[Sorcerer] session 1 and conversation as conflict question

[Adams Tower]

Hey, we played our 1st session on Tuesday. It was pretty fun. A full report is here: http://actual-plateau.ghost.io/sorcerer-session-1/.

Anyway, I had some questions about how to handle conversations as conflict. To copy from the report:

The main question I had about the game is, how do conversations as conflicts work? If one person is trying to get something from the other using conversation, it's obviously a conflict, but how does it work? Do you roll just once for the whole conversation? If so, do you roll at the beginning, and play the dialogue to match the result, or do you roll at the end, and let the conflict resolve it?

[Ron Edwards]

I think the main thing is to decide whether it's really a conflict. Sorcerer doesn't permit changing anyone's feelings through the mechanics, you can't "make her like me," or "make her decide to tell the truth," or anything like that. Think of it as an order no matter how kindly or subtly it's phrased. Really, only two things can be accomplished: (i) acquire specific information or (ii) provoke a specific, concrete action.

Any and each of these is a specific conflict, say if you want this person to tell you whom she got the weird statue from and also to take you home tonight. Again, strenuously avoid rolling for things that are merely conversation, and don't think of an entire conversation as a conflict of its own.

Best, Ron

[Adams Tower]

Ok, I think I get it, it's only a conflict if one side or the other could say specifically what they want to happen, and that's either a concrete action or exposed information. My understanding is that even if you succeed at giving someone an order, or getting information out from them, it doesn't guarantee that that they do what you want, or that they give you the information, just that they take a penalty to their next action equal to your victories, if they don't. Is that correct?

[Ron Edwards]

That's right! These mechanics neatly eliminate the confusion between "playing" and "talking" which I have observed so painfully in so many other experiences. Many solutions exist but this is the right one for Sorcerer.

[Moreno R.]

Oh, this reminds me about something...

One of the nice things about the way "conflict to convince" are treated in Sorcerer is that they are totally useless if you don't have some other action following that one to capitalize the victories. If you don't, these victories are worthless, you can't "save" them "in case you need them later".

So, it would seems that in these cases, if there is no intention to follow with other actions to capitalize these victories, there is no sense in rolling for them.

But this clash in part with the "Always roll if there is a conflict" rule.  Ron, how do you play these situations?

[Ron Edwards]

Convincing isn't a conflict because attitudes and beliefs are not viable targets for change in the game. The whole concept of "run a conflict to convince" is absurd in Sorcerer. I've been through this 1000 times. Unless the "convincing" results in a concrete action, then it remains a silly abstraction about what may or may not be happening inside someone's head. People always try to argue with me, but every single time, when I press them, they start talking about concrete actions, and then I win the argument.

It's not about "I try to make her like me," it's about "Does she take me home."