[Sorcerer] the big fight: questions

[Moreno R.]

See the previous reply, up in the page, here: http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=280.msg2653#msg2653 for other info about how I used that backstory material and characterized Selene.

[Moreno R.]

Reflection on the problems during the game, I think that the most damaging errors were at a more basic level, right in every use of the system:

1) Too many rules explanations. This was not a demo. I didn't want to teach the system. I asked for players that had read the manual, because I was already aware of this possible problem. But I ended up explaining the rules every single time anyway.
In part I needed that, too: thinking about the rules out loud to better understand how they worked, having to explain them in a short and rational way helped me to understand and memorize them. But I really must stop doing that.
This could cause a different set of problem, if the players don't remember their options: for example, if they don't remember the "will roll" rule to continue to act even if they have a lot of penalties, they simply will not use it. If I don't remind them, they don't even know that there is something missing. Even talking about the option would mean to explain it, how it works, and it's really one of the most anti-intuitive parts of the game, explaining that in the last session was a real problem. So, if I adopt a "no rules explanation during the game" policy, the risk is ending up playing another game.  But I can't say until I try it, after all, right?

2) I didn't get, at the beginning, the requirement for roll-over victories. I thought that they were much more automatic. This really weakened the ties between rolls and fiction, and it explain a lot of differences I saw between the way the game is described by enthusiasts, and the way I saw it work. This, too, I will have to be much more strict next time (that, if all goes well, will be next week with other two players, different ones)

3) Too many demons and sorcerers. I did not understand at first how much I could "edit" the kickers, so I ended up with really a lot of them only because they were in the kickers. And too much background, too: I did leave too much of the backstory to the players

There were other problems, too, but I think it's better if I will concentrate on solving these, at the moment.

[Jesse Burneko]

Hey Moreno,

With regard to teaching the game and what I've read here I think you may have habit of laying out lots of options.  It's still possible to teach the game without enumerating everything a player could do in a given moment of play.  When I run Sorcerer to an inexperienced group here is what I say almost exactly:

Before Play:

"Remember as a Sorcerer you can always: Contact, Summon, Bind new demons as well as Punish, Contain and Banish existing demons.  However, remember that all of these take a really long time.  It's very, very difficult to do them in the heat of the moment.  Also, any Sorcerer can attempt to command any demon to do something even if that demon is not your own."

"When you roll dice we decide what score you're rolling and you roll that many dice and tell me what your highest single value is.  There are three ways to get additional dice.  The first is flat bonus dice.  You can get a single die if your description generally evokes an honest emotional reaction from the group.  You get two dice if your action is potential game changer and two more dice if your action especially surprising or unexpected.

"The second way is combo-ing actions.  If you're successful at action A and then you follow up with action B and it is clear that you are taking advantage of your success then you can just tack on all the victories from action A onto the roll for action B.

"The third way is doubling up on descriptors.  If you take an action that really nails, and I mean really, really unquestioningly nails two descriptors for two different stats then you can roll one stat and take the victories and add it into the main roll of the primary stat."

And that's it.  That's all I say before playing.  I then get into details as needed.  Someone usually asks, "You said I could Banish a demon?  How does that work?"  Then I tell them.

Of course there are two that inevitably and always come up:

Complex Conflict:  "Okay, so this situation is complicated.  I want everyone to tell me exactly what your character is doing in this moment.  It's okay to change your action after someone else tells you theirs."  <Everyone says what they are doing.> "Okay, I want everyone to roll their dice and then DON'T TOUCH THEM.  Just leave them sitting in front of you for now."

Then I start resolving actions in order of high die.  If and only if someone is the target of action before their action comes up I say directly to that person, "Okay, so this thing is happening to you.  You've got a choice.  You can either abort your current action and roll with full dice to defend against this action OR you can leave those dice sitting in front of you and still do your action but you only get to roll 1 as defense.  What do you do?"

The Will Roll Thing: So eventually someone is carrying too many penalties to act.  I say this: "Okay, so right now you're stunned so badly you can't really act.  However, if you'd like to act, you can try to muster your will and fight through all that pain anyway.  Would you like to do that, or just stumble around in pain for moment?"  Usually they want to act.  So I say, "Great, decide what you would like to do.  Okay, That's a <relevant stat> roll.  How many of those dice would like to use?"  They tell me.  Okay, "So you're going to roll your Will against those dice.  If you succeed then that's how many dice you can use to act.  Are you still cool with trying for that many dice?"

And that's it.  That's all the explaining I ever do.

Is that helpful for next time?

Jesse

[Moreno R.]

That level of explanation should not have been necessary in this case.

These are games played by google hangout, and the players are chosen with a public call in a forum (gentechegioca). The only requisite: having read the Sorcerer manual, preferably the annotated version.

And this request (having read the manual) was asked specifically for this reason: I didn't want to play a Demo. I didn't want to teach a game (seeing that, as I explained right in the same forum post, I was the one who had to learn how to GM the game...). I already did know, with years of experience, that you explain a game or you play a game, you can't do both at the same time.

So, the questions weren't about what we were playing, what was a demon, or the meaning of the scores (apart from Cover that always was a source of confusion). The most frequent question, by far, was "what are my options in this situation?", followed by "what is the difference between these options?"

The amount of questions and request of explanations was not the same from all the players, at the beginning the biggest problems were cause by a single player, that as I describe in the previous posts seemed to fight against the system and try to play a different game. But in the last sessions the amount of complications (conflicts between ten active participants, Sorcerers + Demons...) caused too many request of explanation even from the other two. But I already explained this part.

I never used exactly the explanations you list, of course, but I used similar explanations about other games, and every single time they were followed by request of other explanations and always, always the same question: "what are my options". It's the very first question a gamer always ask in any game. Probably the social contest counts: I was always in three kind of situations, "he is the only one to know the rules", "he is here to teach us how to play", "he is here to show us how this game works" (the last case often in cases of possible publications: I was the one on the team who studied the rules and explained and show them to the publisher). I don't know how it works there, but here the idea that "the GM is the only one who has to read the rules" is so strong that passed unharmed from traditional games to Forge games without being even weakened. And the culture of "demo play" around conventions didn't help.

Me, trying to run Sorcerer, but requesting players able to read a game manual, is a way to fight head-on against this, after simply avoiding the issue for years playing GM-less games or very simply games like Trollbabe or Dogs in the Vineyard.

The first time didn't work, because I found myself right again at square one, having to explain all over again. And I fell in old habits and simply did.

What incentive the Players have to read the manual, if they can continue to ask me every time?

[Rafu]

My experience with Sorcerer is limited to one, very successful game I played as a player, plus re-reading the books a couple times in the expectation of running it myself as a GM sometime soon. Which is to say: I believe I have a general feel for the game, that's why I'm chiming in, but of course I might be grossly mistaken. You "experts" will know to ignore me, then.

My point: it's very weird for me to think that, in a game like Sorcerer, the options a player is facing in the moment depend on their knowledge of the rules. I would think that their options in the moment depend entirely on the fiction being presented.
There are of course a few technicalities based on how magic works, such as «No, you cannot Summon a demon you haven't Contacted beforehand.» But that's it: it's the rules of how magic works in the fictional "world" that, lacking a real-world reference, might require occasional clarification.
Apart from that, the rules of Sorcerer look to me like they're providing a simple and flexible framework for resolving logical fictional events. Which means that one's options as a character player, in the moment, shouldn't be predicated on the rules: based on the fictional circumstances, they state what their character does — "translating" it into the rules of the game should generally be simple enough.

Which also means that, if everybody's clear enough about the fiction, and thinking of their characters' actions "fiction first", play should always go smoothly, however exactly you implement the rules toward resolving each particular conflict. Fiction feeds into the resolution mechanics and out of them, while whatever hiccup or even mistake you made with the mechanics doesn't actually carry over.

That's even true of Demon creation, or so I hope. If you're collectively very clear about the fictional capabilities of each Demon, then the long list of Demon abilities (my least favorite part of the game) gives detailed mechanical weight to each of them. But when in doubt, I'd look at the coherence of the fiction as my #1 guideline, and not much rules-wrestling should ensue.

If all player agreed on the above, I can't imagine much of a fuss ensuing, ever. Have we played different Sorcerers, or...?