Okay, so Humanity checks seemed straightforward enough when I first read them, but then I started thinking about how to administer them. The rules say:
QuoteGMs can also decree Humanity loss rolls if the characters perform heinous acts, such as sacrificing the newspaper boy to Summon something or going on a killing spree for some reason. In such a case, roll current Humanity against itself.
And we also have:
Quote from: Ron EdwardsHowever, I strongly recommend that the severity of an action not apply as a penalty for a Humanity check. In other words, NOT: if you are rude to your aunt, that's a normal check, but if you butcher and kill and rape your aunt, in that order, that's a check with a penalty. Don't do that at all.
The solution would be to have multiple Humanity checks for a mult-part nasty action, ie, one for butchering, one for killing, one for raping, etc. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=27489#27489)
This throws me: why should it be bad to apply modifiers to particularly heinous actions? Why should all Humanity checks have exactly a 50% chance of passing or failing?
I'd like to ask the Forge for a few opinions, since ruling on Humanity checks seems to be the most important task for a Sorcerer GM. Suppose we have are using Empathy/Ability to Have Human Relationships as our Humanity definition. Then which of the following circumstances should require a check?
A character steals a car.
A character steals an ambulance.
...while the paramedics are pulling victims out of a crashed car.
A character mugs a stranger.
A character steals his mother's welfare cheque.
A character defrauds a thousand pensioners of their life savings.
A character kills a mugger.
A character kills an Alzheimer's patient to feed his demon's Need.
A character kills his own abusive father.
A character kills his own decent father, for the inheritance.
A character kills a random stranger, for the fun of it.
A character blows off his girlfriend when she needs support at her mother's funeral.
A character sacrifices his girlfriend's dog in a Summoning ritual.
A character leaves his girlfriend bleeding after a car accident, in order to chase an enemy.
A character uses a demon's power to seduce a porn star.
A character uses a demon's power to seduce a schoolgirl.
A character uses a demon's power to Hold a schoolgirl, while he rapes her.
[/list:u]It seems clear to me that some of these cases are clearly more inhuman than others, but are nonetheless difficult to resolve into a sequence of independent checks.
Thoughts? Farther down in the post from Ron I quoted above, he recommends allowing modifiers for story reasons, such as nailing the themes of a piece. I'm happy to allow such things to trump more mundane judgements when appropriate, but surely that kind of thing doesn't answer the question all the time. For instance, in the rising action phase of the story, it may not be clear what the theme even is, yet. And if part of the point of a Sorcerer story is to explore moral puzzles, a rule that says that all Humanity checks are exactly 50/50 seems strangely restrictive.
I'm interested to see what some other people think of this one.
My answer is largely mathematical and quite boring, so I'll hold off on it for now.
Best,
Ron
I had an answer last night, and my computer ate it. Here's the short version...
Apart from the fact that Sorcerer does backflips to try to avoid this line of thinking (lower Humanity makes you less human, certain actions mean more or cost more in terms of Humanity, etc.), I look at it like this: It's about player resource management. That is, the players know what Humanity is, they know their odds of making or missing a roll, and they know what's at stake. Muddling with any of it, at best, discourages the players from doing some of the mondo crazy shit that makes Sorcerer so intense (and occasionally controversial), and at worst, lessens their impact as co-authors of the story. The GM already has a great deal of power in that he alone calls for loss/gain checks; to give him even more means taking some from the players.
- Scott
Hi Colin,
I would like fisrt to point toward one rule that may be relevent to your point:
In the case of sumoning, the sorcerer can make a sacrifice to gain bonus dice on the ritual roll. He gains a number of bonus dice equal to the stamina or will of the victim, but also has a negative modifier on his humanity check equal to the humanity of the victim (that is, if the victim is a person). -- Sorcerer p.87
So, I don't know if by the rules this is an exemple of heinous act generating malus to Humanity check or if it's intented to be restricted to the case of Sumoning exclusively ?
Also, about the 50/50 change in the Humanity check, I think that's because Humanity tracks the stability of behavior, and isn't an act-by-act kind of tracker.
So yes, you could commit one atrocious act and not suffer HUmanity loss, but if you stay on this road, sooner or later you'll loose those precious point. The same being true for Humanity gain.
Fabrice
The examples will all vary by context. Car stolen from an old lady so she can't get groceries? Or car stolen to go rescue someone in need of help? And who stole it - "a character" isn't much help.
But the "criteria" that I use is in every case is "whenever I feel that it's bad." That is, it's a player-GM thing, not an in-game thing. There is no hard line. It's a way of making what's happening a statment of some sort. When we need to punctuate that statement, I call for a roll. "Look, he did something bad!" Since it's not in-game, there's no reason that the dice have to represent anything in particular - no need to match up the "badness" level.
If you're on the edge of whether something is bad or not, make em roll, and let the dice decide.
The Math answer is (I think) that even just a couple of dice rapidly slant the contest towards losing. Which means that it becomes more of a standard expenditure resource than a gambling resource. This isn't a problem in other contests where the difference becomes also about "by how many dice" you lose by. But Humanity, in order to make it not so volitile that it's meaningless, only has a loss of one at a time.
Therefore, it breaks down if you award bonus dice to one side. Players will note that certain actions will almost always cause the loss, so they'll avoid them. The idea with Sorcerer is to allow players to always risk any action no matter how heinous. We don't want characters that are skirting bad behavior, but who are indulging in it to get what they want.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesThe examples will all vary by context. Car stolen from an old lady so she can't get groceries? Or car stolen to go rescue someone in need of help? And who stole it - "a character" isn't much help.
That was more or less my point, that there are many shades of grey and many degrees of badness.
Quote from: Mike HolmesTherefore, it breaks down if you award bonus dice to one side. Players will note that certain actions will almost always cause the loss, so they'll avoid them. The idea with Sorcerer is to allow players to always risk any action no matter how heinous. We don't want characters that are skirting bad behavior, but who are indulging in it to get what they want.
Aha -- I think I begin to get it. We don't want characters who are tepid about their offences; we want Evil Midnight Bombers. (
"So he says to me, 'You wanna be a baaaaad guy?' And I say yeah, baby! I wanna be bad! I SAYS, SURF'S UP SPACE PONIES! I'M MAKING GRAVY WITHOUT THE LUMPS! Aaaaaa-hahahahaha!") And making the penalty for murder the same as the penalty for blowing off your daughter's recital certainly does provide for a radical moral framework.
Hm.
Hi Colin,
It may help to also recognize that some actions may have greater "emotional" meaning than others depending on the group, and the genre/setting of the game. Shooting down a hundred mooks may have no humanity consequences, but missing the birth of your son for work may have immense implications. Even the same action under different circumstances may yield a Gain roll in one case, a Check in another.
Second, morality in Sorcerer is not a solid, fixed thing. You could succeed every Humanity Check and get away with heinous acts. You could miss the only 3 Checks you get and get damned. Just like the real world, karma isn't 100% predictable and reliable. All you know is that when you do certain types of actions(pissing people off), its only a matter of time and probability before some form of reaction occurs(getting your rear kicked).
Chris
Hiya,
For me, it's a matter of intensity per instance vs. frequency of instances.
It turns out that frequency of instances, even with 50/50 individual outcomes, sets a consistent context for changing or evaluating behavior, across those instances.
That's different from what most of us were taught about learning and changing, that it's consistency of feedback (in this case, the worse you do, the worse you get) that sets that context. Consistency of that sort might help, somtimes, but it's not the key, and often it's actually obstructive.
Or, to put it differently, risk-per-instance is one variable, and number-of-instances is another. I think letting both dials spin at once is inelegant design, which also means confusing in play.
Either you run a single Humanity check (and a single Humanity gain roll) at the end of each session, modified for severity based on how heinous or how great you were, or you run it the way it's written, with a check or gain per action, always at the same risk.
Trying to do both at once - roll per action, but adjust for risk, results in an inconsistent context for evaluating and reflecting on behavior. All of the above responses so far represent various expressions of this principle from different angles.
Note that the above concept only applies for ethical aspects of the Humanity system, not for the demonic ones - those are built to be a function of demon Power and current Humanity, working off a very different mathematical model, brinkmanship.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsEither you run a single Humanity check (and a single Humanity gain roll) at the end of each session, modified for severity based on how heinous or how great you were, or you run it the way it's written, with a check or gain per action, always at the same risk.
Hey, Ron. Does this mean that the rollover mechanic for turning victories into bonus dice does NOT apply to Humanity Checks & Humanity Gains? I always thought it did, but now I'm not so sure.
Hi Michael,
This issue was previously discussed in the same thread that zmook is quoting me from: Rules question: bonuses to Humanity check/gain (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2810). Check it out and let me know if it answers your questions.
Best,
Ron
Rollover has to have some sort of reasonable in-game linkage between the success of the one roll, and the new attempt being made. As such, I can't think of much that would apply. That is, I think that I agree in theory to allow rollover, but I'm not sure I ever would allow it.
Can you think of a compelling example, Michael (or Ron)?
Mike
Thanks for the link, Ron. That clears things up nicely. As does Mike's "In theory, sure. In practice, when?"
Thanks, guys.
Quote from: Michael S. Miller"In theory, sure. In practice, when?"
Hmmm.
Humanity is defined as empathy for the needs of your fellow human beings.
A demon is being summoned using a sexual act with a partner as part of the ritual.
Being sure to completely satisfy your partner before continuing with the ritual...Humanity Gain roll.
What?
Quote from: ValamirHumanity is defined as empathy for the needs of your fellow human beings.
A demon is being summoned using a sexual act with a partner as part of the ritual.
Being sure to completely satisfy your partner before continuing with the ritual...Humanity Gain roll.
What?
Demons are supposed to be defined by whatever is the opposite of Humanity. So if Humanity is empathy, then rituals make you do things that are alienating to your fellow man.
I suppose sex rites would still be an option, but they'd have to be degrading ones.
Also, it seems to me that the bar for Humanity checks and gains has to be set fairly high. Because normal people have Humanity, and they have sex and do good turns for their neighbours and take advantage of their girlfriends every day, but I don't think their Humanity varies very much because of it. It almost seems part of the definition of "ordinary joe" -- you can't tell a very interesting story about them.
[edited for punctuation.]
Hi Colin,
Regarding Ralph's (Valamir's) example, you're thinking perhaps a bit simplistically. The rituals would indeed including non-empathic or even empathy-damaging actions ... but if loopholes exist which permit actions that get you Humanity increase rolls
as well, that's fine.
This is a very interesting and important factor in playing Sorcerer; in some games, a set of actions might result in a whole array of Humanity checks and Humanity gain rolls, even though from the character's point of view, they did relatively few things and in a fairly linear-sensible sequence.
QuoteAlso, it seems to me that the bar for Humanity checks and gains has to be set fairly high. Because normal people have Humanity, and they have sex and do good turns for their neighbours and take advantage of their girlfriends every day, but I don't think their Humanity varies very much because of it.
Whoa ... I really think that actual play is going to alter your thinking about that. That bar should be set among you and the group, relative to the protagonists (player-characters) for that setting and situation, and
that's all. If you try to imagine "the whole game-world" all humming along operating by the rules of the game, and using "how the world would work if" as your standard for utilizing the rules ... well, that's a fast track to missing some of the real strengths of the game.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIf you try to imagine "the whole game-world" all humming along operating by the rules of the game, and using "how the world would work if" as your standard for utilizing the rules ... well, that's a fast track to missing some of the real strengths of the game.
What? Gah. Humanity rules aren't supposed to apply to everybody?
I honestly don't know if I can accept that. If any game mechanic has to apply to everyone in the game world, this is it, isn't it? By definition, Humanity is what humans have. If the characters aren't playing by the same moral rules as everyone else, why should I care about their stories?
Hi Colin,
Well, you can rationailize it with arguably-in-game-world logic if you want to - only sorcerers, who have taken steps to really put their Humanity in jeopardy, have to be monitored in this way - normal folks (i.e., not sorcerers and also not Hitler, a serial killer, or etc.) will never hit 0, and until you hit 0, Humanity means nothing in-game-world.
But the general point is (I think) - Sorcerer isn't trying to model a world, it's trying to model a story (a particular kind of story approached in a particular way, to be more precise). Characters in a story never really play by the same rules as everyone else in the world - they play by the rules of the story. Why should a game have to be any different?
Gordon
Hi Colin,
Heh - that's what Jesse (jburneko) likes to call "Simulationist-by-habit" thinking.
Humanity doesn't refer to what everyone in the game-world has; it refers to the ones we the audience are concerned with.
Now, am I saying that NPCs don't have Humanity scores? Or that they wouldn't make Humanity checks if it were germaine to the conflicts in the game? Or that they have rules for going up and down that are different from the player-characters?
No. I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that characters whose Humanity isn't relevant to the action of what you're creating are simply irrelevant in terms of game processes. That means that if an NPC is relevant to you, if you do care about how Humanity is going for him or her, and if the NPC is tied to a player-character of some kind ... then sure, go by those processes, big-time.
The player-characters already meet all these criteria, which is why they have to follow those rules too. But remember: these rules are for you and the people playing the game with you, not "about the characters" in some kind of representational-model way.
Best,
Ron
Hiya,
Follow-up point: perhaps an easier way to look at the issue is that changes in Humanity are only relevant for a few characters, including the player-characters and a number of NPCs.
What I'm really trying to get at is to abandon consideration of entirely irrelevant NPCs - which is to say, the imaginary world which is not dealt with in actual play at all. Say you're watching, oh, The Seven Samurai. Does it matter at all what's happening with the English and French colonists of North America, contemporary with the events of the film? Must we give any attention, notice, or worries about consistency in the course of making and/or enjoying The Seven Samurai?
It's not a matter of whether those colonists have Humanity scores, or whether they're using "different rules," or anything like that. Such a question is meaningless for story creation.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsHeh - that's what Jesse (jburneko) likes to call "Simulationist-by-habit" thinking.
Is that a such a bad thing? (Although I object to the word 'habit' -- I've given it quite a bit of thought.) And I don't want to try to correct you of all people on what "Simulationist" might mean -- but as I understand it, it describes the
goal of the game, not the elements thereof. Just because Sorcerer's goal is Narrative doesn't mean that the rules should fail to in some fashion simulate reality (I think the word for it in literary circles is 'verisimilitude'.) Narrativism should not be shorthand for "the world does not have to make sense". For example, even fairy tales have rules.
Sorcerer is
about Humanity, and if the rules for Humanity don't have verisimilitude for me, then I can't play the game. By definition, Humanity is what humans have, and for me, that means every person in the game world is in principle subject to the same rules.(*)
Now, don't get me wrong -- I do not for one second contemplate mechanistically working out the Humanity of every random cab driver the PCs come in contact with. I just need to have confidence that, if I did, the results would make sense. I don't mean to contradict what I said earlier, but I take it as axiomatic that everyone is the hero of their own life. I don't really want to create the kind of story where the bit characters do not have stories of their own.
(*) I leave aside settings where Humanity is defined as something like obedience to a social code, explicitly expected only of a certain class of people.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsWhat I'm really trying to get at is to abandon consideration of entirely irrelevant NPCs - which is to say, the imaginary world which is not dealt with in actual play at all. Say you're watching, oh, The Seven Samurai. Does it matter at all what's happening with the English and French colonists of North America, contemporary with the events of the film?
Oh, geez, no, of course not. That's not what I'm getting at at all.
Let's take a specific example. Suppose the setting is modern and Humanity is something like Empathy or The Ability to Form Relationships with Others. In such a case, all the kinds of miscellaneous assholery we all do every day to/with our family and lovers -- it's all relevant to Humanity checks. And then I need to feel confident that whatever standard I adopt for "how big a dick does a character have to be before he has to make a Humanity check" doesn't imply that every third frat boy will have Humanity 0. Because the frat boys are in the game -- they could end up on screen at any time.
Hi Colin,
You wrote,
QuoteAnd then I need to feel confident that whatever standard I adopt for "how big a dick does a character have to be before he has to make a Humanity check" doesn't imply that every third frat boy will have Humanity 0.
Seems like you've answered your own question. As a GM, during play, call for player-character Humanity checks at a rate that doesn't violate your frat-boy-NPC standard.
... with the proviso that we're talking about actual story-relevant NPC frat-boys, not just any ol' frat boy who conceivably (when the dog howls, when it rains on Tuesday, etc) could enter play.
... and with the further point that I think that's kind of backwards - I'd start with the player-characters and front-and-center NPCs, and then let other NPCs' Humanity take care of itself as a reflection or mirror of that standard, but that's just me. If your approach works for you, then that's excellent.
With respect, this discussion has a certain timid-virgin ring to it. It's like ... um, well, say the, ah, virgin is making this big decision about whether to have sex with you or not. And (bear with me, gender assumptions and all) she is discussing all sorts of maybe's and if's and what-about's, and her examples get more and more far-fetched and more irrelevant to the moment at hand, considering that her shirt's off and all that.
After a certain point, that discussion is a smoke-screen - if you persist in answering and clarifying and soothing and all that kind of responding, guess what? She gets farther and farther away from actually buckling down and givin' it up to you, specifically. In fact, it's quite likely that nothing will happen tonight, that she'll have sex with Thor the biker guy at the next party when he flashes his teeth at her, and that she will always remember you as a wonderful friend.
So although your questions are excellent and this discussion has revealed a number of very good, experienced takes on the issue, perhaps it's time to, uh ...
... OK, that's enough of that metaphor.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Fabrice G.
In the case of sumoning, the sorcerer can make a sacrifice to gain bonus dice on the ritual roll. He gains a number of bonus dice equal to the stamina or will of the victim, but also has a negative modifier on his humanity check equal to the humanity of the victim (that is, if the victim is a person). -- Sorcerer p.87
Hold on... isn't it that human sacrifice imposes an additional Humanity check rolled against the victim's Humanity instead of your own?
Quote from: zmookLet's take a specific example. Suppose the setting is modern and Humanity is something like Empathy or The Ability to Form Relationships with Others. In such a case, all the kinds of miscellaneous assholery we all do every day to/with our family and lovers -- it's all relevant to Humanity checks. And then I need to feel confident that whatever standard I adopt for "how big a dick does a character have to be before he has to make a Humanity check" doesn't imply that every third frat boy will have Humanity 0. Because the frat boys are in the game -- they could end up on screen at any time.
Okay, IIRC, the only thing the rules explicitly say about the consequences of Humanity 0 are that the player loses control of the character to the GM. In the case of NPCs, this is meaningless. In this hard, mechanical aspect, it doesn't matter if an NPC has Humanity zero or a hundred, it's still the GM's character.
Now, the game also suggests that you customize the effects of Humanity 0 to fit the Humanity definition. In your example, I figure it would be "incapable of forming relationships with others." I see no problem with every third frat boy not being able to form relationships with others. Only half kidding: Isn't that a requirement of the rush period? Since the rules leave the possiblity of returning to Humanity 1 from Humanity 0 in the hands of the GM, there's no reason your hypothetical frat boy can't grow out of his jerk-stage into a responsible adult.
Michael's got it. Theoretically, any & all NPCs have a Humanity of zero. The only really relevant Humanity belongs to the PCs. When a PC's Humanity drops to zero, does it mean the character is now an irredeemable bastard? No, it just means they've lost touch with that essential grasp on regular, not-corrupted-by-demons spark.
So, Humanity is, say, "empathy for others." A PC's Humanity drops to zero. This doesn't mean the PC (now an NPC) walks around killing people right & left, tripping old ladies trying to cross the street, taking candy from little kiddies--the character doesn't suddenly become a character in kpfs. It just means that the character has lost that empathy. They may still do good things, but not for empathetic reasons.
At any rate, you can assume that many people have zero Humanity. Or a high Humanity rating. As Ron's said, unless the NPC comes into play, their Humanity rating is irrelevant to the point of being non-existent. Humanity doesn't exist within the game world, it exists outside, defining the game world & defining the PCs & their actions.
Ah, jeez, Michael, you nailed it 100 times better than I did.
Note to self: "the rules are good, they are better than your ability to explain them, always go back and look at the rules."
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsWith respect, this discussion has a certain timid-virgin ring to it.
Not so much timid as frustrated. Life keeps getting in the way of my gaming time.
Quote from: Ron Edwards... OK, that's enough of that metaphor.
Yeah, thanks. :-P
Quote from: joshua neffMichael's got it. Theoretically, any & all NPCs have a Humanity of zero. The only really relevant Humanity belongs to the PCs. When a PC's Humanity drops to zero, does it mean the character is now an irredeemable bastard? No, it just means they've lost touch with that essential grasp on regular, not-corrupted-by-demons spark.
Aha!
Thanks, everybody.