Unlocking Ancient Wisdom: The Deep Meaning of Rune Stones

Rune stones are ancient symbols used by the Norse people for divination and communication with the gods. The runic alphabet, known as the Elder Futhark, consists of 24 characters, each representing a different sound. Each rune also has its own unique meaning and symbolism. The earliest runic inscriptions date back to the 2nd century AD, and rune stones were commonly used throughout the Viking Age. Typically made of stone, these stones were often erected as memorial markers or used in rituals and ceremonies. They would also be used for casting or drawing runes to gain insight into the future or to communicate with the spiritual realm.

Tonally, OotA is a classic pulp "lost in an alien world" adventure; perhaps a bit darker than what we typically consider of pulp nowadays (although really there was some twisted and horrifying stuff printed on that cheap paper way back when). CoS aims for gothic horror, or just horror in general, which is kind of a difficult thing to pin down and really depends on your particular group as much as anything else. Also, OotA presumes a standard D&D world and then dials the weirdness up to 11. I think CoS kind of works better if you assume the PCs are from a low-magic, low-monster world, because then all the freaky stuff in Barovia seems scarier by contrast.

In contrast, the demon lords in OotA are like Godzilla; the PCs can t really interact with them because if they get too close they ll get squished or go mad. Curse of Strahd CoS is one of the more well-regarded and fully-covered adventures in 5e D D, so I m not going to belabor an explanation of the premise.

They would also be used for casting or drawing runes to gain insight into the future or to communicate with the spiritual realm. Each rune stone carries its own specific message and interpretation. For example, the rune "Fehu" represents wealth and material gain, while "Uruz" symbolizes strength and vitality.

D&D 5E Out of the Abyss or Curse of Strahd?

Just like the title says. . . I'll be finishing a converted Rise of the Runelords campaign in a month or so and am looking into what I'll be running next. This ROTRL campaign has been the first time I've DM'd in almost 30 years and it's been a blast but I've made tons of mistakes (railroading, creating too much bloat around the story, over designing encounters. . . lots of noob stuff). I'm sure I'll continue to make them but hopefully with decreasing frequency.

Anyway, which adventure would you all suggest for someone who's getting back into DMing? I'll, of course, ask the group if they have a general preference of setting but I'm asking more to learn which you all think would be more noob DM friendly.

Many thanks for any input!

Jester David

Hero

I love Ravenloft and like Curse of Strahd.
But Out of the Abyss is excellent. It's less railroady. It's more complicated and advanced, but after RotRL you should be able to handle it. And the villain is different, while Strahd and Karzoug are somewhat similar.

pontinyc

Explorer

OoTA SPOILER INCOMING:

Thanks for the reply, Jester Canuck. Great to know. My goal for OoTA would be to have the pc's get to 20 and then fight each demon lord individually. I'm not really interested in the finale of that adventure as written (with each player taking control of a single lord and then take out the weakened Demogorgon). Do you think this would be feasible for someone who's still getting their bearings as a DM?

Mouseferatu

Hero

My goal for OoTA would be to have the pc's get to 20 and then fight each demon lord individually. I'm not really interested in the finale of that adventure as written (with each player taking control of a single lord and then take out the weakened Demogorgon).

Obviously you know your players better than I do. (At least I hope so. ) So this may or may not be at all useful. But speaking for myself.

If I were a player in an OotA campaign? I really wouldn't care for your proposed change.

Yes, demon lords are cool, and fighting a demon lord can be cool. But multiple demon lords in a single campaign? I would get bored, and kind of annoyed with it. It turns the climax of the campaign into a series of big, potentially sloggy fights. Worse, it's a waste of potential, drama-wise. Any given demon lord is viable as the final confrontation of an entire campaign. If they fight each other, it's at least 1) something we haven't seen/played through before, and 2) it doesn't feel like I, as a player, has battled them all.

But having the PCs battle all of them? It feels like, what's the point? We're fighting glorified cameos by characters who could have driven entire plotlines.

Again, only speaking for myself. If you think your players will prefer what you have in mind, by all means, go for it and have fun. But I wanted to present the other viewpoint in case it's one you haven't considered.

pontinyc

Explorer

Very much appreciated, Mousferatu, thank you. It's a very valid point and I hadn't really considered the fact that fighting them all could turn into a real slog with the only variations being their CR's and tactics after awhile. Thanks for the input, exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for here. Will rethink that.

Mouseferatu

Hero

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site

I recently returned to roleplaying after a roughly 25-year absence (hadn't played any DnD since 1e). I bought 5e, which I love, and am running a homebrew campaign. Nothing about the prior adventure paths interesting me enough to buy them, but I bought Curse of Straud, partly out of nostalgia for the I6 Ravenloft module. I love the book so far and am thinking of putting my homebrew campaign on hold for a while to rune CoS. Ultimately, it depends on whether a gothic-horror setting appeals to you more than yet another stop-the-apocalypse in the Forgotten Realms.

Bruce Vistani

First Post

I've not read Out of the Abyss but have sat in on some sessions. I'm currently working my way through Curse of Strahd (reading modules is a slow process for me as I let my mind wander off on tangents and possibilities).

Strahd is very different from standard D&D. Just the tone of it is very different, and that could be good or bad depending on your group. The group I play with are all a bit wacky and tend to do unexpected and comical things. TBH I'm not sure if Strahd is going to go over well with them. As a setting it lacks diversity, and whilst I wouldn't call the game a rail-road necessarily, the options available to the PCs are certainly limited. I'm afraid we might get bored before we finish the quest. Still its a nice change of pace if you are tired of dungeon-crawling and fighting orcs.

pontinyc

Explorer

Thank you both for the reply. As I'm trying to resist the temptation to railroad and instead allow my imagination and the players to wander, it sounds as if maybe OoTA is the better option. Unfortunately, due to work, kid, etc., creating a homebrew campaign isn't really an option right now. Would love to someday.

Jester David

Hero

OoTA SPOILER INCOMING:

Thanks for the reply, Jester Canuck. Great to know. My goal for OoTA would be to have the pc's get to 20 and then fight each demon lord individually. I'm not really interested in the finale of that adventure as written (with each player taking control of a single lord and then take out the weakened Demogorgon). Do you think this would be feasible for someone who's still getting their bearings as a DM?

By the time you reach that far into OotA, you won't be someone who's "still getting their bearings as a DM", you'll be a DM with two campaign almost under their belt.
You don't need to decide how you'll end OotA right now. You have months to decide as you play. As you get to the end, the players might be itching to try something new and each demon lord might be too much . Or they might be loving each lord and having a little mini-challenge fighting each demon lord appeals to them.

ninjayeti

Hero

I'm running OotA now, and I think it can be a great campaign, but requires a ton of effort by the DM to make it work. In fact it feels much more like a great campaign outline than fully fleshed out adventure path like RotRL. In particular there is not a lot of content in the second half (past level 7 or so) so either you are going to be giving players a "milestone" level every session (possibly multiple levels per session) or you are going to have to add in a bunch of additional content. If you are trying to level your party to 20, this is going to be even more problematic.

I have not picked up Curse yet, but if you are looking for a fun campaign that can be run pretty much out of the box then I would recommend taking a look at Princes of the Apocalypse.

Olaf the Stout

Hero

I just pulled the trigger and ordered both CoS and OotA from Amazon.

My group is about to start PotA (transitioning from LMoP) now, so I won't be running either adventure for a while (and I'm a player in PotA), but I figure they should be an interesting read at least. Plus, by the point I think about running one of them, I can take advantage of all the little flaws (and ways to fix said flaws) that other games found.

pontinyc

Explorer

Thanks for the input, Ninjayeti. Good to know re: OoTA, though that sort of sounds like fun to me as I'm trying to break my bad habit of railroading. I say that, though, knowing almost nothing about the adventure. Re: PoTA, I'll take a look, thanks, though I've read a decent number of complaints about it. Glad you had a good time with it.

Very possible that I'll do the same thing, Olaf the Stout. I imagine I'll be running both at some point, so why not?

77IM

Explorer.

I haven't played either adventure but I've read OotA and major portions of CoS. I have played all through HotDQ and am currently DMing PotA (group is about half-way through).

I'd say that if you want a campaign with a lot of room to add your own touches, go with OotA. The Underdark is vast and you can fill it with whatever weird stuff or crazed individuals you want to pad out the campaign. If you want a campaign that runs reasonably well right out of the box, try CoS.

I love OotA -- it's really creative and different. But, CoS is too (unless your group has played it already or done a lot of gothic horror). And both adventures involve colorful NPCs, which are a big draw for me as a DM. But CoS just seems radically more cohesive and so much better organized. Both adventures are non-linear, sandboxy in nature, but also railroady in parts; but I feel the railroading in CoS has a better in-game justification (the eponymous curse). I also really love the roleplaying advice for Strahd: he's more powerful than the characters, but he doesn't want to kill them, he just wants to mess with them, which can lead to some really fun interactions. In contrast, the demon lords in OotA are like Godzilla; the PCs can't really interact with them because if they get too close they'll get squished or go mad. This reduces the demon lords to a background element most of the time.

Tonally, OotA is a classic pulp "lost in an alien world" adventure; perhaps a bit darker than what we typically consider of pulp nowadays (although really there was some twisted and horrifying stuff printed on that cheap paper way back when). CoS aims for gothic horror, or just horror in general, which is kind of a difficult thing to pin down and really depends on your particular group as much as anything else. Also, OotA presumes a standard D&D world and then dials the weirdness up to 11. I think CoS kind of works better if you assume the PCs are from a low-magic, low-monster world, because then all the freaky stuff in Barovia seems scarier by contrast.

If I were picking one for my group, I'd definitely pick CoS.

I haven't played either adventure but I've read OotA and major portions of CoS. I have played all through HotDQ and am currently DMing PotA (group is about half-way through).

Each rune has its distinct meaning, but they can also be combined to create a more nuanced interpretation. Rune stones can be used in different ways for divination. Some practitioners may choose to draw a single rune for a quick answer or guidance, while others may cast the runes onto a cloth or surface and interpret the patterns formed by the runes. The interpretation of the runes is usually based on a combination of the individual rune meanings and the surrounding context. It's important to note that the interpretation of rune stones and their meanings can vary depending on the individual practitioner or tradition. Some interpret runes primarily as symbols of the natural world, while others may see them as channels for divine communication. In modern times, rune stones continue to be used by practitioners of Norse spirituality, as well as individuals interested in divination and personal growth. The use of rune stones allows individuals to tap into an ancient and mystical tradition, seeking guidance and insight from the wisdom of the past..

Reviews for "Gateway to the Unknown: Delving into the Meanings of Rune Stones"

1. Emily - 2/5 stars - I was really excited to dive into the world of rune stones and their meanings, but this book left me disappointed. The explanations of the meanings were vague and convoluted, making it difficult to grasp their true significance. Additionally, the examples provided were limited and didn't offer much insight into how these meanings can be applied to real-life situations. Overall, I found the book to be lacking in clarity and practicality, which was a letdown considering the interesting topic it promised to explore.

2. David - 1/5 stars - "Rune Stones Meanings" was a major letdown. The book offered little to no depth when it comes to understanding the meanings behind rune stones. The information provided was oversimplified and lacked the necessary historical context that would have made it more engaging. On top of that, the book felt repetitive, with the same vague explanations being regurgitated for different stones. This left me feeling frustrated and uneducated on the subject. I would not recommend this book to anyone wanting to truly grasp the meanings of rune stones.

3. Samantha - 2/5 stars - As someone with a strong interest in spirituality and symbolism, I was excited to explore the meanings behind rune stones. However, this book fell short of my expectations. The explanations provided for each stone were overly simplistic, lacking the depth and detail that would truly help one understand the significance behind them. Furthermore, the book failed to provide any practical guidance on how to incorporate these meanings into daily life or spiritual practices. Overall, I found "Rune Stones Meanings" to be a shallow exploration of an intriguing subject, leaving me wanting more substance and substance.

4. Matthew - 2/5 stars - "Rune Stones Meanings" did not live up to its title. The meanings provided for each rune stone were brief and superficial, leaving me with more questions than answers. I was hoping for a comprehensive dive into the symbolism and historical context of these stones, but was sorely disappointed. The book lacked the necessary depth and failed to provide any practical examples or applications of these meanings in real-life scenarios. If you're looking for a meaningful exploration of rune stone meanings, I would suggest looking elsewhere.

The Language of the Gods: Understanding Rune Stone Meanings