New Runes

[orathaic]

<Snip>

None of your bullying thinly-veiled as criticism is gonna change that.

Just a side note, i feel this thread was much more interesting before this current bit of criticism. You should not feel like you have to defend yourself in such a long reply.

Getting back to the spirit of creativity and positivity that the thread started with, what is missing, (and what i'd love to see) Exarchs iron seals (in particular the Abyssal gate),

various Seer ministries,

Tremere houses,

My favourite the Abyssal Scelesti (though here it would be appropriate to be stylistically different from high speech, using the unspeech of the Abyss) are there five ziggurats representing the inverse of the five paths?

Any cool Annunkai that are listed? Or Gulmoth and Acomoth?

The Bound! Although i think they may actually he supernal symbols, so wouldn't have a high speech representation, if that symbol has been removed from the supernal?

Ps: critics should feel free to offer an alternative comparable work, instead of simply tearing down your good work.

[crapcarp]

Well, since I'm aware of it, my commentary is that I'm actually pretty okay with deviation from default material-Mirrors and the Chronicler's Guides were my major re-entry points into Chronicles, and the spirit of breaking apart games and remaking them into something different is something that delights me to this day. I am a principle believer in fan games and fan products, even if I tend to find a lot of them lacking, because it's in the spirit of expansion and reinvention where the new and unexpected is bound to happen.

Your behavior doesn't reflect that claim.

1) A lot of attempts I've seen over the year often don't have enough thought applied to them to really work out thoroughly, and the two main roots of that are often a) trying to give more weight to something superficial or craft level where the loadbearing weight is at a deeper level of the process*

*For those unaware of what I'm talking about, I tend to rely a lot on Scott McCloud's Six Steps of Art for planning, constructing, and criticizing media, which understands any given bit of creation as one that starts with the (1)idea and the (2)form, develops an (3)idiom for constructing the overall (4)structure, then getting into the nitty gritty with the (5) craft of each part of the structure, and then applying polish to the (6) surface. People, however, tend to learn backwards, being drawn in by the superficial details and copying them, then learning how to really an individual part, then how to put indidivual parts into a good structure, then developing unique idioms, before directly engaging with their ideas and the form of the medium they work with. A good example of this in our neck of the wood is whenever someone wants to create a five by five splat metric without ever asking if the idea they're making needs to have an x and y splat, or if it even needs to be understood as a major template in the first place.

Well, that's certainly a way of crafting art, but I wouldn't call that the way. There are many ways to skin a cat, after all.

b) trying to fix or change something without applying Chesterton's Fence** to whatever they're trying to fix/change in the first place, and so make something that often doesn't work like they intended it to, and often would bring up a host of issues along with it.

**Chesterton's Fence is a principle that posits that before one should remove or change something, they must first understand why a thing was done in the first place, and how it did that thing. This is done in an effort to not only cut down on fixing something just to fix it, but to ensure that the fix is well and truly effective and possibly expansive in it's utility.

That standard assumes that I have access to the original artists' intentions, which is absurdly unfair to hold me to. First off, I don't know said artists, nor their contact details. Even if I did, there's no reason I should expect to get any answers from them because I'm a complete stranger. They'd also get a lot of similar questions from several other people if their details were publicly accessible.

Now, one could argue that I could research the topic to find out, but that its own double-edged sword. I would essentially have to make educated guesses about their intent, which could throw off my designs wildly off base, thus defeating the purpose.

The best I can do is simply share my own designs with my own intent.

2) A lot of the attempts that I've commented on over the years are the one where the motive for making the homebrew was nothing more than not liking, even hating, the original material-and more importantly than that, the "homebrew" is less about making something new and more just an excuse to complain about the thing they don't like. This I have little to no tolerance for, I'll admit, because after Gecko and Camilla doing that (and a few others) for so long, I'm spent on negativity masquerading as projects, and honestly I just don't trust anything good coming out of that mindset. I've yet to be proven wrong.

Ah yes, I've spent literal hours on making alternative designs to a frankly niche part of a game just because I hate it and the artist(s) who made it. Sure...

For this project, You very clearly have a good eye for signficant symbols, and are decently deft at color theming them, but you don't demonstrate ideas to unify them and make them work together, with little supporting them being in the same box of symbols beyond being popular iconography and having magical association.

Making more negative compliments aren't going to increase my appreciation of them.

They don't do anything that the runes in Awakening do, and arguably they don't do anything beyond replacing runes to replace them, and to your own admission you made them because you don't like the runes in Awakening, with no other idea stated for what you were aiming to do with this.

I find it awful rich that for someone who expects me to somehow understand the artists' intentions behind the original rune designs without having any means of contacting them and no right to expect answers from even if I did, you judge my material based on standards that I never intended to meet in the first place while having ample opportunity to ask what standards I actually tried to achieve.

I believe you could be a very adept creative if you were ever to really apply yourself to the work.

Again, your behavior doesn't reflect that claim.

THis is gonna hit on a third thing that I take issue with. I understand people having problems and errors that they will run into, and I understand overcoming them is not something done overnight. But when people double down and cling to what they're doing, particularly when it's motivated by hatred, that's when I lose patience. A lot of these sort of people seem to think that if they just wait a bit and then put up the same thing, they won't run into the same problems, and tend to get upset when they are still asked to learn and grow. I can understand a problem and a mistake, but I detest a pattern of the stuff.

Same thing? Now that's really insulting. Also, I don't just wait around a few years to repost something just because you "criticize" it. It's called procrastination, a fuck-ton of self-doubt and second-guessing, and an addiction to doomer media. Now I ain't sharing this to get pity or well-wishing, so you can spare that. All I'm pointing out is that I ain't waiting around to somehow avoid prolific forumites from commenting on my stuff. I knew what you were gonna say when I came in; I'm just not gonna take it lying down.

If you just want people to like and approve of your stuff, well, the geek is not going to inherit the earth. If you want to homebrew, if you want to be creative in public spheres, you're going to get criticism, and if you want to get that approval for your work, you're probably going to have to learn from that criticism at some point. If you don't want to deal with that, then don't be a creative in public. That's all there is to it.

There's a massive difference between criticism and simply shitting on another's work and excusing it away as "criticism" to discourage self-defense.

I don't just whip this stuff outta my ass and pretend it smells like an air freshener; I put solid work in to get good results. Before going online, I'll present my stuff to people offline who won't just gush on my work (to be honest, I wouldn't really trust them or even like it if they did; I'm awful at taking compliments). Hell, there was someone on Youtube who literally confused my earlier designs for the official stuff. I fucking cringe at those now, for crying out loud! I don't just wait around a few years to somehow avoid you; I improve. I've made work for my small business that an experienced consultant deemed as professional. I know my work is actually worth a damn 'cause if I didn't it'd never reach the internet.

None of your bullying thinly-veiled as criticism is gonna change that.

[MorganG]

As Satchel pointed out, that is indeed already the case. The runes as they appear in the book are almost non-diegetic, more a unified representation of [insert use of lanuage as a symbol of language here] than telling you it's always going to appear as the deviation from the magi alphabet.

Oh right, silly me. I'm now having flashbacks to a philosophy of language lecturer who had invented his own notation for "the concept referred to by the word 'thing'", as distinct from the word 'thing', and indeed from things themselves.

[ArcaneArts]

Well, since I'm aware of it, my commentary is that I'm actually pretty okay with deviation from default material-Mirrors and the Chronicler's Guides were my major re-entry points into Chronicles, and the spirit of breaking apart games and remaking them into something different is something that delights me to this day. I am a principle believer in fan games and fan products, even if I tend to find a lot of them lacking, because it's in the spirit of expansion and reinvention where the new and unexpected is bound to happen.

I do have two particular issues that come up a lot though, and I'll admit to them:

1) A lot of attempts I've seen over the year often don't have enough thought applied to them to really work out thoroughly, and the two main roots of that are often a) trying to give more weight to something superficial or craft level where the loadbearing weight is at a deeper level of the process*, and b) trying to fix or change something without applying Chesterton's Fence** to whatever they're trying to fix/change in the first place, and so make something that often doesn't work like they intended it to, and often would bring up a host of issues along with it.
2) A lot of the attempts that I've commented on over the years are the one where the motive for making the homebrew was nothing more than not liking, even hating, the original material-and more importantly than that, the "homebrew" is less about making something new and more just an excuse to complain about the thing they don't like. This I have little to no tolerance for, I'll admit, because after Gecko and Camilla doing that (and a few others) for so long, I'm spent on negativity masquerading as projects, and honestly I just don't trust anything good coming out of that mindset. I've yet to be proven wrong.

For this project, You very clearly have a good eye for signficant symbols, and are decently deft at color theming them, but you don't demonstrate ideas to unify them and make them work together, with little supporting them being in the same box of symbols beyond being popular iconography and having magical association. They don't do anything that the runes in Awakening do, and arguably they don't do anything beyond replacing runes to replace them, and to your own admission you made them because you don't like the runes in Awakening, with no other idea stated for what you were aiming to do with this.

So no, they don't work, because they aren't made to do anything except fill in the space of things you don't like, and quite frankly that's not enough. But the thing of the matter is that that's a problem you can fix. You can do something about that. I believe you could be a very adept creative if you were ever to really apply yourself to the work.

THis is gonna hit on a third thing that I take issue with. I understand people having problems and errors that they will run into, and I understand overcoming them is not something done overnight. But when people double down and cling to what they're doing, particularly when it's motivated by hatred, that's when I lose patience. A lot of these sort of people seem to think that if they just wait a bit and then put up the same thing, they won't run into the same problems, and tend to get upset when they are still asked to learn and grow. I can understand a problem and a mistake, but I detest a pattern of the stuff.

If you just want people to like and approve of your stuff, well, the geek is not going to inherit the earth. If you want to homebrew, if you want to be creative in public spheres, you're going to get criticism, and if you want to get that approval for your work, you're probably going to have to learn from that criticism at some point. If you don't want to deal with that, then don't be a creative in public. That's all there is to it.

*For those unaware of what I'm talking about, I tend to rely a lot on Scott McCloud's Six Steps of Art for planning, constructing, and criticizing media, which understands any given bit of creation as one that starts with the (1)idea and the (2)form, develops an (3)idiom for constructing the overall (4)structure, then getting into the nitty gritty with the (5) craft of each part of the structure, and then applying polish to the (6) surface. People, however, tend to learn backwards, being drawn in by the superficial details and copying them, then learning how to really an individual part, then how to put indidivual parts into a good structure, then developing unique idioms, before directly engaging with their ideas and the form of the medium they work with. A good example of this in our neck of the wood is whenever someone wants to create a five by five splat metric without ever asking if the idea they're making needs to have an x and y splat, or if it even needs to be understood as a major template in the first place.
**Chesterton's Fence is a principle that posits that before one should remove or change something, they must first understand why a thing was done in the first place, and how it did that thing. This is done in an effort to not only cut down on fixing something just to fix it, but to ensure that the fix is well and truly effective and possibly expansive in it's utility.

[CTPhipps]

Arc, Satchel, and Heavy Arms have a consistent history of nay-saying anyone who goes against ChronDark's default material. It's the main reason I don't post here very often; this is par for the course.

Don't call out other posters. Take a warning.

[ArcaneArts]

My own headcanon - and I could have sworn some text suggested it as a possibility though I've never found it again - but my own headcanon is that mages write/say whatever they want but imbue their expression with subtle Truth, which can be found by other mages.

As Satchel pointed out, that is indeed already the case. The runes as they appear in the book are almost non-diegetic, more a unified representation of [insert use of lanuage as a symbol of language here] than telling you it's always going to appear as the deviation from the magi alphabet.

[KaiserAfini]

Mmm. This could be a Libertine’s project/Obsession, in-universe.

I think it falls in the niche of the Cryptologos.

[21C Hermit]

Mmm. This could be a Libertine’s project/Obsession, in-universe.

[Satchel]

My own headcanon - and I could have sworn some text suggested it as a possibility though I've never found it again - but my own headcanon is that mages write/say whatever they want but imbue their expression with subtle Truth, which can be found by other mages.

From the text:

Magical runes are derived from the shapes Mana makes when mages release it while using Mage Sight. They work in spellcasting like drawing a blueprint works in construction. High Speech as a communication method doesn’t have to be written in runes. A mage can use any alphabet to write High Speech down, safe in the knowledge that only Awakened mages will be able to read it.

[crapcarp]

Okay everyone chill out. Arc's not a fan. That's fine, but be nice or don't bother commenting.

Arc, Satchel, and Heavy Arms have a consistent history of nay-saying anyone who goes against ChronDark's default material. It's the main reason I don't post here very often; this is par for the course.

[MorganG]

Okay everyone chill out. Arc's not a fan. That's fine, but be nice or don't bother commenting.

I think the word 'alphabet' is misleading in Satchel's comment and that maybe thinking of Chinese characters will make the distinction clearer. Only a few of the most basic Chinese characters bear even the most tenuous pictorial connection to the things they represent after millenia of abstraction.

So the literalness and intuitiveness of your designs strike me as more like app icons. I could see them being used on a Free Council-run dark web site for subtly introducing Sleepers to Supernal mysteries. Moreso than as things mages would be writing in notes to each other.

All that said, I actually hate the idea of High Speech having discrete, stable Fallen forms, whether written or spoken. It doesn't make sense to me to have High Speech be just another human language but with an inherent magic scrambler stopping the unAwakened from understanding it.

My own headcanon - and I could have sworn some text suggested it as a possibility though I've never found it again - but my own headcanon is that mages write/say whatever they want but imbue their expression with subtle Truth, which can be found by other mages. The reason a Sleeper might see some written High Speech as random doodles is because that is exactly what the mage drew. But another mage sees the subtle meaning. If the Sleeper copied the doodles perfectly, the reading mage would see only doodles. But if the second mage wrote the same thing in High Speech but did so in, say, nonsense Sanskrit both mages would see the High Speech as being the same (perhaps they experience the difference in physical forms as something like different fonts). But expressing and understanding High Speech is an inherently magical act, of which Sleepers are simply incapable.

[crapcarp]

Having a logic to a symbolset is not the same thing as not having one meaning that the symbolset isn't "logical." A stopsign, a stylized skull, and a photorealistic image of a dog are all straightforward, but if you tried to claim all three things were from the same emoji pack you'd be laughed out of the room.

It is important not to confuse runes with emblems or logotypes. They're letters in an alphabet, and so design sensibility says they should look like they're from the same set of symbols prior to any sort of stylization into different "fonts."

I guess that's the main stumbling block here: you're using the original definition of the word "rune" to mean "letter". Understandable, but it doesn't account for how definitions shift. Rune, in the modern context, means "magical symbol". Like it or not, that's what it has become. Being a realm of concepts, the Supernal would shift in accord with this new definition.

Besides, I derived the runes based entirely on their use as Yantras, so they're not needed as an alphabet.

As presented you have mixed pictograms with pictures in terms of levels of abstraction. I can't construct a spell-sentence with these things a la Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem without most combinations looking like I made a shorthand note ransom-letter-style, which should probably not be the result when attempting to present something meant to hang together in a semi-standardized fashion.

Oh yes, much better to mash them all together, I suppose. Sure...

To expand on that, the runes in the games all being rooted and derived from the alphabet of the magi is internally coherent and consistent with each other-even if you don't know that that's what they are doing, you can see that each is like to each other.

In this project, a lot of the symbols are such an immediate beeline as to be immediately uncreative*

*and without enough attention to detail to justify tapping into archetypalism.

As opposed to taking letters from an existing alphabet with no regard to any sort of symbolism beyond said alphabet's occult association.

Templar cross for Perfecting

Ummm, no. No it is not.

the Crowley Chaos sign for the Abyss

And I suppose having all the Path runes stuck with an in-filled diamond is totally better...

an alchemical sigil for the Moros

An alchemist sigil for alchemists...

a tomoe for Forces

Wrong again.

the Masonic dagger for the Guardians of the Veil.

Well, you're half-right on that one, I guess.

And that would be fine if it was trying to be applied to a world where there was a chaos and discord to magic-certainly it's be quite at home in Ascension, where the nature of power and reality are all different symbolsets and adjoined meaning competing against each other for primacy-but for a game like Awakening, where all models are arguably shadows, gates, and path onto the True Ideal that is Magic, it's wildly out of place for communicating the particular.

So let's take some random letters from an alphabet associated with magic and start fusing them into meaningless amalgams, rather than directly depicting the concepts themselves.

Maybe if they had been rendered with more thought and intent into how these things are alike it would have worked

Now that's just rich.

(as an example, you're very clever with having 4 eight-pointed stars that all mean different things applied fairly appropriately individual, but they all feel like that they have no relationship to each other where they probably show have some tweaking towards that direction, because Supernal magic is not the same as real world magic models)

Negative compliments aren't appreciated.

but as is, it's basically visual gibberish. Even if you don't know any of the backgrounds to these symbols, they still feel discordant from each other, and that is at odds with the neo-platonic approach to Awakening.

So, yeah, straightforward is not logical here.

Only because you're judging it based on a standard it's not trying to achieve. I never tried making an alphabet here.

[ArcaneArts]

To expand on that, the runes in the games all being rooted and derived from the alphabet of the magi is internally coherent and consistent with each other-even if you don't know that that's what they are doing, you can see that each is like to each other.

In this project, a lot of the symbols are such an immediate beeline as to be immediately uncreative*-a scythe for Death, a Gaelic treffoil for the Acanthus, a dowsing rod for Knowing, an Illuminati eye for the Seers-that you never stop to consider how discordant it is to have a Templar cross for Perfecting, the Crowley Chaos sign for the Abyss, an an alchemical sigil for the Moros, a tomoe for Forces, and the Masonic dagger for the Guardians of the Veil. The only thing these things have in common is that they're probably the first thing you'd think of for symbols for those things, and the result is like trying construct a sentence that correctly uses Gaelic Irish, Italian, German, Japanese, Farsi, and English words and grammar structures all at once.

And that would be fine if it was trying to be applied to a world where there was a chaos and discord to magic-certainly it's be quite at home in Ascension, where the nature of power and reality are all different symbolsets and adjoined meaning competing against each other for primacy-but for a game like Awakening, where all models are arguably shadows, gates, and path onto the True Ideal that is Magic, it's wildly out of place for communicating the particular. Maybe if they had been rendered with more thought and intent into how these things are alike it would have worked(as an example, you're very clever with having 4 eight-pointed stars that all mean different things applied fairly appropriately individual, but they all feel like that they have no relationship to each other where they probably show have some tweaking towards that direction, because Supernal magic is not the same as real world magic models), but as is, it's basically visual gibberish. Even if you don't know any of the backgrounds to these symbols, they still feel discordant from each other, and that is at odds with the neo-platonic approach to Awakening.

So, yeah, straightforward is not logical here.

*and without enough attention to detail to justify tapping into archetypalism.

[Satchel]

So being straightforward is somehow not logical,

Having a logic to a symbolset is not the same thing as not having one meaning that the symbolset isn't "logical." A stopsign, a stylized skull, and a photorealistic image of a dog are all straightforward, but if you tried to claim all three things were from the same emoji pack you'd be laughed out of the room.

It is important not to confuse runes with emblems or logotypes. They're letters in an alphabet, and so design sensibility says they should look like they're from the same set of symbols prior to any sort of stylization into different "fonts."

As presented you have mixed pictograms with pictures in terms of levels of abstraction. I can't construct a spell-sentence with these things a la Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem without most combinations looking like I made a shorthand note ransom-letter-style, which should probably not be the result when attempting to present something meant to hang together in a semi-standardized fashion.

[crapcarp]

The runes are derived from the alphabet of the magi, itself a derivative of the Hebrew alphabet constructed at some point in the 17th century (look ma, I can read a wiki). Awakening takes that and add logical floruishes to communicate what they're depicting (which is why the Company of the Codex's rune looks like a little ship, yes that's very silly) to root the feeling occultism even further into the setting, by actually engaging with a prominent feature of Western occultism.

Ah, I see. That's good to know, thanks.

The runes I made came from symbolizing the concepts directly so they would make better sense to use as Yantras in a modern age.

So, like, they have a logic to how they constructed, where as the fanmade product are just....kind of straightforward, generic, and superficial.

So being straightforward is somehow not logical, it's not generic to just smack some symbols together (the Legacies are especially bad with this), and it's not superficial to literally rip from an occult alphabet with no discernible context.

Because reasons, I guess.

I feel as though there's a distinct lack of consistency in these designs, what with the inclusion of both abstract shapes and stylized images that directly depict their subject (like the one for Veiling), and that even the abstract forms don't look like they're following the same principles. The Acanthus symbol look like it's coming from a completely different design standard than the runes for Fate and Time, as though one put an Egyptian hieroglyph in the middle of some Chinese characters.

Oh good, actually constructive criticism. I suppose I can amend the Acanthus rune by hollowing out the crescents (and doing the same for Clavicularius's horns). On a similar note, Unveiling could use some work, too. Although I think Thyrsus still works to reflect the Path's tendency towards bucking convention.

Many of them don't really look as though they'd organically follow the idea that the runes are the swirling shapes mana assumes when it is released over a subject.

That's only because I never tried depicting that. I always imagined that Mana would flow according to how one would believe it "should" from their particular perspective, considering that it's the pure energy from a realm of concepts.