More questions

[Adams Tower]

I've finished reading the Sorcerer core book, and I'm excited to play, though I'll need to wait a few weeks for Monsterhearts to finish. The sections on currency and conflict got me really excited, with the idea of webs of relationships between scores and rolls. Also after reading the "Sincerity and the 'shudder'" section on page 64, put me deep into thought on what kinds of things Humanity could mean for me.

Some more questions came up while I was reading, I hope they'll be more concrete and easier to answer than my questions about the two statements. I'll try to order them from most to least concrete.

1) On page 115, in the annotations, you mention "The bit in the core book about how to deal with a simultaneous Parasite and Possessor in the same host..." I missed that bit. Can you point me to it?

2) In an orthogonal conflict, if one action affects two characters, and they both defend against it, how does it work? Do you compare each of their defense rolls to the attack roll as if they were two separate directly opposed rolls?

3) On page 103, in the annotations, you talk about a discussion of knocking over a lamp in a night time conflict, and how, even if it's unopposed, which I take to mean that it doesn't directly affect/attack anyone, dice still oppose it. If so, what is the thing acting like a character in conflict, to which the GM assigns a score as if it were a person, like you describe in the annotations on page 100? Is it the chaos of the fight?

4) In an orthogonal conflict, can you abort your action to defend against an action that wasn't directly affecting you, or would you have had to declare that you were trying to stop someone from doing something in the Free-and-Clear phase? If you did declare that you were trying to stop someone from completing their action in the Free-and-Clear phase, would that count as Total Defense?

5) On page 103, in the original text, you say that an action in an orthogonal conflict is anything that can be done in about two seconds. This seems fine for physical combat, but I get the impression that orthogonal conflict can be used for other situations too. Could it be used for, for example, a mass battle, an election, two sorcerers attempting to Summon the same demon to separate places, a public debate, etc. and if so, can it work to adjust the time-scale?

6) A demon can attempt to break their Binding with a sorcerer. Can a sorcerer attempt to break their Binding with a demon?

7) On page 96, in the original text, you say there's no telepathy, and go on to talk about how Object and Parasite demons often don't talk. On page 48, in the annotations, you say "[A demon] can in fact talk, so figure out how, and if you want it to be non-verbal, don't worry, that's just Color and won't impede genuine communication." I take the annotations to supersede the original text, so Objects and Parasites can definitely communicate clearly. Does this mean that telepathy is also ok, as in dialogue that would appear in italics in a fantasy novel, not as in mind-reading?

8) On page 87, in the original text, in reference to human sacrifice to get a bonus to Summoning, you say "If it is a human sacrifice, this check has a penalty equal to the victim's Humanity instead of the usual single-die penalty." What usual single-die penalty are you talking about?

9a) On page 89, in the original text, you say "The sorcerer must prepare the focus for the Containment, such as a pentagram, adding a bonus die for every successful Lore roll against his or her own Stamina, which represents the concentration necessary." That seems to violate the currency. Why isn't it a bonus die for each victory on a single Lore vs. own Stamina roll?

9b) Why are sorcerers with high stamina worse at concentrating?

10) I've run and played a lot of successful Apocalypse World, and I'm worrying about bringing in assumptions from it. Are Bangs the same as Apocalypse World's Hard Moves, aside from not having to conform to a list of MC moves?

This last one I'm just curious about, it's definitely not crucial to my ability to run a game, and if the answer is "Read Sorcerer and Sword", that's fine:

11) How did "Demons do not exist" work with the Azk'arn game?

[Dragon Master]

I'll help with one of the questions here, though I suspect I'd confuse you more if I tried to answer any of the others.

For Question 1: The section you're referring to is found on page 69 of the original book under Demonic Weirdness. The full quote there is: "Imagine a powerful Parasite and a Possessor in the same host, all of whom dislike each other."
The bit about a parasite and possessor in the same host, though I couldn't find the phrase you referred to when I checked page 115, is related, I believe, to the bit on page 49 where it talks about possessors taking over Sorcerers. Effectively making it a Will vs. Will roll for a command. Ron can (and will) correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd handle it as an Orthogonal conflict between the Sorcerer, Parasite, and Possessor.

For Question 6: Yes a Sorcerer can work to break a binding they have with their own demon, it's called Banishing.


Or did I lose my Will roll against the book Ron?

[Adams Tower]

For Question 1: The section you're referring to is found on page 69 of the original book under Demonic Weirdness. The full quote there is: "Imagine a powerful Parasite and a Possessor in the same host, all of whom dislike each other."
The bit about a parasite and possessor in the same host, though I couldn't find the phrase you referred to when I checked page 115, is related, I believe, to the bit on page 49 where it talks about possessors taking over Sorcerers. Effectively making it a Will vs. Will roll for a command. Ron can (and will) correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd handle it as an Orthogonal conflict between the Sorcerer, Parasite, and Possessor.

Thanks. That clears that one up for me.

For Question 6: Yes a Sorcerer can work to break a binding they have with their own demon, it's called Banishing.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this one, the annotations on page 93, where Ron talks about Summoned/Unsummoned, Bound/Unbound, Master Living/Dead being independent variables, say "In other words, a demon may be Banished, but remain Bound." I think Banishing it just sends it back to wherever it came from.

edited to close quote - RE

[Dragon Master]

You're right about that. Been too long since I last read through that section.

[Moreno R.]

About the Sorcerer breaking the binding: this answer is from 2003, I don't know if it's still valid or Ron changed his mind since, but this is the reasoning at the time the book was written:
http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=6918.msg72251#msg72251

As a rather drastic but definitive way of breaking a binding for a Sorcerer, I there is always punish, then contain, then kill from a safe distance....

[Ron Edwards]

The 2003 answer still stands. Thanks Moreno!

I'll be on the other questions when I get the chance.

[Moreno R.]

This evening during the game there was a question about the rules for getting more dice for contains. I did search for an answer in the old thread at the Forge... and I did find them: a lot of answers. But different from each other. What is the right one?

The question was not about bonus dice for narration, but about getting roll-over dice from detailed extra preparation of the contain.

In this 2009 thread, you can add a lot of detailed actions to get bonus dice:
http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=28405.0

In this 2001 thread instead it's a one-time thing that describe the Sorcerer collapsing from exhaustion:
http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=538.msg4602#msg4602

In this one from 2004 it's again one-time only:
http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=11070.0

But in the book (page 89) it's used the plural... but NOT the same way it's described in the 2009 thread:
The sorcerer must prepare the focus for the Containment, such as a pentagram, adding a bonus die for every successful Lore roll against his or her own Stamina, which represents the concentration necessary.

So... the book (2001) say to add ONE die for EVERY successful roll of lore vs stamina that you do.

The threads from 2001 and 2004 say to roll only once, adding the victories as bonus dice to the binding strenght (that is expressed in dice)

The thread from 2009 says to roll all the times you want, building a mass of roll-over victories, but risking to lose all these bonus dice with a unlucky roll.

What is the right rule, today?

-----------
What happened in the game this evening: one player started to describe his preparation for a contain rituals, DAYS before doing it, preparing the materials, the design, studying old books, etc
It was very time-consuming and did not add much to the game, so it was not a way to get narration bonus dice (and the player saw this, he was looking for roll-over victory dice, not bonus dice). I objected that roll-over dice were only for the next roll, so if he did roll ANYTHING in the middle he would lose them. This led to a post-game discussion about:
1) If the player take extraordinary measures to (for example) build a perfect build trap, or the right magic runes, eventually having it done from some artist, does it means nothing?
2) How can the sorcerer get roll-over dice for a contain, and how many? (and this let to the search for old threads above)

[Dragon Master]

You know, that answer for binding feels very satisfying to me. I'm glad the question was posted.

[Ron Edwards]

2) In an orthogonal conflict, if one action affects two characters, and they both defend against it, how does it work? Do you compare each of their defense rolls to the attack roll as if they were two separate directly opposed rolls?

Yes.

3) On page 103, in the annotations, you talk about a discussion of knocking over a lamp in a night time conflict, and how, even if it's unopposed, which I take to mean that it doesn't directly affect/attack anyone, dice still oppose it. If so, what is the thing acting like a character in conflict, to which the GM assigns a score as if it were a person, like you describe in the annotations on page 100? Is it the chaos of the fight?

Yes. That is a good explanation of the fictional side of the ruling. From a mechanics side, consider that the order in which it occurs matters. If you absolutely cannot imagine how someone would fail at doing a particular action, then roll anyway merely to find out what the high value is, for ordering purposes. However, in practice, I've never had to do this. The most "easy" version I've done in play is to roll one die in opposition.

4) In an orthogonal conflict, can you abort your action to defend against an action that wasn't directly affecting you, or would you have had to declare that you were trying to stop someone from doing something in the Free-and-Clear phase? If you did declare that you were trying to stop someone from completing their action in the Free-and-Clear phase, would that count as Total Defense?

I think the best answer to this question is "no," as in Simply No. It should be scrubbed as a question and re-stated as two separate things.

Aborting your action does not in any way permit proactivity of any kind. It's a "Hail Mary" last-ditch desperate motion. This precludes your "defend someone else" option.

An attempt to defend someone else from attack requires announcement in the free-and-clear phase. You cannot abort to doing this; you can only try to do this as a proactive thing. It is fair to call this Full Defense and get the bonus for it. (Your statement uses the vague phrase "stop someone from doing something," which is impossible to address. I am sticking with the implied "defend someone else" from the earlier part.)

We might do better with this if you state absolutely what the originally stated actions are, for everyone, and not get all wrapped up with "ifs" in the next part.

5) On page 103, in the original text, you say that an action in an orthogonal conflict is anything that can be done in about two seconds. This seems fine for physical combat, but I get the impression that orthogonal conflict can be used for other situations too. Could it be used for, for example, a mass battle, an election, two sorcerers attempting to Summon the same demon to separate places, a public debate, etc. and if so, can it work to adjust the time-scale?

The answer to all of that is yes. The two-second thing is an artifact of originally thinking of  the orthogonal resolution as a "combat system." Also, I don't even like it for combat. The way I describe it now, at the table, is that everyone launches simultaneously, and the ordering concerns the micro-second differences in how the actions land at their targets. That works much better.

As a minor point, some of the large-scale events you're talking about are not single-individual conflicts. I think of a battle as an environment, not  a conflict. All four of them also strike me as oppositional rather than orthogonal.

7) On page 96, in the original text, you say there's no telepathy, and go on to talk about how Object and Parasite demons often don't talk. On page 48, in the annotations, you say "[A demon] can in fact talk, so figure out how, and if you want it to be non-verbal, don't worry, that's just Color and won't impede genuine communication." I take the annotations to supersede the original text, so Objects and Parasites can definitely communicate clearly. Does this mean that telepathy is also ok, as in dialogue that would appear in italics in a fantasy novel, not as in mind-reading?

Telepathy in the sense of "sending" or cell-phone communication without technology, as in Elfquest ... it's OK by the principle I've stated in the annotations, but I can't think of any description of sorcery/demons (the second of the two statements) which would yield that as an appropriate application.

8) On page 87, in the original text, in reference to human sacrifice to get a bonus to Summoning, you say "If it is a human sacrifice, this check has a penalty equal to the victim's Humanity instead of the usual single-die penalty." What usual single-die penalty are you talking about?

I'll have to review the text. As I recall, a Humanity check is penalized by a single die for sacrificing non-humans. But my memory could be off-target.

9a) On page 89, in the original text, you say "The sorcerer must prepare the focus for the Containment, such as a pentagram, adding a bonus die for every successful Lore roll against his or her own Stamina, which represents the concentration necessary." That seems to violate the currency. Why isn't it a bonus die for each victory on a single Lore vs. own Stamina roll?

Legacy rules. I was thinking of a prolonged, tiring process for which more than one roll would be involved. You can run it as written or substitute a single Lore vs. Stamina roll, using the victories.

9b) Why are sorcerers with high stamina worse at concentrating?

The idea here is that Lore is violating one's actual body, or even physical existence, and the body resists. If you don't like that idea, you can choose not to make any such rolls and sidestep the whole idea of getting bonus diee that way.

10) I've run and played a lot of successful Apocalypse World, and I'm worrying about bringing in assumptions from it. Are Bangs the same as Apocalypse World's Hard Moves, aside from not having to conform to a list of MC moves?

It's more historically accurate to say that Hard Moves are another name for Bangs. Their application is slightly different in that many of the events that Vincent describes as Hard Moves seem to me to require rolls. In a Sorcerer game, I would roll an oppositional contest between the guy with the daughter and the guy who cuts his hand off, find out which one did someone awful to the other, and then visit the player-character with the consequences, as opposed to presenting its results as direct me-only-input.

The major differences between Sorcerer and Apocalypse World are that the player-characters are somewhat physically and morally safer in the latter, that the MC in the latter has more direct creative authority over crisis situations, as I described above, and the resolution systems differ in the "grade" of their grains.

11) How did "Demons do not exist" work with the Azk'arn game?

You're right to anticipate that the answer lies in Sorcerer & Sword with its new demon type Immanent and the concept of the Mystic Otherworld as accessible parts of the setting. It's not as simple (there or for Azk'Arn) as saying that demons are ordinary parts of the landscape. I recommend reading Beyond the Black River, in which the forest (definitely a hive of Mystic Otherworld pockets)  is full of dangerous animals, but the saber-tooth that Zogar Sag calls up out of its depths is qualitatively different from them. I believe the Azk'Arn chapters include some text to distinguish ordinary-freaky fantastic-insectoid beasts from demonic ones.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Moreno,

What is the right rule, today?

The right rule is the one in the book. I haven't reviewed the threads you've linked to in detail; I've usually found this to be counter-productive as I wind up explaining precisely what a person was asking, or I discover that I misunderstood their question entirely. So it's best merely to start over. See my post above for the explanation and options.
 
Best, Ron

[Adams Tower]

Thanks for the answers, Ron, Moreno, James.

All the answers made sense to me, except 11, which will require further reading on my part.

However, thinking about the answer to number 10, (I don't recognize the specific Hard Move example) I've got a couple more questions.

12a) If two human NPCs are fighting, and the PC who's present chooses not to get involved, do I, as GM, roll a conflict for them, or just say what happens?

12b) Does the answer change if the NPCs are demons?

[Ron Edwards]

2a) If two human NPCs are fighting, and the PC who's present chooses not to get involved, do I, as GM, roll a conflict for them, or just say what happens?

I typically reduce the NPCs' conflict to a single roll, i.e., roll for both characters and compare.

12b) Does the answer change if the NPCs are demons?

Nope. But I should stress that "sit on the sidelines and watch the demons fight" is rare in playing Sorcerer. I'd rather talk about that with a solid example with named characters and a defined situation, rather than in the abstract.

Best, Ron

[Adams Tower]

I typically reduce the NPCs' conflict to a single roll, i.e., roll for both characters and compare.

Man, that is a huge difference from Apocalypse World and related games. It'll be hard to wrap my head around doing that. Probably will just take watching myself for skipping it, and asking the rest of the play group to help me watch for it.

About demons, I mainly asked because they, particularly bound ones, seem to be a separate class of NPC, with maybe a little more player attachment than other NPCs. So, if it were the case that I would NOT roll for most NPCs, it might have been the case that I would roll for demons. I don't think the situation is particularly likely either.

[lumpley]

Only because it might help to understand the relationship between the games: Rolling dice for NPCs would fit effortlessly in Apocalypse World under "disclaim decision-making," but the design happened ultimately not to include it.

-Vincent