Consider the source of the numinous. Your basic RPG thinks very little of it or places it in a watered interpretation of the greek pantheon. In this case the numinous is transcendent, coming from without and inwards. It is probably more common in reality for the numinous to be seen as immanent, coming from the inside out.
Consider the burning bush which Moses happens upon. God talks to him and makes it very clear he is temporarily inhabiting, or maintaining a situational relationship with, the bush to make a point. A culture which held to the immanence of the numinous would be speaking to the god within the bush, of and probably named Bush. Remind players laughing at the idea of experiencing the numinous in a bush that they seemed cool with the idea of their RPG gods being the cast of Super Friends, maybe a bush isn't quite so stupid.
The immanent god is named for what it is, or what is named is for the god. Since neither is distinct it becomes a moot point. This raises questions for language: if god=thing then your names for things become strong choices. Is CORN the seed, the plant and the food? Is the transformation significant? If humans can transform gods what does that mean? Are these gifts or are these powers? The religious hierarchy would have feelings about this.
This should not necessarily be taken to be too dogmatic. Religious thought is a product of the people who have it and can be flexible. Importantly, trying to show the full complexity of the numinous in a game is a road to trite simplification. Instead show facets, tenets, never the whole. Religions are complicated and any attempt to explain them fully will reveal a lack of convincing texture.
The god of thunder could logically become also the lion via the roar. The lion might leave behind the thunder over the centuries, or maintain it in an emblematic or prodigal state.
A god of a thing may come to resemble its worshippers over time while retaining an emblematic relationship with their portfolio.
A god of a great thing may be separated into sub-things. The tree god might have its roots split of into serpents and its fruit co-habit and methodologically entwine with harvest gods.
Add literary greebles
EDIT:
Immanent gods do not have interests outside of their links. A god of the reeds cares about the reeds, about houses, about music maybe. A god of a specific city cares about that city. Gods are huge and unimaginative cogs. They are not people.
Even as immanent gods become more human over time they will still be represented by their original emblems. The relationship becomes les literal and more familiar to us in our metaphorical Judeo/Christian world
Some unstructured thoughts on structure
I've covered some things before here: https://whatwouldconando.blogspot.com/2018/05/troikan-bumble-logic.html
I'll re-cover those points at random in all likeliness.
We should be critically examining our presumptions regarding story. They are all artificial and in no way an essential part of storytelling. Therefore we can remove them, ignore them, or otherwise do as we please without worry.
Heroes & villains are false. This does not means we should move to "grey", that's just pulping them together in feigned maturity. It's very easy to find examples of cultures that have wildly different ideas of what is good or bad. Remove all assumptions about morality except that people will have it. The absence of a moral code is impossible, it's just a rejection of a specific code and a resulting tangled interaction with it.
All people you meet in Troika believe in something being right and something being wrong. This might not be good or evil. They all have their priorities and they are not judeo-christian. Their life is wild and dangerous, they do not have the privilege of being non-committal with their world view
Conflict is not essential. It can be replaced as a central mover. Filling the gaps isn't easy but it's possible and should be attempted. Consider a world where there are desires that do not cross others. To accomplish something doesn't require anything external. Puzzles exploded outwards. The desire to go places and a need to figure out how. Conflict can be viewed as moments where the breaks slam down and we have two wills meet where only one can continue on. Instead consider compromises. In Troika conflict is dangerous and arbitrary. Occasionally one sided and always unfair. Compromise will keep you alive.
Core loops are for products, not art. Heroes journeys are for propaganda and bedtime stories. The philosophy of hylics.
Arcs are only to be applied by historians to past events and are always abusing our need for patterns. Philosophy of psychics.
The world was created by the demiurge, there is no meaning no arc no hero no journey, just an up and a down. Stories can just start and more importantly just end. A search for meaning in media is childish. Meaning isn't a universal thing, a treasure to be found. Meaning can exist in only one person, the one who made it, or, like Holloywood films, only exist in the audience.
The only universal is that there is a way towards gnosis and we all believe we are moving in that direction and that others have chosen a divergent path. The demiurge created the pattern and the pattern is bleeding to death. Walking the pattern will take you in circles where you'll be held up above the most base. If you break the pattern you'll be considered a savior and clung to in desperation. Ignore the pattern, leave them to follow their feet, and build something buoyant.
I'll re-cover those points at random in all likeliness.
We should be critically examining our presumptions regarding story. They are all artificial and in no way an essential part of storytelling. Therefore we can remove them, ignore them, or otherwise do as we please without worry.
Heroes & villains are false. This does not means we should move to "grey", that's just pulping them together in feigned maturity. It's very easy to find examples of cultures that have wildly different ideas of what is good or bad. Remove all assumptions about morality except that people will have it. The absence of a moral code is impossible, it's just a rejection of a specific code and a resulting tangled interaction with it.
All people you meet in Troika believe in something being right and something being wrong. This might not be good or evil. They all have their priorities and they are not judeo-christian. Their life is wild and dangerous, they do not have the privilege of being non-committal with their world view
Conflict is not essential. It can be replaced as a central mover. Filling the gaps isn't easy but it's possible and should be attempted. Consider a world where there are desires that do not cross others. To accomplish something doesn't require anything external. Puzzles exploded outwards. The desire to go places and a need to figure out how. Conflict can be viewed as moments where the breaks slam down and we have two wills meet where only one can continue on. Instead consider compromises. In Troika conflict is dangerous and arbitrary. Occasionally one sided and always unfair. Compromise will keep you alive.
Core loops are for products, not art. Heroes journeys are for propaganda and bedtime stories. The philosophy of hylics.
Arcs are only to be applied by historians to past events and are always abusing our need for patterns. Philosophy of psychics.
The world was created by the demiurge, there is no meaning no arc no hero no journey, just an up and a down. Stories can just start and more importantly just end. A search for meaning in media is childish. Meaning isn't a universal thing, a treasure to be found. Meaning can exist in only one person, the one who made it, or, like Holloywood films, only exist in the audience.
The only universal is that there is a way towards gnosis and we all believe we are moving in that direction and that others have chosen a divergent path. The demiurge created the pattern and the pattern is bleeding to death. Walking the pattern will take you in circles where you'll be held up above the most base. If you break the pattern you'll be considered a savior and clung to in desperation. Ignore the pattern, leave them to follow their feet, and build something buoyant.
Armour in D&D
I have definitely talked about this before. I'd link it if I was smart.
Anyway, we're talking old D&D 'cos 5th is fussy and I don't know it. I'll assume it's identical.
Things that guys in plate are scared of: Poleaxes, cannon balls, being hit with a club A LOT, loads and loads of arrows, getting pinned down and jabbed in the eye or armpits with a dagger.
Other armours do different things. We could make them all do a unique thing, but this requires knowledge and controversial assumptions (more so than usual). So what kind of common thread does, say, chain have with plate?
Assuming full and unrealistic coverage of the body, they're relatively similar. Swords are bad at both. Both are hoping pointy things don't get lucky. Both don't like getting whacked with large blunt objects very much.
Verisimilitude is a better word than realism. Realism can go do one, I wanna feel it. Feel and real are far apart.
Armour either works or it doesn't.
What if it has a defence profile? Melee weapons are only doing 1-12 damage, baring super strong people.
When you take damage you look at the table. / means no damage. It stops at 12 'cos that's the human peak. When the dragon bites you in half it ignores your tin hat.
Plate
Chain
Breastplate
And so on
Anyway, we're talking old D&D 'cos 5th is fussy and I don't know it. I'll assume it's identical.
Things that guys in plate are scared of: Poleaxes, cannon balls, being hit with a club A LOT, loads and loads of arrows, getting pinned down and jabbed in the eye or armpits with a dagger.
Other armours do different things. We could make them all do a unique thing, but this requires knowledge and controversial assumptions (more so than usual). So what kind of common thread does, say, chain have with plate?
Assuming full and unrealistic coverage of the body, they're relatively similar. Swords are bad at both. Both are hoping pointy things don't get lucky. Both don't like getting whacked with large blunt objects very much.
Verisimilitude is a better word than realism. Realism can go do one, I wanna feel it. Feel and real are far apart.
Armour either works or it doesn't.
What if it has a defence profile? Melee weapons are only doing 1-12 damage, baring super strong people.
When you take damage you look at the table. / means no damage. It stops at 12 'cos that's the human peak. When the dragon bites you in half it ignores your tin hat.
Plate
Chain
Breastplate
And so on
Alternative Troika Skill
1d3+3 creates a feeling of unfairness in some players. Which they don't like. Each to their own.
Here are some other ideas:
Everyone starts with 6 Skill. Done.
Skill doesn't exist. Roll 4d6+12 for Stamina. When you want to Test Your Skill you spend 1 Stamina to behave like you have 6 skill. If you don't want to spend stamina you just use your Advanced Skill rank.
Skill doesn't exist. Add 2 to all existing Advanced Skills in backgrounds and just use them. Reduce all enemies by like 10% skill. If you don't have an appropriate skill you must Test Your Luck to succeed.
Everyone starts with 6 skill. When they are reduced to 0 Stamina they are removed from danger somehow and reduce their Skill by 1. They probably can't get that back. It's an injury. Possibly have some kind of magical healing thing if you're a wuss.
Done!
Here are some other ideas:
Everyone starts with 6 Skill. Done.
Skill doesn't exist. Roll 4d6+12 for Stamina. When you want to Test Your Skill you spend 1 Stamina to behave like you have 6 skill. If you don't want to spend stamina you just use your Advanced Skill rank.
Skill doesn't exist. Add 2 to all existing Advanced Skills in backgrounds and just use them. Reduce all enemies by like 10% skill. If you don't have an appropriate skill you must Test Your Luck to succeed.
Everyone starts with 6 skill. When they are reduced to 0 Stamina they are removed from danger somehow and reduce their Skill by 1. They probably can't get that back. It's an injury. Possibly have some kind of magical healing thing if you're a wuss.
Done!