Hmm...if Balanodo is the Shonen Harem Protagonist demon, I'm thinking what a 'rival' Demon would be like, who embodies the trope of the filler villain. Somebody who has challenged Balanodo a hundred, hundred times, in a hundred, hundred guises but every time they fight, he loses. He comes out of nowhere, and demands the plot revolve around him. He gives strange artefacts/powers out to those who work with him, but they are of low quality and fail after one or two uses. He lacks the prince of leaches skill in martial matters but endlessly tries to fight him, and is casually defeated each time, most of his followers then joining Balanodo's horde of admirers/worshippers/husks.
I believe the technical term for what you are looking for is a Raksha.
 
There are five tablets for the five truths.

There are four monks, who are supposedly one for each truth.

Where's the fifth monk?
 
wow i cant believe people are actually liking a thing that was literally written as a skyrim joke

i am amazed

and slightly terrified honestly

might even do a writeup of the shoutsCharms he teaches mortals
 
wow i cant believe people are actually liking a thing that was literally written as a skyrim joke

i am amazed

and slightly terrified honestly

might even do a writeup of the shoutsCharms he teaches mortals
guys we should stop liking MD

if he keeps doin this he'll start writing more

and end up like ES (the horror)
 
I personally felt the references to Skyrim were too on-point and that it undermined the overall cleverness of the piece.

There. I said it.

Please put the rope away.
 
Good.

We agree.

There is a reason that I won't add it to my homebrew post.

EDIT: Because I think it's terrible. It has almost nothing to do with Isidoros, it exists for the purpose of being a Skyrim joke, it is too short and the writing is low quality.

It's in summary, a stellar example of what not to do when writing a Third Circle.

@EarthScorpion's Balanodo is great because it exists for other purposes than "look at me im a reference", meanwhile my Kozombos is an obvious reference, because it has nothing else.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking a bit about that, but hadn't decided whether to go for it yet or not. There would still be "Requirement" for some of them, though, as a distinction between "passive" and "active" conditions for use.
The rule of thumb I followed for my rewrite was Supplementals get an "Enhances:" line, and Reflexives get a "Trigger:" line.
 
The rule of thumb I followed for my rewrite was Supplementals get an "Enhances:" line, and Reflexives get a "Trigger:" line.
The distinction I mean is more "can be used at any time that the conditions are satisfied" versus "can only be used at the moment the trigger happens".
 
On a strictly game design note for the tangential Supplemental/Reflexive issue, something which might seem like a minor terminology quirk but has considerable game-impact is the use of "may" in wording conditional effects. Magic: The Gathering ran into this problem a lot, since the typical game-state requires many "permanents" constantly effecting play all the time, which leads to a huge mental burden on both players to track and record them, interactions between them, and any associated automatic-triggers. But by including "may" in a lot more of the modern sets for what could be termed "persistent passives" there's less demand for hyper-vigilance, because now those ongoing effects are classed as merely Optional rather than required.

This might not seem like a huge deal on the face of it, but it is when you're actually playing the game. Because a missed "absolute" automatic effect suddenly means the intended game-state is different than how it should be, and all decisions made after that point were using the wrong information. We've all been there at one time or another in most games, "if I knew you had that, I wouldn't have done X" and then both players either agree to rewind the game to that point best they can, or continue on under the impression of "well, there went a defining point of the game which predetermined who won and who lost." Either case is a failstate for rules clarity and gameplay, because both players are left feeling like the game got away from them in complexity, and that tipped the scales more than the actual strategy and decisions they made.

The inclusion of "may" and the Optional nature of ongoing trackable effects allows for a "mental out" from this unsatisfying feeling, because missing the trigger is now an acceptable outcome, if undesirable, and a potential part of an intended game-state. This doesn't remove the option for a rewind/informal player agreement like before, but it IS easier to simply say "alright, I forgot to announce my activations, that one is on me, I'll check for it next time" and move on without throwing the rest of the game into a state of "everything from this point on isn't how this game was supposed to operate."
 
Whatever defines a supplement treadmill, Exalted 3e isn't on it.

Maybe it could do with some time on it. You know, to lose some of its flab and maybe build up some project stamina.

Even in this time of chaos where up is down and nothing seems to make sense, remember that there are still islands of certainty which exist to cling to for comfort.

For example, "Exalted Third Edition won't manage to do anything on time and on budget."
 
Whatever defines a supplement treadmill, Exalted 3e isn't on it.

Maybe it could do with some time on it. You know, to lose some of its flab and maybe build up some project stamina.

But why would they build Stamina when Dexterity is so much more optimal? :???:

It is good that the world still holds room for stability.

The wind blows, the snow falls, Exalted Third fails to release...
 
Back
Top