combine runes into spell like effects. For extra fun, you could paint runes onto stones, put them in a bag, draw some whenever you want to cast, and try to invent a spell from whatever you draw.

For something simpler, the 3.5 Geometer let's you replace verbal components with Glyphs that cost gp. Alternatively, the 3.5 runesmith replaces spell somatic components with runes.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Here's a pass I took.

The Calligrapher (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v6lEZK7sv4wpWFWf-mJaAgXl6wnehm2-/view?usp=sharing)

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/deb47061-fdfe-4d4b-8700-4731dbd7d93b/de3ywx7-9ed010c0-3a51-4a32-acee-94e3ba9fb0cc.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJ IUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQz NzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZT BkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6 W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2RlYjQ3MDYxLWZkZmUtNGQ0Yi04Nz AwLTQ3MzFkYmQ3ZDkzYlwvZGUzeXd4Ny05ZWQwMTBjMC0zYTUx LTRhMzItYWNlZS05NGUzYmE5ZmIwY2MucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIj pbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.uWa4k0qL md1eK_fZ3sOE4aQiFlAS5UxvNjeQtykR9UQ

[Vahnavoi]

Okay, sure. If every spellcaster at your table wants to learn Latin or Runic, that's great! But if not, you're just giving players homework.

This is a non-argument. All games take work to learn and play, all games will feel like a chore if you don't want to play. Meanwhile, in the outside world, teachers turn math, language etc. lessons into games and have kids play them as homework, because this makes learning fun and is a way to motivate students who aren't already inclined to study those subjects. The great big grand daddy of tabletop wargaming and roleplaying both, Kriegsspiel, was an educational tool for military officers - its concepts spread to civilian use because some people liked extra homework.


Do you mean like, asking the players (who now have a limited latin vocabulary) to translate latin text as a puzzle?

Yes.


But the process of choosing spells and memorizing spell names is itself made more difficult.

And? The reason you move the ball with your feet instead of hands in soccer is largely because it is more difficult. We're talking about games - raising difficulty of a thing to make it more challenging to players is a reason in itself to do things one way over another. You have to state some other aesthetic of gameplay that you're prioritizing over challenge for it to be an issue.


There is no ambiguity to disambiguate. When I say "I cast command" its immediately clear that I mean the spell. Using English has the added benefit of everyone at the table getting a hit at what to expect.

You are using specific construction to indicate you are using "command" as a noun (spell name) and disambiguate it from other uses - a construction that works because it is seldom seen outside a specific genre of games. Both this construction and the specific meaning of "command" are something you had to learn for a game, in a process that is exactly the same as checking what a foreign word means in a dictionary. This becomes more obvious when talking of spells with less descriptive names like "Mordenkainen's Disjunction" or "Tenser's Transformation".

As for everyone knowing what to expect, roleplaying games are often games of imperfect information - which means there are cases were players don't want everyone at the table to understand what is being said. Alternate languages, alphabets, codes, ciphers etc. can be a way to hide information in plain sight, as well as communicate that information is being passed without telling what that information is. If you're wondering what the utility is over saying "X says something in a language you don't understand", it's that the actual message is still there, it can be recorded, it can be deciphered, there are elements of it that the players can recognize and reason about after-the-fact.

[GalacticAxekick]

This is a non-argument. All games take work to learn and play, all games will feel like a chore if you don't want to play. Meanwhile, in the outside world, teachers turn math, language etc. lessons into games and have kids play them as homework, because this makes learning fun and is a way to motivate students who aren't already inclined to study those subjects. The great big grand daddy of tabletop wargaming and roleplaying both, Kriegsspiel, was an educational tool for military officers - its concepts spread to civilian use because some people liked extra homework.My argument is

I have an interest in playing 5e. I enjoy telling stories and acting. I enjoy strategizing around problems. 5e is a means for me to play a character and overcome challenges with strategic use of their abilities.

But I have 0 interest in learning Latin.

If I had to learn Latin in order to play 5e, I would not play 5e. Because learning Latin is neither acting nor strategizing. It's rote memorization literally for its own sake (in your own words "The most obvious [reason for a game to work with second languages] being actually teaching said second language"). It is, for me, homework.

Yes, teachers use games to make learning more fun. Pharmacists mix medicine with sugar to help it go down. But I don't play D&D as a means to the end. It IS the end. Compromising it to achieve another end is compromising on my enjoyment.

Argument heard?


Yes.That isn't my idea of a puzzle. There's no creative work involved. You either recognize the words or you don't.


And? The reason you move the ball with your feet instead of hands in soccer is largely because it is more difficult. We're talking about games - raising difficulty of a thing to make it more challenging to players is a reason in itself to do things one way over another. You have to state some other aesthetic of gameplay that you're prioritizing over challenge for it to be an issue. In D&D, the game is "use your character's abilities to overcome X problem in the story". Naming all of my abilities in a foreign language makes we work TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE GAME, and not as part of the game.

Reading every spell description in the spell list searching for information that should be in the names of spells (and that is, if I do my Latin homework) is is boring to me as rolling out the turf, raising the nets, and inflating the ball might be to a soccer player.

I enjoy challenges. I enjoy the creative work of trying to achieve a goal within constraints. But rote memorization of a language (or reading great lengths of text without titles due to the titles being in a foreign language) is not creative work, anymore than setting up a soccer field is.


You are using specific construction to indicate you are using "command" as a noun (spell name) and disambiguate it from other uses - a construction that works because it is seldom seen outside a specific genre of games. Both this construction and the specific meaning of "command" are something you had to learn for a game, in a process that is exactly the same as checking what a foreign word means in a dictionary.Yes, I had to learn what the verb "cast" means and what it implies about the noun that follows it.

I would much rather have to learn one word in my own language than hundreds in a foreign language. That's significantly less homework, so to speak.


As for everyone knowing what to expect, roleplaying games are often games of imperfect information - which means there are cases were players don't want everyone at the table to understand what is being said. Alternate languages, alphabets, codes, ciphers etc. can be a way to hide information in plain sight, as well as communicate that information is being passed without telling what that information is. If you're wondering what the utility is over saying "X says something in a language you don't understand", it's that the actual message is still there, it can be recorded, it can be deciphered, there are elements of it that the players can recognize and reason about after-the-fact.So what, do you change languages every game so that last game's casters (now this game's martials) don't understand spell names or verbal components?

If you want to hide information between players, cool! I've been DM and player in games where actions were taken in secret, backstory was kept unsaid, and information was communicated in foreign languages. But we didn't do that by making players go home and learn new languages.

When Player A spoke to Player B in a language no one else understood, she took out her phone, texted Player B, and said to everyone else "I begin speaking in Gnomish, which in my head sounds vaguely Scandinavian".

No out-of-game barrier (learning a language) to solving the in game problem (communicating a secret to a party member). Just thoughtful use of an in-game ability (fluency in Gnomish).

[CinuzIta]

Just to return in topic (I agree with GalacticAxeKick tho), a good way to start a rune magic system might be to see what the Rune Knight does and expanding from it:

- The rune knight has a limited selection of runes from which he can choose. Expanding on it, while having a basis with set examples, shouldn't be too hard.

- The rune knight is melee class (being a fighter subclass) and as such has limited "runecasting ability". I imagine a full runecaster might have access to ritual-like way of inscribing runes. Maybe you use the main effect of the first rune you selected and the bonus effects of the other runes inscribed in the ritual/sentence?


How would this look for a starter?

[Eldan]

My first question would be: is there something that is already similar to the flavour you want? What makes rune magic special?

For example, if the special thing about rune magic is that it's slower than magic, where you painstakingly carve your spells... that's just reflavoured ritual magic.

If it's about engraving runes on objects, and then those objects gaining magical powers, that's just crafting magical items, with slightly different flavor. Or artificer infusions.

[Vahnavoi]

My argument is

I have an interest in playing 5e. I enjoy telling stories and acting. I enjoy strategizing around problems. 5e is a means for me to play a character and overcome challenges with strategic use of their abilities.

But I have 0 interest in learning Latin.

If I had to learn Latin in order to play 5e, I would not play 5e. Because learning Latin is neither acting nor strategizing. It's rote memorization literally for its own sake (in your own words "The most obvious [reason for a game to work with second languages] being actually teaching said second language"). It is, for me, homework.

Yes, teachers use games to make learning more fun. Pharmacists mix medicine with sugar to help it go down. But I don't play D&D as a means to the end. It IS the end. Compromising it to achieve another end is compromising on my enjoyment.

Argument heard?

It's a completely hollow argument because it can be made of every element you could add to the game, and every element that already is in it for that matter. It also misses the point.

When I started playing AD&D way back when, I had zero interest in learning various archaic names for weaponry and armor - that the game required it sparked the interest in those things. It didn't compromise its enjoyability with those things, it made them enjoyable via its presentation.

Saying you play a game as an end to itself, is just another way of saying the game designer convinced you to do whatever homework the game requires and like it.

So stop being a negative nelly about things you don't already like. It is not useful to anyone looking to change the game in any way.


That isn't my idea of a puzzle. There's no creative work involved. You either recognize the words or you don't.

You have a very poor grasp of translation-based puzzles if you think that is the case. Even basic crosswords and word search matrices can be set up so that they require creative insight to solve. Harder ones involve puns, double meanings or semantics that don't map neatly from one language to another - there is a pretty famous riddle in Lord of the Rings if you want an example. Once you get to complete texts, the task can seamlessly flow into acting and strategizing, because you are doing the same mental things your character in the game world would be doing.


In D&D, the game is "use your character's abilities to overcome X problem in the story". Naming all of my abilities in a foreign language makes we work TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE GAME, and not as part of the game.

When you're using the language your character would be using in the game world, you are very obviously acting as your character, solving problems in a way they would. It is basic form of method acting, characterizing it as something not part of the game is, again, just being a negative nelly.


Reading every spell description in the spell list searching for information that should be in the names of spells (and that is, if I do my Latin homework) is is boring to me as rolling out the turf, raising the nets, and inflating the ball might be to a soccer player.

I enjoy challenges. I enjoy the creative work of trying to achieve a goal within constraints. But rote memorization of a language (or reading great lengths of text without titles due to the titles being in a foreign language) is not creative work, anymore than setting up a soccer field is.

The names of the spells have never been all that informative to begin with. Also? Preparatory work is not, and does not have to be, boring as any sort of general rule. Sometimes it is, but that's the price of doing the thing at all. Other times it is satisfying in itself or builds up excitement for the payoff, which is again influenced by presentation. So fixating on that aspect is, again, hollow. Trying to stretch my own soccer metaphor is unconvincing as well, because setting up a soccer field is itself a goal to achieve that can require quite a bit of creative problem solving. The idea that it's all always rote is objectively false and thus the comparison doesn't tell anyone anything.


So what, do you change languages every game so that last game's casters (now this game's martials) don't understand spell names or verbal components?

No, because not every new game I make or play is founded on language puzzles. Just some of them. I'm outlining reasons why to do a thing, not arguing the thing has to be done every time.


If you want to hide information between players, cool! I've been DM and player in games where actions were taken in secret, backstory was kept unsaid, and information was communicated in foreign languages. But we didn't do that by making players go home and learn new languages.

When Player A spoke to Player B in a language no one else understood, she took out her phone, texted Player B, and said to everyone else "I begin speaking in Gnomish, which in my head sounds vaguely Scandinavian".

No out-of-game barrier (learning a language) to solving the in game problem (communicating a secret to a party member). Just thoughtful use of an in-game ability (fluency in Gnomish).

You're outlining an alternate method to convey secret information, with its own reasons to be used that doesn't in any way nullify the reasons I outlined to use the other method. To contrast the two methods some more, actually speaking out the words is faster than writing and does away with need for another medium (phone, post-it note, etc.). Your method doesn't remove the "out-of-game" (really just game) barrier, it simply moves it elsewhere. Which method to choose depends on priorities of game design. You seem to think doing things my way conflicts with desire for strategizing, creativity, acting and telling stories, but this doesn't really follow from anywhere. You just don't have existing motivation for learning a second language. That's fine. But I kindly remind you that D&D hobby is international and for lot of players English is the second language they got good at for the purpose of playing games.

[Yakk]

I'd say that's needlessly complicated. It makes spell lists hard to navigate ("What does Nebula Nubes do? How do I find spells with X theme?") and slows down combat "I cast Misty Step" "You can't call it that" "Okay, what's it called in Latin?" "Agnus Gradus"

All you need to do to convey that verbal components are in Latin is tell the players "verbal components are in Latin". When an NPC casts a spell, the DM says "The traveler mutters in Latin". When a player casts a spell, the DM might react "The crowd flinches at the sound of Latin and watches closely to see what happens next". That's it.



Likewise, with runes, there's no reason to invent an entire language or alphabet and force players to engage with it if all you want is to convey t that magic is a language. You could make the entire rune system in plain English, but break each pseudo-spell into rune components that are vaguely grammatical.

For example, if the basic sentence structure is Subject Verb Object (Man Punches Bag, Dog Chases Cat, etc) and if the Subject is always the caster, rune-based magicians could have plain English runes for different Verbs and Objects that they combine on the fly to create magical effects. A Verb (Incinerate) plus an Object (Whom I See) = a Spell (Heat Vision).

Then you could add adjectives and adverbs (Incinerate + All + Whom I See = Heat Vision Cone). You could tie casting time or spell cost to the number of rune components. You could do lots of complicated grammar-like things that actually pay off in terms of gameplay. But don't literally write a new alphabet for it. There's no pay off for that.
This works much better if PCs are expected to have like 1 or 2 spells to start with. Then you (as a player) are expected to learn those 1 or 2 spells.

Then add new spells at a rate that the player and DM can be expected to learn the new keywords. Capping out eventually at a low cap of like 4 unique spells per PC.

It results in a much slower gain of powers than you'd be used in in 5e.

[LibraryOgre]

I adapted a couple versions of Runecasters (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2019/08/runecaster-kit.html) from 2e into a kit for every class. The originals were from HR1: Vikings (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16912/HR1-Vikings-Campaign-Sourcebook-2e?affiliate_id=315505) and Giantcraft (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16851/FOR7-Giantcraft-2e?affiliate_id=315505).

Adapting this to 5e would be difficult, but I would lean towards making it a special form of ritual magic... one that required a casting time and materials, but could potentially upcast, perhaps, by expending more time and materials than commonly required.

[GalacticAxekick]

It's a completely hollow argument because it can be made of every element you could add to the game, and every element that already is in it for that matter.No, it can't.

My interest is in telling stories, acting, and strategizing around problems. Learning the names and descriptions of the people, places and things in the story does not compromise my ability to spend time participating in the story. Learning the names and descriptions of the problems I'm solving and the tools at my disposal does not compromise my ability to spend time strategizing around the problem.

But renaming everything in a foreign language so that they are more difficult to learn does. There's a fundamental difference between learning something for the sake of the game and playing the game for the sake of learning something. You understand this, right?


So stop being a negative nelly about things you don't already like.I'm open to things I don't already like. But learning new languages is something I've done twice and assuredly dislike.


It is not useful to anyone looking to change the game in any way.
I'm open to changing the game. This is why I write homebrew and why I'm posting on a homebrew forum. But everything I add to the game is for the sake of the game and not the other way around.


You have a very poor grasp of translation-based puzzles if you think that is the case. Even basic crosswords and word search matrices can be set up so that they require creative insight to solve. Harder ones involve puns, double meanings or semantics that don't map neatly from one language to another - there is a pretty famous riddle in Lord of the Rings if you want an example. Once you get to complete texts, the task can seamlessly flow into acting and strategizing, because you are doing the same mental things your character in the game world would be doing.I concede this point.


When you're using the language your character would be using in the game world, you are very obviously acting as your character, solving problems in a way they would. It is basic form of method acting, characterizing it as something not part of the game is, again, just being a negative nelly.My character is fluent. If I'm fluent, then sure, using the language is acting as my character. If I'm not fluent, HAVING TO LEARN THE LANGUAGE is not acting as my character. It's a barrier for me to overcome in order to begin acting as my character. It's a barrier between me and the game.

If actually speaking the language were an essential part of acting as my character, this would be fine. But it's not, anymore than actually picking locks is an essential part of acting as a lockpicking Rogue, or anymore than actually fencing is an essential part of acting as a swashbuckling Fighter. What matters is that the story is told, and not actually played out.


The names of the spells have never been all that informative to begin with.Yes, they have. I could not disagree with you more. Counterspell, Scorching Ray, Mage Armor, Locate Object, Healing Word, Shocking Grasp: the vast majority of spell names are purely descriptive of what they do. Even spells with less descriptive names, like Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion and Tenser's Transformation at least hint at their function.


Preparatory work is not, and does not have to be, boring as any sort of general rule. Sometimes it is, but that's the price of doing the thing at all. Other times it is satisfying in itself or builds up excitement for the payoff, which is again influenced by presentation. So fixating on that aspect is, again, hollow. Trying to stretch my own soccer metaphor is unconvincing as well, because setting up a soccer field is itself a goal to achieve that can require quite a bit of creative problem solving. The idea that it's all always rote is objectively false and thus the comparison doesn't tell anyone anything. I haven't set up any soccer fields myself. But as a wrestler in real life, I've set up arenas before tournaments, and I can say from experience that it involves none of the creative work—none of the fun—of actually wrestling. It HAS to be done, so I do it. But if it could be avoided, I would avoid it.

Making the character prep more difficult can be avoided, so I'd like to avoid it. Sue me.


You're outlining an alternate method to convey secret information, with its own reasons to be used that doesn't in any way nullify the reasons I outlined to use the other method. To contrast the two methods some more, actually speaking out the words is faster than writing and does away with need for another medium (phone, post-it note, etc.). Your method doesn't remove the "out-of-game" (really just game) barrier, it simply moves it elsewhere.Yes, it does not remove the out-of-game barrier. But it minimizes it. It reduces the barrier from learning a new language (a long and difficult process) to having a phone (something every player at my table, and truly every adult I know, already has). Typing is slower than speaking, but learning a language is slower still.


Which method to choose depends on priorities of game design. You seem to think doing things my way conflicts with desire for strategizing, creativity, acting and telling stories, but this doesn't really follow from anywhere.It follows from the fact that it puts at least hours of work (memorizing vocabulary) and at most months of work (actually learning a language) between me and strategizing/storytelling.


You just don't have existing motivation for learning a second language. That's fine. But I kindly remind you that D&D hobby is international and for lot of players English is the second language they got good at for the purpose of playing games.I'm willing to learn a language if it's a necessary prerequisite to play games. But as things stand, it isn't. I'm against adding the barrier just because other people have had to overcome barriers.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: Do monitor your language when you are responding to each other. I'd hate to have to scrub a bunch of stuff due to differences of opinion and style.

[GalacticAxekick]

Did I use any inappropriate language?

[olskool]

I have some very specific ideas in my head about what I'd want a system of rune magic to feel like, but very few about how I'd implement them. How would you go about doing so, in your system of choice?

RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha actually gives you a list of Runes broken into Form Runes, Power Runes, and Condition Runes. Combining the Runes you possess together allows you to cast various Sorcery Spells.

The 1st edition Mongoose RuneQuest has you attune Runes in order to cast Spirit Magic as well. This was dropped in later additions.

[Yakk]

Go with combinatorial.

There are modifier runes and primary runes. A given spell uses 1 or 2 or 3 primary runes, and 0 to 2 modifier runes.

If there are 6 primary runes and 4 modifier runes, that is ((6c1)+(6c2)+(6c3))*(1+(4c1)+(4c2)) effects, aka (6 + 15 + 20) * (1+4+6) = 451 combinations.

To use the runes to cast a spell, you have to have the combination and the name of the combination.

So now you get to invent up to 451 rune combination effects.

You can tweak the number of primary runes allowed, total and modifier runes to get the effect count down.

...

The second approach is to make things more generic. But that, honestly, tends to lead to vanilla.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Here's a pass I took.

The Calligrapher (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v6lEZK7sv4wpWFWf-mJaAgXl6wnehm2-/view?usp=sharing)

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/deb47061-fdfe-4d4b-8700-4731dbd7d93b/de3ywx7-9ed010c0-3a51-4a32-acee-94e3ba9fb0cc.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJ IUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQz NzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZT BkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6 W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2RlYjQ3MDYxLWZkZmUtNGQ0Yi04Nz AwLTQ3MzFkYmQ3ZDkzYlwvZGUzeXd4Ny05ZWQwMTBjMC0zYTUx LTRhMzItYWNlZS05NGUzYmE5ZmIwY2MucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIj pbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.uWa4k0qL md1eK_fZ3sOE4aQiFlAS5UxvNjeQtykR9UQ



Go with combinatorial.

There are modifier runes and primary runes. A given spell uses 1 or 2 or 3 primary runes, and 0 to 2 modifier runes.

If there are 6 primary runes and 4 modifier runes, that is ((6c1)+(6c2)+(6c3))*(1+(4c1)+(4c2)) effects, aka (6 + 15 + 20) * (1+4+6) = 451 combinations.

To use the runes to cast a spell, you have to have the combination and the name of the combination.

So now you get to invent up to 451 rune combination effects.

You can tweak the number of primary runes allowed, total and modifier runes to get the effect count down.

...

The second approach is to make things more generic. But that, honestly, tends to lead to vanilla.

I redirect you to my earlier post and link.