[Sorcerer] Spotlight management techniques?

[James_Nostack]

A topic I don't recall being addressed before: Perhaps it's my own habit of play, but Sorcerer is one of those games the individual PC's are seldom in the same scene together.  (I know the core rules do discuss ways that sorcerers can "party up," but in my limited experience that's rare.)  So you've got different players in different places, doing different things. 

How do you handle that?  Each player gets a long, uninterrupted scene?  Each player gets a long scene interrupted by other players' scenes as you cut between them?  What's the longest you've let a scene run?  What do you do with the other players when that happens?  I'm curious to see the variety of solutions to the social problem of keeping a table full of people engaged in what's happening, after they've cleared space in their schedule.

My approach tends to be a rotation of scene about thirty minutes in length, farming out NPC's (or sometimes another player's demon) to the other players with instructions to angle for troublesome intersections with other players.  (This is sometimes hard in Sorcerer due a situation's backstory, which the players seldom know in its entirety.)  If there aren't enough NPC's to go around, I try to enlist other players by asking them to give me concrete details about scenery, what a person looks like, and answering loaded questions-- stuff I'm either too "in the moment" to do as a GM, or stuff that I'm glad to disclaim direct responsibility for. 

This has worked reasonably well--much better with 2 players than 4--but I'm curious how y'all approach this.

[Ron Edwards]

Ideally, I use the techniques I later formalized in Spione: establish scenes for everyone, then cut among them constantly, basically playing them simultaneously. If justified in-fiction (i.e. subject to the semi-intuitive issues I described in a recent thread), I provide Crosses as described in Sex & Sorcery when and if I feel like it.

In the event that (say) three characters are each in a separate scene which is developing rapidly into conflict territory, then I found I could run all three conflicts simultaneously, rolling all together, as if the various characters were in a single scene. It's really functional and exciting, and once the players get used to it, immensely effective in getting them to embrace one another's scenes when the characters are separated. Doing this in Sorcerer is the origin of the mandated Flashpoint technique in Spione.

All that said, I frequently fall into the bad habit of just focusing on one character until their scene is done - the Hero Wars game I posted about a few months ago suffered greatly from this problem, and I really wish I'd Flashpointed it instead. At least in Sorcerer, player proactivity is much more likely once the players kind of "feel" their characters get passionate, so scene framing and cuts can be influenced more by player statements than by my instincts.

And for contrast: the rules in Trollbabe recommend, if not mandate, not cutting among multiple scenes but rather playing them out fully per character. Trollbabe play lends itself to much more directed, automatically-dramatic scenes than Sorcerer, especially since most scenes are formally requested by players, and so works better this way.

Best, Ron

[James_Nostack]

When using your flashpoint technique, what's the length of time you usually need to hit flashpoint, and jump to the next guy?

When running Trollbabe, what do the other players do when you're concentrating on one of them at a time?  (In my gang of players, I'm usually the one who pitches Forge games, which means I'm often the one one running them, so I've never been in the "waiting around" position.) 

My original question, though phrased in terms of Sorcerer, is really meant to encompass a bunch of games with that similar "folks in different spots doing different things" quality.  I'm curious, though: can you articulate the design features of Sorcerer versus Trollbabe that mandate the difference in approach?

[Ron Edwards]

I should clarify about Flashpoint: you don't play with person X until Flashpoint, then jump to the next and do the same. Instead, you play everyone's scenes at once, cutting back and forth every few minutes, real time. So a few lines of dialogue with person A, a few actions and a quick chase with someone trying to catch person B, a statement from person C that his character is going "down to the docks," with an appropriate scene framing, and then back to person A. It goes like that for a while, until one or another character is really involved in something intense. If no one else is even close, then fuck it, run that conflict as is while the others wait. If one or more of the other characters seems similarly engaged or near to it, let the first one wait and play this one until the dice are about to hit the table too. It's easier to get all three rolling at once than you might think, especially since dice-rolling in Sorcerer is so player-driven.

In Trollbabe, it's totally different. In traditional gaming terms, the other players get to jerk off and do the dreaded nothing - oh my God, I sat there and did nothing! - while one person gets "all the attention." Which turns out to be not any kind of big deal, especially since in so many traditional gaming experiences, a given player does nothing anyway for extended periods of time even when his or her character is in the scene. Whereas in Trollbabe there are several intrinsic reasons and processes which mean you actually play more, in terms of active input and consequences for your character, per unit time - see [Trollbabe] What in the world? Oh! which includes some dialogue with a first-time player about this: the three trollbabes had happened to be at the same location, but they didn't interact with one another in any way and might as well have been in three different locations - and the actual screen time per player was seamless and easy, with no one feeling left out at any moment.

As for your final question, this whole issue is a higher-order feature of a given rules-set and its effective application when at least one person at the table really knows what he or she is doing with it. Quite a lot of a game's immediate procedural features feed into the higher-order one, including many things about pre-play character creation and many ostensibly arbitrary things like - ah, for example, the fact that in Dogs in the Vineyard, you either throw in with a given conflict from the outset, or your uninvolved character watches helplessly throughout its entire length, with whatever Color-based narration justifies that exclusion that you feel like providing. But inside a conflict, your character can Give at any time, i.e., choose to lose and end the conflict resolution. Whereas in Sorcerer, given a conflict that happens to operate in rounds (many rolls), anyone can hop in at any time, sure - but once in, there's no getting out, until the dice have done what they're going to do in terms of ending that conflict. Can I explain to you precisely why this feature of Sorcerer, which appears at first to be only relevant to situations which include multiple player-characters, lends itself nicely to the multi-cut, cross-scene technique? No, I can't, but in combination with a dozen* other features of prep and play, it does. Maybe one day I'll try to make a spreadsheet of interesting features that I think are involved and map out a bunch of different games to compare them.

Best, Ron

* Actual number = ass pull.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey, I realized I hadn't responded to your direct questions in the first post.

I don't advise letting any NPCs ever be played by anyone but the GM in Sorcerer. The boundaries of how each character operates are set for a reason, and it's not just about habits of older play. Playtesting showed me that the idea of players "filling in" for NPC play, or most especially, playing one another's character's Bound demons, was horrible, antithetical to the whole idea of how Humanity operates as a mechanic. GM as external pressure + player as both reactive and proactive in that environment = the way it works, with no grey area between the two.

In practice, I've played with one player for as long as half an hour while the others waited, but in Sorcerer, as in Hero Wars, I've found it to be much less effective than remembering to cut much more frequently during concurrent scenes.

I like these thread topics you're raising, and I hope some other people chime in with their experiences and conclusions.

Best, Ron

[James_Nostack]

When I've run it in this way, usually a scene looks a little bit like this:

Player in Spotlight - doing whatever it is that she's up to now.

GM - running the major opposing NPC's or "stork that brings the bang" type NPC's

Supporting Player - playing a color-commentator type NPC without an especially strong agenda, which in practice can (but doesn't always) shade toward comic relief.

GM (with help from the Supporting Player) - running a whole bunch of lesser NPC's / extras if they have a reaction to something.

Generally I've insisted on running the demons myself, though the supporting player has typically made suggestions, gestures, body language, etc. which have generally been spot-on or at least good starting points to bounce off from.

So, for a concrete example, in our last Sorcerer run, the sorcerer Tommy Joe Jackson wanted to learn the adept secrets of rock 'n roll from "Smokin' Hand" Hancock, who was kinda pissed off that Tommy Joe (a white kid) was stealing a lot of his licks.  Gravel-Box was tending bar.  Delilah, a sexy demon of uncertain allegiance, is also in the bar.  Tommy Joe's bound demon is the amputated hand of his best friend, grafted onto his own arm.

Tommy Joe is run by the spotlight player.  As GM, I'm handling Smokin' Hand Hancock and Delilah, anybody else in the bar who is doing something interesting, and I retain authority over Tommy Joe's demon-hand.  The supporting player, in this case, is playing Gravel-Box, who during this scene said nothing at all, but kept polishing his bar in about ten different ways depending on what was happening, with appropriate facial expressions.  The supporting player also mimed the (mostly low-key) actions of Tommy Joe's demon-hand, which became particularly ornery when Delilah sidled up to Tommy Joe to work him over.

In practice, I had to veto some suggested demon actions once in a while, but with this particular group this breakdown worked out okay.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Interesting. My answers:

I cross cut between scenes a lot. Each player gets a few minutes, and then cut. I'd say that ten minutes is really long, and about 3-6 minutes being standard,  but I'm not watching the clock, so I'm not really sure. I don't think players should have to wait thirty minutes to get into the action.

So how do u know when to cut? I tend to cut whenever I've given a player something to think about. And I try to do that a lot.

The thing is, I view you characters' actions as answers to the question 'what is important to you in this situation?' And when I get an answer I challenge it. It is as if I would say: "Really, THAT'S what you want. Well if THIS happens, do you still want it?" I don't really say that, of course, but I have my NPCs act in ways that challenge your choices and force you to make new ones.  Questions questions questions. Not always big and life changing, of course, but they're always there.

That is also the reason why I would never give the players access to my primary toolbox: The NPC's. I don't view Sorcerer as some kind of collaborative story game. I use the demons and NPCs to put pressure on the characters. It is what they are for. No way the players will be able to fulfil that function in a satisfying way. See the Czege Principle.

[James_Nostack]

Peter, that's interesting - especially the bit about not allowing access to minor NPC's because of pacing issues. 

When I GM, my pacing is typically to drop one or two "bangs" per PC per session, and have them be *real* bangs.  But typically during a session I'm playing catch-up.  The players are very active scenery-chewers who want to Fuck Shit Up.  I can play the world around them, but I'm going to play it "honestly" and not create massive opposition where that would strain fictional logic.  Often this means that the players stomp around the setting as best they can (with me capitalizing on every failure). 

But mainly for the time to "strike back," so to speak, is in between sessions.  I've usually got 15-20 NPC's all thrown into confusion by the PCs' latest rampage.  Whose situation has just become unbearable?  Who sees a golden opportunity?  Whose heart was just broken, even though they don't know it yet?  And: who's demon is unhappy, and how unhappy is it?  If enough fictional time has passed, which characters have had time to forge new alliances, make preparations, or summon demons?  This is the main time for me to think of bangs.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Oh. I'm being unintelligeble as usual. Sorry. I'll try to rephrase it. We're actually talking about two different thigs here. Only incidentally related, I think.


Players not playing NPCs

The reason I don't give players access to any of my characters (yes, my characters) is not pacing. It has to do with putting pressure on the players. By pressure I mean not only bangs, but all kinds of crap that I have the NPCs do that affects the player characters in some way. When I play, the very purpose of the NPCs is to put pressure on the players, and one of the reason the players cannot do that is that they would then be both the ones applying pressure and the ones responding to it. That would be boring.


Cutting between characters

This is a different thing, but it does have a little bit to do with putting pressure, and having the players make choices. I cut to another player right before I would normally say "what do you do"? Like this:

Fran the insurance agent turned sorcerer tells her boss that she quits. Her boss then starts to cry, and begs Fran not to leave. This is where I could ask "what do you do?", but it is also a great place to cut. And a little later, when we cut back to Fran, I'll ask what she does.

I don't cut to another character every time a player is about to tell us what she does -- that would be moronic -- but when I cut I try to make it a spot like this, turning the game into a series of mini cliffhangers.

But it is a rule of thumb, not a rule. Sometimes I cut just before I'm about to declare an NPCs reaction to something the players have done. At other times I cut because Johan hasn't been involved in something in a while. Sometimes the players decide that it is time to cut. Sometimes I am stumped and need time to think it over. Sometimes the scene just ends, and we move on.

Also it is worth noting that the mini cliffangers aren't necessarily the result of outlandish spectacular events. They aren't bangs. A teenage son slamming the door and putting on loud music (1) is just as good a reason to cut to another player as is a teenage son turning out to be a changeling troll.

Does any of this make sense at all?




(1) Does teenagers even do that anymore in this age of headphones? Meh. I'm getting older.

[Peter Nordstrand]

My short answer to your original question: Thirty minutes seems like a long time to me. I'd cut in five, and then keep cutting frantically. :-)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Peter,

I like the reference to the Czege Principle, but I think you're applying it too strictly. The idea as I see it is that the same person cannot both pose and resolve a given unit of adversity. As long as that's not happening, the principle is satisfied.

Therefore in Universalis, in Polaris, and (to give credit where it's due) in Wraith, different players pose adversity for other players constantly. I chose these titles because they illustrate different ways this is organized relative to the other parts of the respective game:

Universalis: no single-GM at all, anyone can pose adversity for anyone especially when starting a new scene, but arguably at any point.
Polaris: no single-GM, a given player is thrown adversity by a specific other player at specific times ("on my turn").
Wraith: traditional GM who poses external adversity for all the players, a given player also poses specific (internal) adversity for a designated other player.

This point raises the valid question of why, in Sorcerer, it works best for the primary adversity to arise through the input of the GM, and not so much from everyone else.* I think this has a lot to do with getting Humanity into play in the most emotionally honest way possible, and perhaps also to do with concentrating different kinds of power into undiluted and non-distracting forms.

Apocalypse World and especially Monsterhearts provide the same point throughout their design and texts, phrased in a more direct and accessible way. You have a number of people whose job is (or whose fun lies in) to play my character (i.e. each person's), and one person whose job is to make everything matter. All the Moves are nothing more than examples, possibly even remedial examples for an audience who never learned to do these things effectively. So instead of everyone sharing these jobs/fun, which is perfectly OK, these games separate and concentrate them into white-hot forms.

Best, Ron

* Side point: inter-character adversity can and does arise in Sorcerer play. It may even become more important than anything the GM is specifically posing. But it's not through playing NPCs, but rather through PCs alone. And it may well arise indirectly (and unplanned) simply due to the intensity and details of the pressure the GM was applying.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Ron and James,

Cool. I have a few thoughts and questions about this players not playing NPCs thing. But perhaps it isn't really the topic for this thread. Would you rather I started a new topic or shall I continue the discussion here? It is a direct response to your last post, Ron.

Cheers,

Peter

[Ron Edwards]

Right here is fine. For clarity: I have no basic objection to games which permit multiple-NPC play by not-GM players, including shifting ownership around a lot, and that's fine. Some of my game designs absolutely rely on this feature, like Spione. My post is intended to point out that at least a few games lock down this technique into strict me-player-character, you-GM-NPC roles. Or rather, a few games do it as a matter of design rather than mere habit or imitation.

Best, Ron

[Peter Nordstrand]

Okay, here we go.

Ron, you are right, of course. The Czege Principle does not apply to what I was talking about. I kind of realised this after the fact, which is why I didn't mention it again later.

I also appreciate your point about getting Humanity into play. Yup.

The part about concentrating power in non-distracting forms seems like part of a circular argument, doesn't it? I was trying to answer the question "why does putting different kinds of power in the hands of GM and player makes Sorcerer play better?" The question cannot be its own answer, but perhaps I am misreading you.

My own answer has to do with the fact that as a player my job is to make very subjective personal decisions for my character. I believe the experience is much more powerful and personal if my characters' "opposition" is completely out of my control. Please note that I'm not talking about some general principle that applies to all games. Just Sorcerer.

Obviously, one could argue that if I'm playing an NPC in a scene where my own character isn't present, I'm not actually playing my own "opposition", which I guess is James' point.

I beg to differ. The entire Sorcerer experience is a complicated web of relationships, consequences, associations, and themes. Things interrelate in a way that makes all scenes, even the ones in which I'm not part, potentially relevant to my character choices.

I share James' experience that Sorcerer characters are seldom in the same scene together. They tend to pursue their own agendas. Sometimes they get together, but often they don't. Yet their individual stories tend to intermingle. A lot. And I believe the techniques used in Sorcerer promote this; relationship maps, weavings, crosses etc. Also, the players themselves quite effortlessly help make this happen just by listening to each other and by connecting the dots. All of this is standard Sorcerer, and all of it is mentioned in the books.

My conclusion is that Sorcerer characters are not islands, they're all part of the same play experience. And that's the reason why NPCs are best played, as characters with motivations and integrity of their own, by the GM and not shared with the other players.

Cheers,

Peter