Ah. The way of kings.

Huh. Artifacts involving the binding of spirits and elementals and gods and demons.

An interesting idea.
 
It does. Thank you, really. It's not like, a horribly big deal that you had it out, but I know that there are other people still reading the book who read this thread, so I appreciate you doing that.
A good chunk of it is that I got really, really into the book. I haven't sat down and read a physical book for some time, and I'd forgotten how... fixated I get. Once I got going, I kind of couldn't stop; I started out reading a few pages here and there between other obligations, ended up spending Wednesday in an irritated haze whenever I wasn't actively reading, and finally burned through the last 600 pages or so in a five-hour session on Thursday evening.

Compared to... other things, I guess blithely discussing Sja-Anat just didn't register as a spoiler. Probably a good thing to be reminded now, because my planned follow-up post would have been discussing something way more significant that I somehow didn't register as such.

Ah. The way of kings.

Huh. Artifacts involving the binding of spirits and elementals and gods and demons.

An interesting idea.
Really, just trying to do something similar to spren in Exalted is a neat idea, if fraught with knock-on effects. The imagery of how they work does resonate with the "prosaically fantastic" ideas put forth by @EarthScorpion and others, and I could absolutely see the DM fodder of being able to make characters' actions & emotions generate supernatural visual flourishes; the Dragonblooded warrior leading his village against a mass of undead is surrounded by the shining golden spheres of gloryspren, while the shambling corpses he fights are visibly crawling with infection-red rotspren, like bundles of raw nerves squirming across their fetid skins. A magistrate's calm response to accusations of misconduct belie the lone angerspren that pools at his feet like blood - is he angered at the slandering of his good name, or at being confronted with evidence of his sins?

Likewise, it feels like you could integrate them into ideas of thaumaturgic ritual and talismans, or even just things like exorcists knowing the significance of specific, rare spren that almost exclusively occur in response to demons, fey, ghosts, or other potential threats.
 
A good chunk of it is that I got really, really into the book. I haven't sat down and read a physical book for some time, and I'd forgotten how... fixated I get. Once I got going, I kind of couldn't stop; I started out reading a few pages here and there between other obligations, ended up spending Wednesday in an irritated haze whenever I wasn't actively reading, and finally burned through the last 600 pages or so in a five-hour session on Thursday evening.
Fair enough. I've been cutting through it a few pages a night, with occasional 60 page bursts. I've had so much to read that even though I got it for my birthday in November I haven't really read past page 300 yet.
Really, just trying to do something similar to spren in Exalted is a neat idea, if fraught with knock-on effects. The imagery of how they work does resonate with the "prosaically fantastic" ideas put forth by @EarthScorpion and others, and I could absolutely see the DM fodder of being able to make characters' actions & emotions generate supernatural visual flourishes; the Dragonblooded warrior leading his village against a mass of undead is surrounded by the shining golden spheres of gloryspren, while the shambling corpses he fights are visibly crawling with infection-red rotspren, like bundles of raw nerves squirming across their fetid skins. A magistrate's calm response to accusations of misconduct belie the lone angerspren that pools at his feet like blood - is he angered at the slandering of his good name, or at being confronted with evidence of his sins?

Likewise, it feels like you could integrate them into ideas of thaumaturgic ritual and talismans, or even just things like exorcists knowing the significance of specific, rare spren that almost exclusively occur in response to demons, fey, ghosts, or other potential threats.
I think spren are aesthetically super interesting but suffer from almost being a little too busy mentally. It's a lot to keep track of even in the books. Taking cues from them would probably work pretty well.

Straight-up I think that you can just rip a lot of Roshar for Exalted. The Alethi highprince situation pre-unification (literally stole that through a lens of Japanese history for something I was brainstorming with @Winged Knight earlier tonight), the Shattered Plains, aspects of Urithiru (though it has to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay decayed and lesser almost Nier: Automata-esque, and can't be fixable entirely imo), and the Shin especially. There's a lot of good inspiration to be had. The biggest touches are just draping them in other non-western fantasy and non-Western aesthetics to be more compliant with Exalted.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe i didn't think of spren in exalted earlier. It fits so well. Elementals are in response to surges in elemental essence. Gods are for phenomena and locations and everything in the world. Spren would fit right in.
 
While I hav not read way of kings 3 yet, I did like the link between bonded stem and weapons from what I saw in book 1 and 2..and of I keep getting reminded of course about the fact that for all it's flaws the concept (rather than the execution) of the zanpaktou had in bleach...and a little bit the Weapons from Soul Eater.

In short I like the idea of the bond between a exalt and their weapon, especially if it drives you to narrative choices. Kalidin having a honorspen for example...though not sure what the consequence a Solar who goes against his 'themes' should be if we have spen/gods in the blades who embody ideas. (Aka the blade of the hero in a Solar who has become the apathetic tyrant
 
I've been reading through the 3rd Edition core, and I like what I've read so far. I haven't gone through it cover to cover, but reading chunks here and there that catch my interest, but so far the writing itself is more preferable than second. It has a better atmosphere than the very text booky feel of the previous edition; and though a fan of sequential art, the short stories work better. Some of the art works for me, some of it doesn't, but this is well within the realms of style preference over anything technical. Rules wise, I really like the varied manifestation of limit break. Not that having a firm manifestation of the curse based on your dominate virtue was a bad idea, 3rd's take on it is much more flexible and personable.

Now I'm off to dig through the charms and sorcery.
 
Rules wise, I really like the varied manifestation of limit break. Not that having a firm manifestation of the curse based on your dominate virtue was a bad idea, 3rd's take on it is much more flexible and personable.
Limit is one of those rules I have distinctly mixed feelings about.
Some parts of it, like only triggering it when it's dramatically appropriate, are good, simple changes. Others... It worries me how little input the player gets. The ST chooses your Virtue Flaw for you, and Limit Break triggers when the ST deems it dramatically appropriate. The way the rules are written discourages player/ST communication; talking to the player is suggested only if the Storyteller is unsure which Virtue Flaw to impose.

This can work, yes, but it's a delicate balance, and keeping it steady is not easy when the book is literally telling you that... Well, there's one piece of advice where it says that you shouldn't invalidate someone's character with a Limit Break, it also shouldn't be harmless. Fair enough, except the example is (paraphrasing, but only a little) 'don't trigger it in the middle of an empty desert. Berserk Anger in the middle of a crowded marketplace is better.'

So the rules force a lot of decisions on the ST that, regardless of deliberate intent, carry the risk of damaging what a player finds fun about their character, and some of the advice they have for doing so - things showing their clear intent for use cases - are the kind that are really easy to mess up, or are messed up to begin with. At the same time, the system implies at every step that the Storyteller should impose their decisions; there's no wordcount devoted to what happens if a player seems upset with the choice, just that you should try to avoid doing that.

I mean, a good group can solve this by having a conversation about these things, but as it stands, the system encourages a mindset of the ST imposing Bad Things upon the player as and when they choose in the name of drama, which can so easily lead to blundering into session- or character-ruining mistakes. Bad enough piling more work on the ST without making the task so volatile.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the player and the ST chose the when and what kind of a Virtue Flaw together. This is something I think a table should by default communicate about, and if either side is more comfortable leaving it to the other, that can be their contribution to the conversation.
 
Limit is one of those rules I have distinctly mixed feelings about.

I just finished reading in detail the limit break section and noticed all the issues pointed out in that post. That was some terrible advice and generic examples offered in handling the new system.

It really should be something worked out between players an storytellers. I know that's how it would go down in my old group.
 
You are ignoring content by this member.
I've enjoyed Limit the most when I was working with my ST and we sort of decided on a good moment for it to hit together, and just generally viewing it as an opportunity to explore character and as a collaborative mechanic rather than an adversarial one. Its felt pretty easy to do that in 3e so far!
 
I've enjoyed Limit the most when I was working with my ST and we sort of decided on a good moment for it to hit together, and just generally viewing it as an opportunity to explore character and as a collaborative mechanic rather than an adversarial one. Its felt pretty easy to do that in 3e so far!
Cool, I'm glad for you. But that reads as a compliment to your group rather than the game, because that is very much not what the mechanics declare or imply is how it 'should' be handled.
 
I'm curious if anyone has use the Psoglav for anything?
They seem like they could potentially fit into a bunch of archetypes; Beastmen, semi-stabilized Wyld Mutants, Darkbrood, Demons, Raksha mooks, maybe even some very odd form of Undead.
 
More 3E opinions:

Sorcery seems pretty cool with the various shaping rituals, and I like how there's now a system for doing permanent wonders.

As for setting additions I've read so far, all the new space wasn't filled with much of anything that hasn't already been said before. I like the look of the new map better, but there was already a lot of space from the previous editions never explained. However that is the strength and weakness of Exalted - they want to leave plenty of area for us to build our own sub-settings. This is dope for those of us who love to world build, but sucks if you don't. But White Wolf has always really sucked for the most part when it came to setting material anyways, which is a shame for a Fantasy setting since that's their bread and butter for a lot of source books.

Particulars for what's written, the Dreaming Sea region seems cool for the most part. I'd have to see it developed more before I can form a solid opinion. The heretical Immaculate Order sect they mention is a concept I do like, and breaks up the generic India-esque feel its been blanketed with. Wish they gave better examples of Lunar domains. Most didn't feel like these mighty 'barbarian nations' raised up as mortal instruments of Lunar vengeance, but really shallow and shitty bandit bands. The Caul, though kind of an interesting concept, just felt weird and out of place to me. Not evoking a lot of confidence in how they wanted to do Lunars 'right' this time around.
 
More 3E opinions:
Wish they gave better examples of Lunar domains. Most didn't feel like these mighty 'barbarian nations' raised up as mortal instruments of Lunar vengeance, but really shallow and shitty bandit bands. The Caul, though kind of an interesting concept, just felt weird and out of place to me. Not evoking a lot of confidence in how they wanted to do Lunars 'right' this time around.
This is one of my bigger problems when it comes to exalted fluff. Even now I am still really unclear what I should be using a lunar for in actual game play that I can't just do with another setting element easier.

It honestly perplexes me why they are set up as they are in the setting. Their whole shtick is that they are fighting the realm but they can't actually accomplish anything because you can't have the giant empire that rules everything get beaten off screen by NPC's.
 
This is one of my bigger problems when it comes to exalted fluff. Even now I am still really unclear what I should be using a lunar for in actual game play that I can't just do with another setting element easier.

It honestly perplexes me why they are set up as they are in the setting. Their whole shtick is that they are fighting the realm but they can't actually accomplish anything because you can't have the giant empire that rules everything get beaten off screen by NPC's.
The Caul originally had some hope of representing a solution to this; it was touted in previews as a place where Lunars were firmly in charge, to the point that it wasn't even running on the Loom of Fate - it had its own form of destiny, and acted as a check on the Realm's power, a place they wanted to conquer but couldn't. Obviously, something changed in between preview and publication, and I wish I knew why.

Regardless, I suspect this is the sort of thing Lunar power will end up looking like; they can't defeat the Realm entirely, but they can can define where the Realm ends.
 
Last edited:
This is one of my bigger problems when it comes to exalted fluff. Even now I am still really unclear what I should be using a lunar for in actual game play that I can't just do with another setting element easier.

It honestly perplexes me why they are set up as they are in the setting. Their whole shtick is that they are fighting the realm but they can't actually accomplish anything because you can't have the giant empire that rules everything get beaten off screen by NPC's.

I remember reading a long time ago about this one person's redo of the Lunars as being more concerned with stuff beyond Creation. They were busy trying to keep the Wyld, Underworld, and Malfeas in check, whether this was by setting up conflicts between the various factions and lords among the Fae, Deathlords, and Demons, wiping out their cults, or launching outright raids into the beyond. The Lunars were always concerned with keeping Creation safe from the outsiders, and though not happy the First Age fell and feel the Dragon Blooded have only made their job harder, they basically have more important shit to deal with. The barbarian nations were propped up to help give them soldiers, mates, companions, and to help stabilize the edges of Creation.

I liked this, and what I use, mixed with the TAW project.
 
Cool, I'm glad for you. But that reads as a compliment to your group rather than the game, because that is very much not what the mechanics declare or imply is how it 'should' be handled.

The book does say that a GM should consult with the players on what makes sense for a limit break if it's not something obvious, per page 137, as well as

"Keep in mind the point of Limit Break is never to punish players for taking Limit-gaining actions, nor to sour players' desire to play the characters they've made. Ultimately, the Great Curse should help serve to make your chronicle a story of flawed heroes and savage adventure. If the rules ever seem to be at odds with that, err on the side of making a more enjoyable story."

Limit was not framed as a punishment to be imposed, but rather something to be applied sensibly to facilitate a character. At the very least, it seems made to head off situations where your only response to maxing out limit is something like Berserk Anger regardless of the context or situation per previous editions.

Fair enough, except the example is (paraphrasing, but only a little) 'don't trigger it in the middle of an empty desert. Berserk Anger in the middle of a crowded marketplace is better.'

That's some pretty heavy paraphrasing, to be honest! The full line just says:
"the Great Curse is insidious, and tends to erupt into full bloom only when the Exalt's actions have the potential to create signi cant turmoil or su ering. An Exalt in the midst of an argument with his Circle is likely to experience the full e ects of the Great Curse immedi- ately, while one trekking through the vast desert of the South might continue to travel for several days before the effects of his Limit Break manifest."

Which implies that 'a limit break should have a consequence' rather than 'your pacifist doctor should slaughter a bunch of civilians so the ST can dick around with you for laughs'
 
Last edited:
This is one of my bigger problems when it comes to exalted fluff. Even now I am still really unclear what I should be using a lunar for in actual game play that I can't just do with another setting element easier.

It honestly perplexes me why they are set up as they are in the setting. Their whole shtick is that they are fighting the realm but they can't actually accomplish anything because you can't have the giant empire that rules everything get beaten off screen by NPC's.

My favoured solution remains "let them be the mad princes of Chaos they were going to be before Exalted 1E decided to make them playable at the last minute, after it was too late to rework the entire setting's history".

This simultaneously solves several problems with Lunar fluff:
Q: "The fuck have they been doing for thousands of years, fucking random animals?"
A: Trying to destroy the world the Sidereals made. Warring with each other in Chaos.
Q: "What kind of Celestial Exalts have no accomplishments of any importance for thousands of years, such that if they were retroactively removed from existence, nothing whatsoever would change?"
A: They destroyed the Dragon-Blooded Shogunate, bringing the First Age to a final end. That's a really big accomplishment!
Q: "If there are 300 Celestial Exalts working together as a unified military and political force, the fact that they've done nothing for thousands of years means they're all chumps, why should they exist?"
A: They're the mad princes of Chaos, they're not unified by definition.

And the Wyld (at least, the bits that border Creation):
Q: "There's nothing there except fairies, and fairies cannot be significant because they're infinite in number and produce more of themselves at rates that make zerg look bad. Why should we give a shit?"
A: Lunars rule it now. There are only 300 Lunars. This allows the rulers of the Wyld to be powerful and unique.
Q: "Of all of the setting's otherworlds, this one doesn't have an Exalt to use it as a native playground, why is it so lame?"
A: Well, fairies suck, but you can probably make something more interesting with Lunars providing up to 300 islands of pseudo-stability.

If you want to play one anyway:
Q: "How can I play a mad prince of Chaos?"
A: You just respawned and you're not mad yet. Have fun while you can.
 
Last edited:
You are ignoring content by this member.
Cool, I'm glad for you. But that reads as a compliment to your group rather than the game, because that is very much not what the mechanics declare or imply is how it 'should' be handled.

I wasn't meaning it as a compliment to my group, just that if people are having a hard time making it work from the book's description alone that taking that collaborative approach made it work well for my group.

I meant it as like, if anybody is having problems with the way its described, this worked well for me, so hopefully it might work well for others too! Like problem solving.
 
I've been reading through the 3rd Edition core, and I like what I've read so far. I haven't gone through it cover to cover, but reading chunks here and there that catch my interest, but so far the writing itself is more preferable than second. It has a better atmosphere than the very text booky feel of the previous edition; and though a fan of sequential art, the short stories work better.
This is because it is designed to be read like a book rather than a reference text, and despite how that might sound this isn't a mark in its favor. Because all that extremely dense setting information which seemed so entertaining on the first pass becomes absolutely buried in there somewhere, critical plot points breezed by in a single sentence and important details tucked away into some long-forgotten paragraph that your eye glides over because it started off editorializing about farmsteading when what you're looking for is anything but.

The Second Edition core had these problems too, but that was more endemic to White Wolf having very strange ideas about proper text organization and formatting (I guess Diseases count as Antagonists?) and trying to condense like 30-odd books into a single phonebook-sized Summarization Tome, and not deliberately going out of its way to seem fanciful for the sake of it. It was largely hamstrung by being not enough of a textbook, and its half-way-there compromises ended with stuff like Parry DV calculation being mentioned only Once in the entire combat section, and where it was had been painfully word-wrapped around an image so badly it broke apart the formula entirely and became impossible to find for those looking for it in the middle of a session or while chargenning up new characters. Stuff like "natural language" and "necessary homebrew" have all the outward appearance of being user-friendly, but not when you actually try to make use of what they are presenting you with.

Because, when you get a setting and game system both as complex as Exalted is (or likes to purport itself as), what you really need is a reference text which tells you how things work and how they should operate. Inspiration material is nice, but that's where source material and a reading list comes in, and atmosphere is for coffee-table books intended to be read alone and imagining all the possibilities of the contents at work. Exalted really does not need that kind of book, because no concrete examples of how things should go, and only light suggestions where they lie (if they're not breathlessly presented with the assumption of the standard Antagonist-ST who does literally All the work required of running the game) puts an enormous overhead on anyone willing to undertake the demand. This is a Hard game to get people to start, because it as an incredible amount of buy-in necessary even beyond coming to grips with Combat, and the book which favors the side of "Imagine your ideal game" over "Running your ideal game" is putting a very deliberate hurdle in the path of anyone willing to try.

Just look at the previous page of everyone scrambling around looking for a one-sentence note on the nature of how Jade, one of the headlining Magical Materials of the primary antagonist faction, is supposed to be worked in practice. Information is not disseminated well in these books, and if it were, then we would all have vastly more time to allow ourselves the chance to establish the kinds of things we imagine happening in this game in an actual game, rather than digging through reams of prose to find the needle in the haystack we were hoping for.

And I say this as someone who writes reams of needless and fanciful prose as inspiration and atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
The book does say that a GM should consult with the players on what makes sense for a limit break if it's not something obvious, per page 137, as well as

"Keep in mind the point of Limit Break is never to punish players for taking Limit-gaining actions, nor to sour players' desire to play the characters they've made. Ultimately, the Great Curse should help serve to make your chronicle a story of flawed heroes and savage adventure. If the rules ever seem to be at odds with that, err on the side of making a more enjoyable story."

Limit was not framed as a punishment to be imposed, but rather something to be applied sensibly to facilitate a character. At the very least, it seems made to head off situations where your only response to maxing out limit is something like Berserk Anger regardless of the context or situation per previous editions.
Yes, but the rules frame having a conversation with the players as an afterthought; "If [the ST is] uncertain of which Virtue Flaw to declare, ask the player." is tucked in at the end of the box as a principle with no backing elsewhere, and that's as far as it goes.

Again; there's no wordcount devoted to what happens if a player seems upset with the ST's choice, just that they should try to avoid doing that. The idea that it might be better if it wasn't purely the ST's choice from the beginning is never even mentioned, because while the rules don't call Limit Break a punishment, they approach the matter strongly from an unconscious perspective of the ST imposing Bad Things upon the player as and when they choose in the name of drama. "Err on the side of making a more enjoyable story." makes for a pretty quote, but as I originally indicated, it ignores that the ST's and the player's ideas of what makes for an enjoyable story may differ at this crucial, volatile juncture, and if the ST is not advised to look before they leap by talking to the players about it, that's a recipe for session- or character-ruining moments.
That's some pretty heavy paraphrasing, to be honest! The full line just says:
"the Great Curse is insidious, and tends to erupt into full bloom only when the Exalt's actions have the potential to create signi cant turmoil or su ering. An Exalt in the midst of an argument with his Circle is likely to experience the full e ects of the Great Curse immedi- ately, while one trekking through the vast desert of the South might continue to travel for several days before the effects of his Limit Break manifest."

Which implies that 'a limit break should have a consequence' rather than 'your pacifist doctor should slaughter a bunch of civilians so the ST can dick around with you for laughs'
No, that's a different section. I'm talking about the "Storytelling the Great Curse" box, which says, "When one of the player characters reaches 10 Limit, try to either choose a Limit Break that will immediately produce dramatic results, or delay the onset of Limit Break until it will. Going into Berserk Anger in the middle of a crowded metropolis will obviously carry drastic consequences, but if the characters are wandering through desolate wasteland, it won't be so interesting."
I wasn't meaning it as a compliment to my group, just that if people are having a hard time making it work from the book's description alone that taking that collaborative approach made it work well for my group.

I meant it as like, if anybody is having problems with the way its described, this worked well for me, so hopefully it might work well for others too! Like problem solving.
Ahh, fair enough. Yeah that's definitely a better way of going about it.
 
Last edited:
No, that's a different section. I'm talking about the "Storytelling the Great Curse" box, which says, "When one of the player characters reaches 10 Limit, try to either choose a Limit Break that will immediately produce dramatic results, or delay the onset of Limit Break until it will. Going into Berserk Anger in the middle of a crowded metropolis will obviously carry drastic consequences, but if the characters are wandering through desolate wasteland, it won't be so interesting."

Fair enough, but the line itself seemed to be framed that one extreme was preferable to another extreme, not that either extreme is supposed to be typical or the norm.
 
This simultaneously solves several problems with Lunar fluff:
Q: "The fuck have they been doing for thousands of years, fucking random animals?"
A: Trying to destroy the world the Sidereals made. Warring with each other in Chaos.
Q: "What kind of Celestial Exalts have no accomplishments of any importance for thousands of years, such that if they were retroactively removed from existence, nothing whatsoever would change?"
A: They destroyed the Dragon-Blooded Shogunate, bringing the First Age to a final end. That's a really big accomplishment!
Q: "If there are 300 Celestial Exalts working together as a unified military and political force, the fact that they've done nothing for thousands of years means they're all chumps, why should they exist?"
A: They're the mad princes of Chaos, they're not unified by definition.

I feel like this is an over-drastic solution. As long as you jettison the assumption in the last question, that of unity, it's easy to give appropriate accomplishments to Lunars.

I doubt you read it (I made the mistake of using spoiler blocks) but I just posted some examples of how I'd do that.

Going all-in on the Wyld theme sacrifices most of what Lunars already have, and I'd really rather Exalted not do that.

This is one of my bigger problems when it comes to exalted fluff. Even now I am still really unclear what I should be using a lunar for in actual game play that I can't just do with another setting element easier.

It honestly perplexes me why they are set up as they are in the setting. Their whole shtick is that they are fighting the realm but they can't actually accomplish anything because you can't have the giant empire that rules everything get beaten off screen by NPC's.

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of the problem that 3e failed to solve. Their whole shtick was chosen badly.

Lunars have a whole bunch of things going on; I think they should've tried to embrace them all at once, and let the splat be a disunited borderline-incoherent pile of chaos. Suits Luna, and gives the best chance of satisfying the many different reasons that people have for loving Lunars. Instead they focused heavily on barbarism and Realm-fighting, two of the less interesting themes.

...

Alright, let's call this a question for the thread. How would you approach Lunars?

I just posted my take, Jon just posted his. The TAW crew has theirs out there. What's yours?
 
Fair enough, but the line itself seemed to be framed that one extreme was preferable to another extreme, not that either extreme is supposed to be typical or the norm.
Yes. That's what I said in the first place; "... the rules force a lot of decisions on the ST that, regardless of deliberate intent, carry the risk of damaging what a player finds fun about their character, and some of the advice they have for doing so - things showing their clear intent for use cases - are the kind that are really easy to mess up, or are messed up to begin with." That is, the game's advice to the ST pushes them to err in favour of more volatile and dangerous decisions, the exact kind of thing that's easy to mess up.
 
Back
Top