[Sorcerer & Sword] Our Marr'd

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

See [Sorcerer & Sword // Dictionary of Mu] Setup for our character creation and other prep.

We have three characters, and I've recounted each of their stories this session somewhat blow-by-blow, not wanting to get too much in detail but wanting to show how rolls generally shook out. If folks who know Sorcerer read this and see anything weird in our application of the rules (especially the roll-over stuff), please shout out. I feel that we handled it fine, but another pair of eyes can never hurt.

Adam played Estigo, Tayler played Km-Oemmi, and Al played Admeal. I'm the GM. Feel free to chime in, guys, if you're here, either with anything important I missed or anything you want to say or ask about.

Our scenes went Estigo--Km-Oemmi--Admeal, but here I've put each character's story all by itself. I have a couple questions afterward. Otherwise, any comments or questions are welcome.

We had a ton of fun in this very satisfying session, and everyone commented that our lengthy character creation session paid off (if not in every single detail, at least in the sense that we had a very clear picture of these characters and their context going into the session, which made their actions and words all the more meaningful).

Style note: I've capitalized demon abilities and rolls or thrown them in parentheticals to make it clearer when we were using them.

Estigo (Ess-Tee-Go)

Kicker: Having just toured all of Marr'd with Master T'lythal, the overseer of the experiment that is Estigo, he has seen the Damsel Messiah abuse her power by using her demon to enslave a lesser tribe that refused to worship her. He must banish the Serpent from the Garden and strip the Damsel of her corrupting power.

Scene 1: As the game opens, Estigo & T'lythal see the slaves taken away, T'lythal mutters about how they deserved what they got, Estigo lays the one slave that the Serpent killed to rest as the last slave being led away looks on (humanity gain roll: success). T'lythal commands Estigo to "come on, leave them", Estigo acquiesces (Will roll that he won with 2 successes, paradoxically, with T'lythal slapping him, but Estigo remaining stiff to the blow and demonstrating his will: that he was choosing to let T'lythal command him).

Scene 2: Estigo & T'lythal are in an alehouse, having a drink, as the sun sets. Estigo says the tour is over; it's time to go home to Atlantis. T'lythal doesn't want to go. Will rolls (adding in the +2 Estigo had from the previous scene's roll from demonstrating the strength of his Will to T'lythal), Estigo wins; T'lythal gives up, Estigo escorts him out of town as the sun sets.

Scene 3: Estigo wanders back into town, wondering about those tribesmen who were put down. While wandering the prison district of Battlehymn, he comes across a gaping pit with sheer walls, and sees a small group of people below, faces lit by torches. He sees the face of the slave, Coso, who looked back at him, and he begins talking to him. Coso thanks him, Estigo says he's going to rescue them, Coso gets nervous but is willing to try anything. Drunken guards pass by; Estigo talks with them: "What will happen to these slaves?" Answer: "For their blasphemy they will be taken to the desert, nailed to the ground, and be made food for vultures. The Damsel Messiah will come to watch them die." Guards leave. Estigo Shapeshifts into his hairless-hulking-humanoid-with-claws-and-fangs-and-leathery-skin-form , Travels (sheer surfaces as defined by demon ability),and rescues the four slaves that remain alive.

Scene 4: They are terrified, but Estigo talks with and bonds with Coso. Estigo wants to help them back to their village. He goes and finds some coats (color narration) for them to cross the cold night desert with. He leads them through the gate of Battlehymn after a short interrogation by a guard (no rolls; travelers come and go all the time). As they start crossing the desert, the alarms of Battlehymn sound (Deep and sonorous as well as light and tinkling bells; like those that would call one to church), the door they went through opens, the one guard who interrogated them knocked out. It has been discovered that the prisoners have escaped: The Heaven Guard are after them.


Km-Oemmi (Kuhm-Oh-Em-Ee)


Kicker: Km-Oemmi has just discovered, through forcing one of the Damsel Messiah's generals into the truth, that the Damsel Messiah's promises of leading 144,000 of the faithful off of Marr'd are false hopes. She either can't do this or doesn't mean to. She must be punished for offering false hope.

Scene 1: We start with Km-Oemmi and the general on the scene. She has tortured him, and he leans over her against a wall, bleeding into the dust. The general, Shimrath, asks to leave. "You've gotten enough out of me." She asks him to tell her if the Damsel Messiah has eaten the Infernal Fruit (something mentioned in the Dictionary of Mu book, as a mystery). He refuses, saying only her inner priests have such sacred knowledge. Km-Oemmi uses Truth, her demon, to see if he is innocent or guilty in this regard (Perception: innocence / Perception: guilt). He is innocent. This seems to be all he knows. Km-Oemmi grabs him by the tongue and pulls his face toward her, commanding him to give her the names of the priests who know this (Will roll). He does so, cowed, beaten with Km-Oemmi having a 4-die advantage. Km-Oemmi makes a Humanity loss roll for her cruel treatment of Shimrath (can't recall if she lost or won). He slinks away, because Km-Oemmi lets him.

Scene 2: She then seeks to find the truth of whether the Damsel Messiah has eaten the infernal fruit, and writes "the damsel messiah has eaten the infernal fruit" in the sand on the streets (per her demon's telltale, any written truth stands forever). Before she can go back and check whether what she has written has been kicked away in the bustle of the streets or stands, however, she and her slaves are accosted in the markets by a retinue of the Heaven Guard, the Damsel Messiah's personal guard. They wear chitinous armor, carry spears, and have plumes on their helmets. Shimrath is behind them, yelling "that's her! That's the one". They've come for Km-Oemmi, as she has dared to lay hands on one of the Guard, Shimrath. Km-Oemmi acquiesces, but begins insulting Shimrath, trying to get him to break. She wants HIM to lead her to her prison, not the other guardsmen. We roll Will, and her 4 dice up on Shimrath amply help. She has him lead her, and as he does, tries to get him to break down emotionally by further berating him and his manhood; that he would be so terrified of a small girl. She actually fails this Will roll, and is dragged the rest of the way to the prisons.

Scene 3: In the prisons, a guard comes to take her to see the Damsel Messiah, who has requested to see her. She commands the guard to carry her, and fails. The guard is unnerved by her look and manner, and instead calls for another guard to come do the job. She again commands (this time no roll), and the guard happily carries her. She gets sweet with this one, and kisses him on the forehead (or cheek), which surprises me so much that I give her a Humanity gain roll (fail). He lays her in front of the Damsel Messiah, in her enormous dark temple, the smell of incense mixing with that of blood. She requests that he hold her head up, so she can look into the DM's eyes as she speaks (remember, she's fully ambulatory and can walk and tilt her head just fine). He does so. She and the Damsel Messiah  have a long conversation, the Damsel Messiah asking her who she is and why she is here. She's cryptic. She accuses the Damsel Messiah of offering empty promises. The Damsel Messiah accuses her of blasphemy and threatens her.

Scene 4: Km-Oemmi tries to get the truth about the infernal fruit out of the Damsel Messiah (but does not ask her directly; she uses Perception: guilt and Hint throughout the conversation but never fully finds the truth). The conversation ends on somewhat of a stalemate; both realizing the other is powerful but not willing to make a bold move. The Damsel Messiah orders her flogged, and carried out. Haram, the guard, does so, but laments her poor condition, and moved by her words to the Damsel Messiah of punishment and guilt, recalls to her certain prophesies that he has studied: that perhaps the Damsel Messiah is just preparing the way for one in the desert, and is not the messiah herself. Haram asks, "are you the one who was to come?" (my Christian upbringing and ability to quip Biblical is helping me SO MUCH in this setting). Km-Oemmi responds cryptically, stating that "we are all the one who was to come." Haram does not understand, but refuses to bring Km-Oemmi to torture, stating that he will free her, and go with her, for to free her is death. She speaks of the infernal fruit. He will help her. They go out into the night together (no rolls; Haram didn't need to be convinced; he was already there).


Admeal (Add-Male):

Kicker: The Damsel Messiah, who hates Black Rock and knows of my quest, just informed me that Black Rock appeared outside of Battlehymn yesterday.

This was the high-octane segment of the night (though bogged a little bit by looking up rules for rolling and demon abilities and what to do when your stamina is zero on account of penalties and you still want to roll and such).

Scene 1: Admeal & his sorcerous master, Sangul, are on the outskirts of Marr'd. Sangul is astride Liver-eater, his giant lizard Passer/Beast with spiderlike eyes. They have a short conversation about how all of Admeal's desires lay before him, as they watch a stream of people leave Battlehymn bound for the arena of Black Rock. Sangul then says that Admeal can never return to Tethure, the town they both are from. When Admeal agrees (no roll), Sangul's eyes gleam. He leaves.

Scene 2: At this point Admeal's player (Al) wanted to go hire some kick-ass folks to help him out, and Tayler suggested "Leper colony!" He was going to go there, but in-between scenes decided that wouldn't help him out. He just wanted to make sure he was, y'know, equipped for such a big job (his Kicker was simply laid out in front of him; there's Black Rock, now go!). We decided he had a scimitar on him, and he went to Black Rock. As he approached, his demon cloak wound about him, clearly sensing the presence of a powerful demon. Black Rock shuddered as he entered. A lion and ape-beast were circling a man in the arena as the crowd cheered. Admeal was looking for Nimrote, Black Rock's Sorcerer. He saw him high up in the crowd, on an obsidian throne. He teleported (Travel), right in front of Nimrote, his sword to this throat (SO COOL TWO BONUS DICE), they begin fighting.

Scene 3: The fight continues, with Admeal towering over Nimrote, who is scrabbling to get up as he bleeds from a shallow cut in his throat. They fight some more, Nimrote at Zero Stamina but calling on Black Rock for a Boost Stamina (in retrospect that should have been an action, yeah? I just had the ability work passively and Nimrote did not have to spend an action to call on Black Rock).  The woman at Nimrote's side told Admeal to stand down (Will roll; Admeal wins, rolling over bonuses into this next roll of commanding her), he commanded her to the side (realizing in the process that she was of his blood, the blood of which he thought he was the last), he threw Nimrote over the side of the arena, and Black Rock swallowed Nimrote and the man in the arena.

Scene 4: Black Rock then lifted him and the woman (Batsheva) up on a pedestal, and formed a throne around Admeal. No fucking way, says Admeal, I won't be your master. He teleports away (in retrospect I perhaps should've had more of a struggle here; if Black Rock didn't want him to leave it should've fought, maybe?). Black rock sinks into the sands as Admeal and Batsheva flee toward Battlehymn, Batsheva confused and starry-eyed; she has not been outside of Black Rock since she was a girl. "Nimrote was saving me for the right time," she says. We retro-actively determine at this point that when the Damsel Messiah told Admeal about Black Rock, she also told him to report back to her if he returns.



Questions/issues (feel free to just link me to old threads for answers to any of these questions, if they're out there. I'm going to be re-reading parts of the Sorcerer book before next session, as well):

1. Do combat rolls always use the "combat rules", w/ initiative & everything, or is combat sometimes just regular rolls? Admeal's fight with Nimrote was all back-and-forth regular rolls. I think this is right, based on what I've read in the past of the "complex conflict" rules applying in situations where desires are orthogonal, rather than simply opposed.

2. How do you decide when to roll in Lore or Past to another roll? This came up a few times. I feel pretty solid on when to roll just Past as a straight stat, but what about Lore?

3. I haven't done much with the PC's demons, as such. I kind of planned it that way, knowing we'd be getting our bearings and wanting the demons to just behave for now, so the PC's could throw some weight around. This seemed good to us, but I'll be taking a harder look at our fiction and our demons and seeing what's what before next session.

4. Km-Oemmi's demon has both Perception: innocence and Perception: guilt, but play shows that that's kind of redundant, and Tayler will probaby drop one of those before next session (a one-time tweaking as we're getting used to the rules). Seems cool to us, but anything we're missing?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Hans,

You've interpreted Shapeshift correctly. In some ways, it's readable as a limitation of other abilities rather than an ability, but if you put some emphasis onto the fact that the guy really is transforming into a really-truly other form, then it works out well. It does work best if the other form is an identifiable creature and not, for instance, just special effects for a group of abilities.

You probably figured this out on your own, but if you're at Stamina (or whatever) 0 and you want to roll, then roll one die, and your opposition gets a one-die addition. Do pay attention to the current-penalties box in the core book, though, because it sets limits on what you can announce given your current circumstances.

1. Do combat rolls always use the "combat rules", w/ initiative & everything, or is combat sometimes just regular rolls? Admeal's fight with Nimrote was all back-and-forth regular rolls. I think this is right, based on what I've read in the past of the "complex conflict" rules applying in situations where desires are orthogonal, rather than simply opposed.

Do it orthogonally. In most fights, A and B could both hit, A might hit B, B might hit A, or both A and B could miss. That means the whole shebang. Trust me, once you and the group really figure this out, then you'll never want to go back. And stop saying "initiative." It's absolutely the worst way to look at and think about the way the rule works.

2. How do you decide when to roll in Lore or Past to another roll? This came up a few times. I feel pretty solid on when to roll just Past as a straight stat, but what about Lore?

If I'm reading correctly, I think you need to consider Lore as an ability in a lot more depth. Lore is huge - especially since it's well-defined for the setting. Basically, it's the queen of all roll-over bonuses; you suss something out in terms of its sorcerous content (which in Marr'd means its lost history!!), and wham, you get bonuses for the next thing you try, if it has anything to do with this thing. Huge. Don't miss out on this. It's arguably the single most powerful engine for getting depth and content into the details of play.

I can make a case that the supplement tends to confound Past and Lore a bit in the descriptors, so I suggest using the concept of "life-skills, ordinary knowledge" for Past, and "raw shrieking sorcery" for Lore.

3. I haven't done much with the PC's demons, as such. I kind of planned it that way, knowing we'd be getting our bearings and wanting the demons to just behave for now, so the PC's could throw some weight around. This seemed good to us, but I'll be taking a harder look at our fiction and our demons and seeing what's what before next session.

That's typical for the first session, when at most, the GM probably works with the demons' Needs and their individual modes of communication. But you are right in that now, your job is really to play those demons as characters. Note that this does not mean griefers-by-default, but slamming hard back-and-forth the extremes of best-buddy-if-psycho and genuine griefer, whichever is dictated by the combination of Desire and current Need status.

4. Km-Oemmi's demon has both Perception: innocence and Perception: guilt, but play shows that that's kind of redundant, and Tayler will probaby drop one of those before next session (a one-time tweaking as we're getting used to the rules). Seems cool to us, but anything we're missing?

Well, that's a good question. I suggest that the in-fiction concern is whether the demon has standards for guilt and standards for innocence, as independent variables, or whether it's a zero-sum concept in which the less guilty you are, the more innocent you are. Another way to look at is whether you, Hans, think innocence and guilt can co-exist in a single person - if so, and if that seems to you something worth specifying for a number of NPCs, then I'd keep the abilities as they are. Maybe it's just me, but the Damsel Messiah herself strikes me as fitting that bill.** But on the other hand, if you can only think of one such NPC, then bag it, because then you'll find yourself trying to maneuver the PC into using that ability on that NPC, which is pre-play railroading and a total no-no.

Best, Ron

** Too much about me: I confess to an unseemly desire to have sex with the Damsel Messiah.

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

I'm grooving on everything you're saying, Ron, but this:

You probably figured this out on your own, but if you're at Stamina (or whatever) 0 and you want to roll, then roll one die, and your opposition gets a one-die addition. Do pay attention to the current-penalties box in the core book, though, because it sets limits on what you can announce given your current circumstances.

Has me a little confused. I thought it was "A sorcerer who's taken more penalties than his or her Stamina may make a Will roll against the number of dice the character is trying to be able to use next round, up to his or her maximum score." (p.108).

Are you saying, "Do that, and otherwise, or if you fail, you roll one die with the opposition getting a one-die addition"?

OH. Wait. I'm leaving my incorrect conclusion there, to keep my thought process clear. The Page 108 thing is true, but separate, and not what we're talking about here. If you can't act because your score is at zero, and you fail that Will roll that lets you theme-music your way to action, you can still act, because you can always apply the currency. I can add one die on my side, but it's like balancing an equation: my opponent also gets one.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Hans,

It looks as if you solved your confusion yourself, but just in case --

First, go over the short table headed with "Total Penalties" on page 107 (repeated in the back, pg. 132). This is everyone's guide to playing their character relative to the damage they've sustained at a given moment. By "total," it's referring to both lasting and temporary penalties, summed, so this value is flexible in play - e.g., taking a big-temporary hit can be devastating for one's next action, but if you can make it through that moment, then the penalties are reduced because the temporary part has gone away.

This is what the numbers on the side of the sheet are for. Use two paper clips, one for current (all) lasting penalties, and one that adds the current temporary total onto that. So if you've taken one lasting penalty and three temporary ones, then one paper clip is set at 1 and the other at 4; the latter will be taken off after it's applied in the next bit of play. This technique is also helpful after the fight is over, when you halve the current lasting penalties to see how badly the character is really hurt.

Second, I typically think of the events we're talking about in the reverse order from what you're describing. In my experience, a character has taken a heavy hit, such that the penalties would mean both zero dice and his or her range of action is pretty limited.

What happens next depends on circumstances. For example, sometimes, if everyone else is busy fighting each other or otherwise running around, then the character might merely declare "total defense" and get through the next round with a crappy one-die roll (plus two dice) until the temporary penalties are gone, and then be back in relatively decent shape for the round after that. Or if they try something else, then they get the one-die roll as we discussed above, which ain't great.

However, sometimes, the character simply must act more effectively, possibly because the opponent is driving in for the kill, or is about to do something else that the character simply cannot permit to allow to happen. So the big benefit of the Will-attempt to "get up!" is to override the Total Penalties table's constraints, since it allows you to act as if undamaged and also without any loss of time. And even getting one die to act via this special roll means (i) the opponent won't get a compensating die and (ii) you'll probably get roll-over bonus dice from a good recovery act (this is quite common in practice; everyone loves this moment in play).

You're right that if the attempt fails, then the one-die Currency-based roll is still available, but the constraints of the Total Penalties table typically mean the character's range of action is quite limited.

Best, Ron

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

So the big benefit of the Will-attempt to "get up!" is to override the Total Penalties table's constraints...

You're right that if the attempt fails, then the one-die Currency-based roll is still available, but the constraints of the Total Penalties table typically mean the character's range of action is quite limited.

Ah. That makes a lot of sense, when you look at it from the fiction-side first. Perhaps I'll write out that penalties table for the other players; it'll be best if they can all see what penalties mean for their characters in terms of the fiction.

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

TAYLER, AL, and ADAM, please don't read this post. This is a bit of my GM-prep that I need to think about, and I don't want any possibly interesting stuff ruined for you.







So. Km-Oemmi has been chasing this little throwaway thing that was mentioned about the Damsel Messiah: the Infernal Fruit, that the Serpent wanted her to eat. Km-Oemmi meant to go after it at the end of last session, so I figured I needed to prep some Bangs around it (which I did, and it ties nicely into Km-Oemmi's Past: Cydonian Visionary), but also that I should figure out what, y'know, it does, in case she does go after it.

The thing that made the most sense to me was to make it "Unnatural Tech" per page 63 of Sorcerer & Sword. Can anyone help me out with what this stuff usually looks like in play? I have all of its abilities (only: Cloak, Special Damage: Rot, and Ranged / Power: 4), but...I'm just worried about those "free" demon abilities (no Need, etc.). It's not going to be free, as it will be consequential for her to get (and to eat), but, I dunno! I'm still worried that I'll be handing her too much for too little. At the very least I know I can make it a thing that other folks in the world will want and come after Km-Oemmi for it.

Thanks,

Hans

[Ron Edwards]

Does any of this look familiar?

"I better limit that thing's power, if a player-character is going to get hold of it."

"Well shoot, it's supposed to be important, so actually reducing its power doesn't make any sense. So I better exact some cost for getting it -- maybe hurl enemies at the character constantly, keep her too busy to get around to causing trouble with it."

Let's back that whole train up, all the way to the station. Why not go crazy with the Fruit, exactly as if you had made it up your own self, and exactly as if you had intended it to be the awesome-est blow-out MacGuffin of your whole game?

Remember that the Sorcerer character sheet is a starting point, and in fact by definition only the "A" of a transformation of A to B via a Kicker. So preserving some kind of status quo regarding the identity and capabilities of the character is totally not your problem.

Best, Ron

P.S. I am compelled to share this with you: Bitter Fruit.

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

Oh, of course! Now I can see why I was uncomfortable--there's a right answer in front of me and I just have to do it. Mark one more thing clicking for me in the Sorcerer puzzle.

And I really should read Oglaf more often.

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

Second session last night.

A couple of the really juicy Bangs I had prepped for the first scenes tonight were totally fucked by the fact that the players remembered a couple small details from the previous session that I hadn't, so I had to think on my feet and I feel the first half of the session wasn't as strong as a result. Oh well, lesson learned--details are important!

Scenes, sketchy in some places, detailed in others.

Km-Oemmi

A. Leaves Battlehymn with Harman, going to Olymon. Climbs the mountain in the night, Harman cannot carry her the rest of the way. He lays her down, she tells him to climb to the top and lift her up by her multiple feet-long robes. Just as she reaches the top, Harman is dragged away by Primites. It is revealed that the Damsel Messiah did not eat the Infernal Fruit, by way of Km-Oemmi's demon's Telltale (when the Truth is written down, it does not fade).

B. Climbs to the top, uses Psychic Force (the power of truth) to knock down the Primite dragging away Harman. Talks to the other one there, tries to get it to let her into the Grove at the top of Olymon. He will not let her do it. He picks her up. Harman goes to stop him, and she rebukes him. The Primite walks her to the edge of the mountain. She hits him with Confuse: Tell the Truth (asking, I think: is the Infernal Fruit up here?) and he does, saying it is. He is about to throw her over the edge of the mountain. Complex Conflict! Harman tries to stop him, Km-Oemmi tries to wriggle away. Harman wins first, acts by knocking him down (1-die defense, Primite does not stop its action), Km-Oemmi goes next and wriggles out of his arms. Primite can't complete its action (knocked out), so it just loses it. This was scary because if the Primite won, it would have thrown Km-Oemmi from the mountain! I would've had to put my money where my mouth was, and that would've made for some big consequences for the character.
Km-Oemmi uses Hint (not the annotated version that I just found out about that may fix our concerns), trying to find out what the Infernal Fruit looks like so she'll recognize it. Demon wins the first roll, Km-Oemmi fails the second roll and is totally fucked, seizing and foaming (lasting penalties reduced to 3 only from Vitality).

C. At the top of the mountain, next day, wakes on the ground next to Harman. A red clay circle in the middle of a grove, Primites all around, but they will not enter the circle. A small plant with black leaves, blood red veins, and a blood red fruit. The Infernal Fruit. She takes a bite, gets the abilities (Cloak, Ranged, Special Damage: Rot, Boost Stamina), and tries to leave. The Primites will not let her. She must forfeit her life. She convinces Harman to leave, to recruit others and show them the truth of the Fruit. She makes him eat a piece (no roll), asks him to use his new powers to make an escape. He will not. She walks up to the Primites, and as they gather around her, Harman makes his escape [1]. Harman escapes, but Primites run after him. We don't know what happens. Km-Oemmi sits down in the circle to wait it out, figuring she's near-immortal--the Primites will die eventually.


Admeal

A. Enters Battlehymn with Batsheva, the woman he freed from Nimrote the sorcerer and Black Rock. He sees mounted guards rushing off into the night to chase some escaped prisoners. He knows he is to report to the Damsel Messiah, and does so. She hears his report, and offers to help him Banish Black Rock if he agrees to sit at her right side in Battlehymn. Batsheva whispers "I don't trust her", and he refuses. Wins the Will roll, and the Damsel Messiah frees him to go, but says he must vacate Battlehymn by sunrise and never return, on pain of death [2]. He and Batsheva go to an inn.

B. Conversation with Batsheva over hot drinks. Batsheva reveals that though she is of the race of Admeal, she was born on Marr'd, her parents long gone now. They retire to their joint room. Admeal gets suspicious, and using his sorcerous intuition susses out Batsheva as they walk down the hall (Lore vs. Lore, aided by a Boost Lore and possibly rolling in bonuses from Past, if I remember correctly, as she clearly relates to Admeal's Past). Admeal wins, and sees Batsheva's Telltale: Gleaming red eyes. She is a demon (I told the player "demon" and not "sorcerer" straight up. Seemed no reason to block that information from him).

C.Batsheva doesn't notice that Admeal notices. They go into the room, she goes to sleep. He sits and watches her. He decides to try to Banish her. He sets up candles in the room around the bed, in the pattern of a star near his old planet. For this I let him roll in Lore [3]. He succeeds, with 1 success! She starts changing form rapidly (if you know Mu, she's a Chimerae), shrinking and finally dissolving. Humanity Gain roll: success! Admeals demon, his cloak, makes it known to him that he better fulfill its Need (human brains) soon (actually he made him promise before he lent Boost: Lore to the banishing roll). As soon as she is banished, the cloak flies off of him and hangs itself on the door.


Estigo

A. Horsemen come chasing after the escaped slaves, Coso (the face of the tribe to Estigo) commands a young girl to throw herself in front of the guards as a sacrifice for the good of the people. Estigo refuses to accept this, steps in front of her, fights the horsemen, beats two of them, one runs right past Estigo on his horse [4], and beings chaining up the the tribesfolk. Estigo Shapeshifts.

B. Estigo, in hulking beast-form, speed-runs (Fast, just narratively) to the guard as he's chaining folks up, and chains him to his horse (Stamina roll), and slaps its ass, so the horse runs off into the desert. Estigo scares the shit out of the last guard in his beast-form (quick fight, Stamina rolls then Will roll), who was tending his fallen friend. Holds him by the throat and tells him to tell the Damsel Messiah that there's another force in town, this one a force for good.

C.Arrives in the village of the tribe of Rud, feels blood boil (his Parasite demon) as they enter the town when he looks at a cave on the outskirts of town. Tribe thanks him profusely, calls him the "God-man", throws a party. Want him to change into his other form. He refuses, but opens a vein, showing off his demon's Telltale (when he gets harmed, and blood spills, it sucks back in and heals). Miracle, they shout! They press him from all sides and worship him. He shoots his wandish weapon-thing  into the air to get some space, and they back off [5]. He begins teaching them about being free from the powers of people like the Damsel Messiah, and of touring Marr'd and freeing people. They are ecstatic. They worship him. As he goes to sleep, he focuses on the cave (Lore roll to see if he can figure out what's over there), Total Victory! He senses a spirit of Fire and Shadow, named "Salam".


Questions and stuff keyed from the write-up:

[1] I didn't make any rolls here; should I have? Seemed like my call as GM to decide what NPCs do

[2] So far the Damsel Messiah has gone very easy on the PCs. I think I may be afraid to make hard moves. As it is, I've let her seem like she's working behind the scenes, so I suppose I'll have to consider that in my prep going forward.

[3] Does it seem cool that I let him roll in Lore for the Banishing? It made sense to me, fictionally, but maybe since he's already rolling Lore for the Banish it's not right? I fear I went too easy on him.

[4] We had some weird stuff with the complex conflict system happen here, but I'm currently sussing that out on G+ with Jesse and Joel. I'll post about it here again once it's figured out.

[5] Didn't roll for this, but perhaps I should have. Lots could have happened here, but I just decided the crowd's reaction without a roll.


Other stuff:

I'm very worried about throwing multiple opponents at them! I'm worried about how they will overcome, what they will do, and how confusing the complex conflict resolution will get. I know this is BAD GMing, but it's a real hard habit to overcome in the heat of play. I'm hoping workshopping the complex conflict stuff with Jesse will help me figure it out.

The text mentions Commanding demons. Is this only reserved for when the demons are rebelling, or for any time that they are the User of an ability? I've so far been letting them get Boosts without taking an action to tell their demon, as the demons are all happy (though getting increasingly restless).


Thanks! Still having lots of fun, though the pace of this session was somewhat slower as we walked through the complex conflict stuff, and as a result it didn't feel like as much "stuff" happened for each character--especially Km-Oemmi, who basically walked up a mountain and got stuck there. I probably need to banish the idea of each character needing to make lots of "progress" each session; that stuff is up to the players and not me. I think they want their characters to meet up at some point, and I feel there's a bit of restlessness on their parts in only getting action in one scene out of three. That's totally up to them, though, and I've communicated it. Guys, if you're here and reading this, how is the amount of screen time feeling in play?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Hans,

In your prep for the second session, did you revise the characters' diagrams?

ONE

I think you're still struggling philosophically with what you as the GM "do." From the chapter 4 section of the annotations:

Here is the absolutely central GM technique toward that end: NPCs do stuff. They aren't living in terror of the PCs, trying to brush them off. They respond deeply to the PCs; they are grabby. They aren't helpless. They aren't dumbly locked into their single-blurb descriptions. And you don't protect them from themselves.

You see, the phrase, "Just play the NPCs!" turns out to be a subcultural problem. I have learned that no one knows what I mean by it. It seems to me as if I'm giving the most straightforward advice possible. But after fifteen years, I now know that the communication rate is under 10%. Instead, it can go "doink" right off someone's defenses, because they don't get it, and what they don't get, they blink away. Or it can be heard, but mis-interpreted, as in, "Play the NPCs to elicit the desired player behavior," or "Play the NPCs according to a set track or flowchart." Or worse, thespian: "Act out the NPCs in full, with gestures and accents."

Whereas what I actually mean by it is that when playing NPC 1's actions and dialogue, put aside any priorities except for those of NPC 1. Never mind what NPC 2 wants, or even what the head or the ideology of the organization NPC 1 belongs to wants. Never mind what NPC 1's actions will do to anyone else's plans. Never mind what NPC 1's actions might do to the immediate outcome of this scene. Basically, NPC 1 can always and only do one of three things: hold steady to which whatever goals and actions and tactics he was already doing; go solidly hard-core toward getting those goals using new and extreme tactics; or abandon those goals and adopt new ones, to whatever extreme seems (to him) warranted. And in each case, do it as effectively as possible. So when playing NPC 1, you play him. Then, switching to another NPC, do the same with him, and never the fuck mind what that would mean to NPC 1 - save that for when you come 'round to NPC 1 again.

Don't use NPCs to frustrate and block player-character options, and don't use them to herd player-characters in any direction.

So it's not about an overview. It's not about a story. It's not about a plot. It's not about a tapestry. You're not playing "the world." You're playing characters one at a time at a very local, moment to moment level, and as far as the NPC behaviors are concerned, that is literally all.

Let's be blunt: not everyone can do this. If you're committed to the view that the GM "does" or "makes" or "controls" the story, and that everyone else get to be thespians in that story, then these rules must seem like horrible scary madness. I'm flatly disagreeing with the conventional wisdom that stories must be imposed upon play or they won't happen. I'm saying instead that switching to thespian-author mode, excited by the story being created, is more intuitive, less procedurally problematic, more engaging, and more reliably productive. The simple truth is that you play this game if you're willing to agree about that, and if everyone else at the table is too.

Small point #1: You're still thinking of Bangs as getting them places, not as ways in which NPCs impose or respond to conflicts of interest.

Small point #1': I'm puzzled as to why your idea of a Bang was to stall a character out. It still seems punitive to me: see, here's this fruit you wanted, but HA HA, you're stuck here. Or perhaps more passively (given that you were a little flummoxed by your prepared Bangs not applying well), keeping the Fruit at arm's length.

Now for the big point. When I say, "play your characters," you have to have characters to play. Instead of "I do XYZ, so now she has to figure out what to do," you just do XYZ because that's what your NPCs are up to. I may be reading into your post too deeply, but I suspect you really don't have a clear idea of who your NPCs are.

For example, I can't imagine how you played that interaction with Harman and Km-Oemmi without rolling. "She asks Harman, he will not. " What does that mean, in play? Why did Harman refuse to escape ? And why did he eat the fruit? And what is his new view of life upon eating that fruit? Why did he then willingly escape? I am perfectly willing to understand that you were fumbling around trying to find your way off that mountaintop yourself, but my point is that you may have lacked the single tool at your disposal with which to do it.

Similarly, you really are soft-pedaling the Damsel Messiah. Go back to my points. First, why did she want this guy to sit at her right hand? Second, how bad or good is it that he refused? Why did she want him gone from the city, if he refused? I'm asking these because the answers are completely opaque to me. Not only should they be clear, but she should have said them, in-character, in play. As it reads to me, it's the same thing as with Km-Oemmi: you said, "Here! Uh ... uh ... OK, go away."

TWO

When players mutter about sitting around watching one another's scenes, then something's wrong that isn't about that. I have recently run into this with my Hero Wars GMing, so I've been thinking about it - especially since I do not see this issue with either Sorcerer or Trollbabe.

OK, the first point is that audience-engagement is wonderful, but it requires something to be engaged with. It's a hell of a lot of fun watching understandable NPCs do understandable things (which affect/inspire/kneecap PCs), and that also leads to people being intrigued by occasional incomprehensible NPC behavior rather than being irritated or balked by it. In other words, the very same point I harped on above applies here. If people were seeing exactly where Harman was coming from, for example, then they'd be all about what happened (or would have happened) with a die roll, and they wouldn't even notice that their characters weren't there.

The second point is jump-cutting among situations. Trollbabe plays in scenes, unbroken by checking in on what another trollbabe is doing. But Sorcerer, on the other hand, thrives on multiple locations being played simultaneously, up to and including "holding" play in one location when it's on the cusp of a die roll, until at least one of the others is too. That's actually where I developed the Flashpoint technique in Spione, from seeing it emerge organically from Sorcerer play.

The third point is Crossing, a term from Sex & Sorcery. Crossing is when you regularly remind everyone that play among the characters is occurring in the same location by having after-effects of someone's recent play appear in the scenes of someone else. It's just "crossing" because it's often incidental. "Some guy runs past shouting something about his mother," and the characters in this situation are going, "That was weird," and continue with their business, but we know all about who that was and why he was doing that, because it's what followed from what we all saw a few minutes ago.

Crossing is great because you as GM are not giving cues to "follow that guy" or anything similar. The players have full power to let the Crosses be Color or to act on them as something their characters want to deal with. What really matters is that the players know their characters are all in the same general place.

(The Sin City comics are full of Crosses, by the way, as the reader sees various bis and pieces of other storylines in any given story. If you want, you can actually build a timeline for the events of the original Marv story, A Dame to Kill For, and That Yellow Bastard, which holds up pretty well.)

THREE

These are merely some bits & pieces regarding your specific questions.

I dont' really know what you mean by "let him roll in Lore." To Banish, the player rolls his or her sorcerer's Will + Humanity vs. the demon's Power + Lore. There isn't any scope for a GM to alter that. Setting up the circle and candles is merely part of the necessary special effects of a ritual (although it doesn't sound very Marr'd to me, but that's another issue).

Also, was the demon's Power really less than the sorcerer's Humanity?

I am ambiguous about letting the complex-conflict discussion occur elsewhere, and about multiple voices being involved. Since you have some time before the next session, I ask that you put that discussion on hold, and you and I can talk about it here. Who were the characters involved and what were they attempting to do?

You handled the shot-in-the-air just fine. I don't see a conflict of interest between him and the crowd, as they want to worship him and he doesn't mind. The shot in the air seems like some fun Color to to add to their understandable process of establishing boundaries.

Overall, I really don't think you should do any processing or orienting with the players. They seem like they're doing fine; if you attend to this "who are my NPCs" question, you'll be meeting their needs.

Best, Ron

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

In your prep for the second session, did you revise the characters' diagrams?

I didn't. I re-drew the relationship map, using the diagrams and what's changed as my starting point for that.

I think you're still struggling philosophically with what you as the GM "do."

I think you're right. I understood Sorcerer as you describe, and MCing Apocalypse World helped me in this: I know I'm supposed to just play the NPCs, one at a time, with their agenda and have no agenda of my own. I see myself not doing that in play, though. I don't know why it's so hard. I don't have a long background with roleplaying games (2007 is when I started), so I didn't have years of play where the GM was expected to pre-plan the story or anything--still, I find myself fearful of "losing control", whatever that means. I certainly don't want to control where play goes, but I have this nebulous feeling of needing to be in control.

Small point #1': I'm puzzled as to why your idea of a Bang was to stall a character out. It still seems punitive to me: see, here's this fruit you wanted, but HA HA, you're stuck here. Or perhaps more passively (given that you were a little flummoxed by your prepared Bangs not applying well), keeping the Fruit at arm's length.

Hm. Yeah, that's entirely lame. I dunno. I felt that the Fruit had been built up in the fiction and needed to have teeth. The people who tend its grove wouldn't just let her walk away with it. Here's my sub-thought impulse, as much as I can honestly capture it, as it played out: "If it was simple for Km-Oemmi to go get the Fruit and come back, then what's the point? If the Fruit's a Big Deal, then the way to make it feel like a Big Deal to the world is to make it hard to get."

Now for the big point. When I say, "play your characters," you have to have characters to play. Instead of "I do XYZ, so now she has to figure out what to do," you just do XYZ because that's what your NPCs are up to. I may be reading into your post too deeply, but I suspect you really don't have a clear idea of who your NPCs are.

For example, I can't imagine how you played that interaction with Harman and Km-Oemmi without rolling. "She asks Harman, he will not. " What does that mean, in play? Why did Harman refuse to escape ? And why did he eat the fruit? And what is his new view of life upon eating that fruit? Why did he then willingly escape? I am perfectly willing to understand that you were fumbling around trying to find your way off that mountaintop yourself, but my point is that you may have lacked the single tool at your disposal with which to do it.

Yes. My NPCs are sketches. Clearly a big part of my prep going forward needs to be hammering down the NPCs: what they're about, what they want, what they want from the PCs. I have an idea of each of those things, but it's so much taffy, easily pliable in play to my bad GM habits and control anxiety.

Similarly, you really are soft-pedaling the Damsel Messiah. Go back to my points. First, why did she want this guy to sit at her right hand? Second, how bad or good is it that he refused? Why did she want him gone from the city, if he refused? I'm asking these because the answers are completely opaque to me. Not only should they be clear, but she should have said them, in-character, in play. As it reads to me, it's the same thing as with Km-Oemmi: you said, "Here! Uh ... uh ... OK, go away."

Yep. It didn't flow from her character, but rather me, prepping, thinking, "It'll be interesting to make Admeal choose between getting power to banish Black Rock at the cost of serving the Damsel Messiah, or remaining free of her webs with no help." I had no interest in which way the player's decisions went, which is why I thought I was prepping correctly. However, I can see now (correct me if I'm wrong) that my interest is to prep those decision points only organically, arising through fully developed characters.

OK, the first point is that audience-engagement is wonderful...In other words, the very same point I harped on above applies here.

The second point is jump-cutting among situations.

The third point is Crossing, a term from Sex & Sorcery.

First point taken, as noted above. I've actually been fairly aggressively jump-cutting (less so in the second session), and we had a Cross last session, as well, though I didn't remember the term or practice from Sex & Sorcery, as I haven't read it recently. I'll keep these in mind as important techniques to hone, especially jump-cutting right before the dice.

I don't really know what you mean by "let him roll in Lore." To Banish, the player rolls his or her sorcerer's Will + Humanity vs. the demon's Power + Lore. There isn't any scope for a GM to alter that. Setting up the circle and candles is merely part of the necessary special effects of a ritual (although it doesn't sound very Marr'd to me, but that's another issue).

What I meant was, rolling Lore to see if any bonuses roll over into the Banishing roll. Page 104 stuff, when more than one ability is applicable to a given situation. This echoes a question I have way up above there after the first session about "Rolling in" one score to another. Is Page 104 the principle for this, or am I extrapolating it incorrectly, as Page 104 is only talking about doing a little bit more per action when both Cover and Stamina apply to a roll? I remember, when playing with Jesse, that he mentioned rolling Lore to check for bonus dice and then rolling those into the next action, when it was applicable to the situation, as I was looking for a way to make my character's high Lore matter.

Also, was the demon's Power really less than the sorcerer's Humanity?

The demon's Power was greater than the Sorcerer's humanity. That's why he got a Humanity gain roll (per page 87). However, I now see that I flubbed that, too, because we just did a regular Humanity gain roll rather than the Humanity vs. Power specified under the "Banishing" heading.

I am ambiguous about letting the complex-conflict discussion occur elsewhere, and about multiple voices being involved. Since you have some time before the next session, I ask that you put that discussion on hold, and you and I can talk about it here. Who were the characters involved and what were they attempting to do?

Okay. I just didn't want to assume that you'd want to spend the time going over it with me, especially when I have knowledgeable friends that I can hit up. I know you're a busy guy. I'll come back to this in a new post, later.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Hans,

Cool. And,

What I meant was, rolling Lore to see if any bonuses roll over into the Banishing roll.

Oh! Right, that's fine.

Again, for emphasis: less processing, to the point of simply not doing any at all with the other players, and more (in fact, exclusively) prep of NPCs' attitudes and agendas.

I know exactly where you're coming from. This is totally giving me flashbacks to a crucial playtesting experience for Sorcerer in the mid-1990s, which I'll link to when I get a chance.

Best, Ron

editing this in! Here's the link: The First Ever campaign setting, which is actually about two games; the one I'm thinking of is "TWO" in the thread.

Also, I suggest that the diagram-centric method is better suited to what you're doing than a relationship map. I don't want to get into this in detail - it'd be distracting - but I'm not seeing a relationship map type situation in what you're doing at all.

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

Hey Ron,

Fascinating thread! Thanks for the history lesson. The a-ha moment throws what I'm struggling with into sharp relief. Though it sounds like you were doing too much prep and I'm doing too little.

I am incredibly pressed for time this week, so the easiest way to get this discussion rolling seems to be to recap my discussion with Jesse, so you know my problems in play and what we've already talked about. I've abridged unimportant details (non-play stuff).

The "complex conflict" system is all of a sudden completely confusing me, though it made sense when we [Jesse, Joel, Justin and I; a reference to a previous game] played.

With complex conflict, I think I'm messing up in drifting it from fighting. It's a lot more confusing when some rolls become penalties and some don't, depending on the action.

Do you want to talk about complex conflict resolution?  I'll add this caveat: Ron and I have a slight disagreement about how "Defensive Actions" work in complex conflict.  I go with a more strict interpretation with what's in the book and Ron uses a more general applied principle.

My method results in much more simpler handing of shoot-n-'dodge situations.  Ron's method results in much more complex fictional positioning but produces what I consider strange edge cases.  I understand both methods and can walk you through both if you want.

BUT again that only applies to situations where someone is taking a primary defensive action like, "I dive for cover!" while being shot at.  If everyone is taking agressive actions.  Amy is shooting Bob, Bob is grabbing the vase and Carl is begging Amy not to shoot Bob then there's no quibble between me and Ron.

Okay, here's the simple case.  I'm going to talk abstractly first to see if it helps.  If what I say doesn't work then we'll go through an example.

Okay, so everyone announces what they are doing and rolls dice.

Important Point: The dice now sitting on the table represent the action being taken.  Never, ever compare these rolls for purposes of RESOLUTION.  If it helps, think of the above example.  Amy's attempt it shoot Bob is NOT opposed by Bob's attempt to grab the vase.  So why would you compare them to determine the outcome?

You do compare these rolls for purposes of resolution ORDER only.

Okay, so start working through these actions.  Clear you mind.  Don't panic.  If it helps pretend for this moment that this is the only action occurring   In this moment those other actions are completely irrelevant   It's like they're not happening at all.  Trust me.

Okay, now look at the TARGET of the action under consideration.  Ask yourself, do they still have dice sitting in front of them?

If no, they do and roll whatever they would normally roll to defend themselves against this action.

If yes, they have a choice.  Remove the dice sitting in front of them (and thus their upcoming action)  and then do and roll whatever they would normally roll to defend themselves.  Or roll just 1 die.

I like to think of the 1 die as pure luck.  The character isn't doing anything at all.  They are intent on their action (i.e. the dice sitting on the table) and aren't even acknowledging the in coming action.

Important Point: It is possible to have ones action nullified by the outcomes of earlier actions (both mechanical and fictional) even if you still have dice in front of you come your turn.

If Amy shoots Bob, it's possible Bob will take too many penalties to successfully grab the vase.

If Amy goes before Carl, it's possible that Amy shoots at Bob before Carl can get his plea out.  Note: It's still worth rolling because Carl might gain victories he can roll into his next action over Amy OR Amy might be talked down from harming Bob further.

Those are the risks of the die system.

Let's stop there and see if that's clear to you.  Any questions?

Very clear. The point about actions being nullified by previous ones was something I was unsure about but now is crystal. If your action is nullified come your turn do you get to do something else?

No.  Absolutely not.

Think of it like this: The action happens to no effect.  Bob is stumbling towards the vase too bloody to reach it.  Carl is screaming at Amy but she's already pulled the trigger.

Okay, that's what I thought. It's helpful to have it clarified.

Want to workshop me through a situation we had come up last night?

Estigo, our PC, is trying to protect some slaves he's just freed from guards who are trying to re-capture them. He messes one of the guards up, and while he's doing that, another guard tries to run past him on his horse to get to the slaves.

Free & Clear stage: PC announces that he's trying to throw his mace at the guard. The Guard is trying to simply get to the slaves and avoid this.

We roll. Guard wins. Guard goes first. Guard doesn't seem to be opposed at the moment, and isn't acting against any target--PC is not right in front of him or anything. So I just narrate the Guard rearing his horse up in front of the slaves.

PC now goes, rolls Stamina vs. Guard's Stamina for defense, loses the roll, the mace goes wide.

What did we do right or wrong in that scenario?

Also, we just stopped using the complex conflict system at the point, as they seemed too far away to really act on each other. PC Shapeshifted & ran over to the slaves, by which point they were being chained up, and then we entered conflict again when they started mixing it up.

Your example starts to grey into the area I mentioned where Ron and I disagree.  Since we want to keep the action focused on the PCs.  One way to view this is simply: "The PC is throwing his mace at the guard who is trying to run by."  In other words, it's not a complex conflict at all, it's a simple one.  The PC is attacking with his mace.  The guard is defending by racing by on a horse.  End of story.

You do lose a bit of fictional positioning at the price of simplicity.  The potentially lost bit of fictional positioning actually occurs under the very case you ended up with.  What does it mean that the guard goes first?

Considering his action in isolation, you're right.  There's nothing opposing him.  But remember the Currency is always in play and is always important.  So, you roll just 1 die.  We aren't rolling to see if the guard makes it past the PC, we've already agreed nothing is really stopping him at this moment.  Instead, we're rolling to see how badly the PC is fucked by this happening.

So then the PC's action happens.  He's basically throwing his mace at a guard who is already somewhere between him and the slaves.  So the guard rolls over his victories (if any) from his roll into his defense against the mace.

So you end up with two possibilities: A wounded guard somewhere between the PC and the slaves.  And a guard by the slaves, now possibly armed with a mace that's been conveniently tossed to him.

And the second case is more likely since the guard went first and possibly earned himself a whole bunch of bonus dice.

Oh yeah, I'm with you. The tough thing is that you have to be vigilant about the details and see clearly moment-to-moment in play, to decide what we're doing: narrating, conflicting with the dice, or complex conflicting with the dice. That's tough, but I think I'm learning.

The "roll 1 die" when he's not really opposed but to see how badly it fucks with the PCs action helps a lot. I feel like the book doesn't give me these ideas, or give them to me clearly (that doesn't matter at this point, but reading your post I'm thinking, "how would I have known to do that?")

A good rule of thumb is: If you don't know what to do with the dice, chances are you don't really know what's happening in the fiction either.

The way you know how to do this is precisely the same way you know how to write a violin concerto.  Ron isn't fucking around with his music metaphors.  The book is a fingering chart for an instrument it does not function as a composition theory text.

I arrived at my solution to your worked example by combining the principles on p. 75 with the chart found on p. 100 and, of course, the procedure outline on p. 103.  Of course, I didn't actually look those up until just now because I've played the game so much and read the book cover to cover so many times that I've simply internalized all of it.

Okay. I just re-read p.75 and 100, and I can see how you'd get that. But why roll 1 die against the guard's action? 1 die says, "mildly annoying distraction". Greater than 1, less than character's score says, "Trickier than usual; separate demand for attention". Did you adjudicate the 1 die based on the fiction--this thing thrown at the guard is a "distraction"? If it seemed like something that demanded attention, I might throw in an extra die or two, depending on the NPC's score?

I'm getting all twisted up about this internally. Trying to figure this game out is really frustrating me for some reason!

More or less.  He's riding through a stressed and charged situation: 1 die.  But I also lean on a bit of practical advice I've seen Ron give which is that in practice when he has to grab an arbitrary number of dice its usually 1, 3 or 5.

Everything to me is 1 die unless there's some obvious environmental thing going on like a closing gate or a collapsing bridge or the target is slipping through a crack in the ground.

Really what this is about is training yourself to not really think so much about the realities of the situation and more about its emotional significance.  A good example of that might be when I had the lawyer call and ask about payment after you had banished Kennedy [Jesse is referencing a previous game we played, here].  If you had said, "Yes, I want to comb through my finances and try to scrape together the money.,  then you would have been rolling Cover vs. some number of dice chosen by me.

But what number?  In that case I would have probably used Kennedy's Power score.  Note: I'm saying I would have chosen a number of dice equal to Kennedy's Power score, which is not the same thing as rolling against Kennedy's Power score.  Numerically and mechanically it's identical but I'm trying to point the conceptual difference because the concept is the same when you don't have something convenient on hand to hold onto.

Okay, so why roll against a number of dice equal to Kennedy's Power score?  Because that's the narrative vacuum your action is trying to fill.  The lawyer was a manifestation of Kennedy's Cover ability and now you're trying to "make up" that much narrative energy with your Cover action.

Does that make sense?

...Yeah. I can see that.

That's where we stopped. We can rewind to a previous point in the discussion, diverge from there, start over, or keep going on from here. Your call.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Hans,

I'd like to reboot the entire conversation about this aspect of the dice mechanics. The last thing you need right now is multiple voices. For the record, Jesse is saying all-true things, but I want to take a completely different approach to your learning process.

Estigo, our PC, is trying to protect some slaves he's just freed from guards who are trying to re-capture them. He messes one of the guards up, and while he's doing that, another guard tries to run past him on his horse to get to the slaves.

Let's stop with a clear understanding of the goals involved at this very moment. The guard is trying to capture some slaves. Estigo is trying to prevent him.

Let us stick with the close-up-and-personal focus on events that you were playing in, i.e., we're not going to treat "capture" as a single roll, this is cinematic action, so let's do it.

Free & Clear stage: PC announces that he's trying to throw his mace at the guard. The Guard is trying to simply get to the slaves and avoid this.

No need for complex conflict here. There's an attack, and there's a defense roll. You only use the complex system when [A hits B, B hits A, both hit each other, both fail to hit each other] are all possible. Here, it's just about whether A hits B. Well, and the important subsidiary point that the guard is moving past the character to get to the slaves, which is not only important, it's good to know and good that you guys were playing with this kind of statement being made.

Since you're not using the complex system, you both roll, and since the guard wins, the mace misses him 'cause he's riding low and bolting past on a fast horse (easy narration, nothing fancy), and he gets to the slaves. Considering the fictional situation, you were absolutely right to shift the collection attention on a bit further, to the point where the guard is now doing what he wanted to do with the slaves. Now, "he's doing X, what do you do, Mr. Mace-less?"

End of story.

The more I think about it, the more you should really jettison the discusion you quoted. Again, not because it's incorrect, but because (i) it does not apply to your in-play situation in the slightest and (ii) it is the wrong discussion for you, at this time. It puts you into the stressed expectation that something terrible is waiting for you when you do apply the complex system, which it isn't.

Clearly the problem here is that you tried to apply the complex system when it didn't apply. Joel ran into the same problem (a lot) in his Seattle game, compounded by some social and creative difficulties that you don't have.

So! The good news is that no, the complex system did not confuse you. I have no reason to think that it will cause you any problems when you apply it when it's called for.

Best, Ron

[Hans Chung-Otterson]

Hey Ron,

Sorry it took so long for me to reply. We actually skipped last week, as myself and one of the players were hosting a game day the following day. We're on for tomorrow, and your post helps greatly. I did read Joel's old Cascadiapunk posts, and yes, we're not having those creative difficulties. I'm sure I'll still have some difficulty with the conflict system, but perhaps not--I'm no longer afraid of it (in this instant, at least) and it feels manageable.

Part of my relaxation and readiness (all of it?) is due to the fact that I just did my prep for the session, which consisted solely of writing out attitudes and agendas for all of the NPCs in play so far, and a couple new ones who might show up next session. I feel very clear, now. I have some more backstory, just by virtue of connecting dots between various' NPCs agendas, and I know what everyone wants and why. It's all, "clearly this NPC should've said that in this situation two sessions ago, because this is why he did what he did." I'm looking forward to seeing how this will shake out.

One note, I abandoned the R-map technique on your suggestion, but haven't yet filled in the diagrams, because I left them at my office today. I know I didn't forget any NPCs, but now my plan is to go back and plug in the NPCs into the diagram before the session and see if anything else jumps up because of it--new relationships, new backstory, gaps where I might want to bring in a new NPC, etc.

A point of organization: I plan to continue posting recaps of our sessions. Keep doing it here, or open a new thread?