Sorcerer, FitM, and Cinematic Narration

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi all,

This post is divided into two parts: a preamble and then the actual meat for thread discussion.

So... The twenty-something's in my graphics department discovered I used to write for D&D (generic usage) and other roleplaying games. I was elevated to a demi-god status immediately.

Who knew?

Last week one of them asked, "So, would you run a game for us?"

I like them. I like working with them. I said, "Sure." And then I said, "But first we're going to talk about what kinds of things have excited you in the past about RPGs, and I'm going to bounce a few ideas off of you about what I'd like to do, and what kinds of games I'd be interested in playing."

There are three people (it looks like) who will be in the game: one of the designers, the head of the designers, and the head of the designers girl friend. Both the designer and the girlfriend have played before. Both haven't played for a while. The girlfriend moved out from Texas with the head of the designers. Both of these people, I suspect, are looking to connect with something from their past. The head of the designers hasn't played before, but his girlfriend has talked RPGs and wants to give it a try and -- I suspect -- get her plugged into something beside him.

After a bit of discussion followed and several things became clear:

As I suspected, nostalgia is a big impulse for the designer. He even used the word nostalgia. I made one thing very clear: "I don't do nostalgia. I'm not interested in running any version of D&D. There are games I want to play now. If you'd like to join me after I explain them to you, I think that's going to be great."

The designer, when asked about what turned him on in previous games, seemed pretty cool-Sim-exploration. I have no idea if this is all he wants to play. (Who knows?) After digging deeper, I found out he really loved the MONSTERS -- all the COOL MONSTERS -- from the AD&D books. The head of the designers nodded his head enthusiastically.

So, whatever I present I knew had to have a lot of graphic coolness. These guys are artists and animators, and they want pretty pictures. (Which I'm glad to provide, by the way.)

My mind immediately shot toward Sorcerer & Sword -- with lots of weird tales dark fantasy elements and creatures.

I'll be bringing in the books this week, as well as the Conan and Elric books and images.

There's going to be a bit of an uphill issue here: the gang knows fantasy from D&D and movies. I'm looking for something else. While this isn't an insurmountable issue, it means testing for interest in these early stages to make sure a) they're actually interested in the wares I have to offer; b) I'm not fooling myself into thinking they're more interested than they are if, in fact, they're willing to keep nodding their heads because they think they're going to get D&D.

That all said, if we move forward, I'll be using Sorcerer -- and that means a lot of RPG assumptios and habits will be tested even if they get and want to play Sorcerer and Sword like frothing weasels.

And when I refer to assumptions and habits, I mean MINE as well. After reviewing my roleplaying experiences in the last few years (after bumping into the Forge), it amazes me how often I revert back to old habits (Golden Rule; ignoring rules out of the blue to "Keep the Fight Going;" feeling obliged, on occassion, to keep control of "the story" for the players, and more.)

So I have to be vigilant here. I'll be setting the tone, tempo and expecations. I'm been poking around the Forge and the new games long enough to notice players where I trip myself up -- and where I can expect other players to trip up.

That all said, let's talk about Fortune in the Middle and Narration.

******
On another thread, Ron wrote in response to Jesse:

"I didn't realize that the initiative point was FIXED in  Sorcerer."

That's correct. Announcement is announcement, and resolution is resolution. Admissible choices during resolution are only for defensive rolls. No saved actions!!

I think one "filthy secret" of unreconstructed role-playing is that Drama methods are the bread-and-butter of combat, in the form of changing one's action during the moment of resolution. This is where the role-player gets to twiddle and fiddle with what's happening, all under the guise of formal mechanics but actually using informal Drama.

Well, Sorcerer puts the system-monkey's money where his mouth is. You want Fortune methods and system to be involved? Here you go. You've got plenty of free time, with no commitments, to settle what it is you want to do. After that, the system speaks. When it speaks, you listen. THEN, for the reactive rolls and so on, you get to twiddle again. (That's why it's Fortune-in-the-middle.) But while the system speaks, no fiddling.

That's why the player who's used to Champions, GURPS, Rolemaster, and even Feng Shui is going to be disoriented. His prized moment of power is utterly gone, or rather, transferred into the announcement phase and put out into the open.

This is one of those elements that I'm pretty sure are going to trip up my two players with previous experience -- and ME if I'm not careful.

In another thread, Ron writes that, "I beat the crap out of him with a flurry of crunching tire iron blows," is a worthy phrasing of the combat round. He then writes, in another thread, that after the dice fall there's a period of "re-writing" that takes place as every catches up to what actions take place and in what order.

While there's nothing wrong with the this "re-writing" phase, I'm not to keen on it. It seems to me that it only encourages the confusion for those of us used to the older model -- and really won't make much sense to someone who's never played an RPG game before.[i/]

I've been turning the matter around in my head the last couple of days and came up with this:

Even in the examples of play I see of using the systerm well, the narration carries with it implications of future results. If a player says, "I beat the crap out of him with a flurry of crunching tire iron blows," well, maybe he will, maybe he won't.

Now, this may not be that big a deal for many people. And what I'm about to propose might be so subtle as to be laughable given the heft of the set-up.... but for my play, I think it would be cooler if the player narrarted what was happening up to the moment of the dice hitting the table... Leaving the visual description of what is to follow after, you know, the dice fall.

So the phrasing might be, "I rush toward him -- tire iron gripped tight -- raising it high, ready to beat the crap out of him."

Again, this is a really tiny thing. But it clicks with me because of screenwriting.

In one of the resolution threads, Ron suggesed to Jesse that he see the dice like a camera turning moment to moment to reveal what's happening. That clicked somethig for me. If that's true, why not focus on the actual visual image before the dice are rolled?

You write what the audience would see at that moment: "Bill ran toward the villain, tire iron raised high, ready to beat the crap out of the guy." If you write, "Bill beat the crap out of him with a flurry of crunching tire iron blows," it's already happened and that's that.

So, the declarations would be:

* "Thinking of my dead wife, I reel back from his blow, ready to wail on him with my fists." (Instead of, "I wail on him with my fists as I think about my dead wife.")
* "My guy bolts for the cargo lift in an all out sprint, chest tightening, his whole focus on needing to stop the Alien Queen." (Instead of "My guy runs to the cargo lifter.")
* "In a panic I realize all I can do is scream their names, hoping to get them stop." (Instead of, "I scream to make them stop."

That's it, really. The idea is to stay focused on the narration of the moment. Yes, the character has an agenda (beat the crap out off the guy, reach the cargo lift, get everyone to stop), but the focus isn't on the result in the narration, but a tighter description of the moment at hand... with extra details about the character's emotional and physical state to fill out the declaration. Which I think is cool.

I have no idea what's going to happen with everyone's syntax -- including mine. It'll be an odd habit to break for some of us -- stating what's actually happening rather than the anticipation of what might not happen. It might not matter that much. I might drop it after some experimentation.

But it is one step I'm going to try to help focus and make more naturual Sorcerer's excellent resolution system.

Christopher

[Christopher Kubasik]

Oops. It's been a while. Forgot to preview. Can't edit. Hope the screwed up italics don't throw everybody off.

Christopher

[Eric J-D]

Christopher,

First a belated congratulations on the Emmy nomination thing.  I think that's really wonderful and was very impressed by your post thanking folks at the Forge for the contributions they have made to your work as a writer.

Now, on to the post:

My first reaction to what you wrote is: "Wow, I'm glad that he realizes that this is going to be an uphill struggle" because it sounds like the guy with the nostalgia for monsters and  Sim priorities might balk at Sorcerer.  Don't get me wrong: I think you are absolutely doing the right thing in giving them the books and having a chat about how Sorcerer differs from D&D but I wonder how it is all going to work out.

If it's cool color they are looking for and want to explore rather than engaging in narrativist play, you might be better off with something other than Sorcerer & Sword.  Didn't Jared have a free download of a sword and sorcery version of  octaNe available?  Maybe that would be a better fit if these folks just want to do some cool exploration of s&s color.

If however they really do want something more in line with Sorcerer's priorities then go for it and keep us updated about how it goes.  I'd be really interested to hear how these folks take to it.

As for your specific questions about declarations within scenes of conflict, I'd say that your approach sounds fine but that it might mean in practice that the players don't get to add as many dice to their pool when rolling to see what happens.  Perhaps I'm dead wrong about this, but it occurs to me that stopping short of declaring what you *hope* will be the result of your action might mean that players generally don't get to pile on the bonus dice (which, mechanically, work as a kind of insurance and make it more likely that what the player *hopes* will happen *actually* happens once the dice hit the table).

Does that make sense or is that completely daft?

Anyway, it'll be interesting to hear what Ron and all the rest have to say.  I hope your discussion goes well.

Eric 

[Bankuei]

Hi Christopher,

For folks who've really only known D&D, do you -really- want to start them off with Sorcerer?  Does anything like Donjon or octaNe appeal to you? (octaNe had some really awesome sword and sorcery add-on rules, "Blood & Steel" that I've used a couple of times).

I've generally found that people need explicit rules on player input and narration as training wheels to dislodge the GM Fiat and "follow the hooks" play before they can settle comfortably into other games.

Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

I Eric,

Thanks for the comments.

First point: I'm not worried at all. By my temperament, I'm not going to retreat from what I want to try -- which at this point is simply an invitation. There's really not enough on the table to know whether it will work or not work.

Does he have Sim priorties? Who knows? Not me, not yet, not after only a little bit of talking. Matters to keep in mind:

1) who knows what he'd like if exposed to something else?
2) who knows what he still likes, since the D&D games was then and this is now. He was reaching back to what turned him on then...
3) When I mentiond the demons and getting powers from them but at a cost, both of the art department guys seemed intrigued. We'll find out how intrigued with a bit more discussion.

Certainly color won't be the issue. Narrative priorities don't clash with good color. (At it's best, Premise and Color bounce off each other beautifully. Favorite example: Crouching Tiger, Hiden Dragon, a movie about the choice of being grounded or floating away in life.)

(By the way, what I just wrote in that last paragraph is REALLY important! Color and Premise do not clash! Prioritizing playing Mr. Wizard with the fictional world and Prioritizing Premise will lead to trouble. But color and and premise were made for each other like a man and a womans genitalia.)

And finally, Sorcerer & Sword is rich in color potential. One of the guys was going on and on about mind flayers. I can do mind flayers in my sleep. No problemo.

It sounds like he had an illusionsist GM who did cool color really well. But does that mean he liked exploring the world, or liked having cool stuff delivered on a platter. Right now I have no idea. But I do know if he's expecting me to deliver stuff on a platter, another game system isn't going to help. I want active players. We'll find out if we'll fit soon enough.

*****

As for the verbiage issue:

Yes, I thought of that. And then I thought how weird it is to have people getting bonuses for descriptions of things that don't happen (if they don't due to the dice.)

I believe when the emphasis is placed on the actual moment before the dice rolls, the bonuses are still there. But they're actions of the moment. We'll get more detail about the character's actual physical condition, emotional responses, and state of mind.

For narrativism, and especially conflict resolution, I think that change in emphasis is cool and appropriate.

Remember, the standard combat declaration is, "I hit him." What does that tell us about the character and the moment? Nothing. That's why its so frustrating as a statement. (And, going back to Ron's quote in my first post, it's the Players bid to start controlling the Drama -- if I say "I hit him" we're already on the fifty yard line to negotiating a hit with words!)

To simply add more fanciful combat moves doesn't help me much either. But tell me what the character is going through, that sounds fun.

How a character is taking action, what that action is, what words the player uses, how creative the plan is.... all that can be determined in this scheme and all awarded bonuses.

So, if the player (a la Ripley in Aliens), does a mad dash for the Cargo Lifter to defeat the Alien Queen, the player is already getting a die for the plan... Cause that's cool. I'm just saying the player doesn't say, "I get to the cargo lifter." The player says, "The little girl's screams are in my chest as I break at a sprint for the Cargo Lifter." Yeah. There's a die in there as well.

Christopher

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Chris,

Wow. Now I don't know how to respond.

Eric suggested they may not like Sorcerer and Sword. Which I accept.

But assuming they can't do it?

Now, I see your point. I really do. And suddenly I'm concerned.

But... Maybe I am wrong about all this.... But you know, the older I get, the more training wheels seem like a really bad idea.

You do something by doing it. Not by getting ready to do it. And yes, there's a learning curve -- and you take your time up that curve.

I truly believe that if I'm generous in the game, confident with the material and prepared for a good time, it's all going to work great. Call me crazy, but I think we'll get there.

Now, in part this is because I want to play Sorcerer & Sword. (Or Heroquest.) That's pretty much it for me. So if they don't want to play, cool. If we try it and it doesn't work. Cool. But I can't hold faith with myself by doing something I don't want to do for the sake of maybe keeping other people safe. (Lived a big chunk of my life that way, before, by the way....Never did me much good.)

Now, I'll certainly listen to ideas on how to ease such players into S&Sword. I mean, that's essentially what this thread is about already.

I'm already planning on having the Binding sequence be a little prologue for each character (or another prologue of some sort if the PC doesn't have a demon). The focus will be on the PC, and I'll make it clear this prologue is about them defining more about the character for themselves and the rest of us at the table. I think that will start us on the right track (the base of the learning curve, if you will.)

Now, if a bunch of people charge in and say, "I've never seen it work. D&D GM fiat to Sorcerer. Never left a room without blood on the walls." I'll listen. But I'm very interested in people's experiences with Sorcerer players with GM fiat style play behind them, what worked and what didn't. (And that might be a differerent thread. Don't know.)

Thanks,

Christopher

[Bankuei]

Hi Chris,

But assuming they can't do it?

Oh, not like that at all!

I'm saying that sometimes a one-shot or short run of something simple and explicit can cause people to completely redefine what they imagine roleplaying -to be-.

Perhaps "training wheels" is the wrong word, because it's more like a quick reorientation or warm up.

I wasn't suggesting to not play Sorcerer at all, I was suggesting a good way to reframe a standard expection I see in folks familiar to one kind of play.  (and, in a way, it is explicitly about learning by doing- because the player input is so heavy handed, people go "OH!")

I apologize if I came across otherwise.

Chris

[Eric J-D]

Hi again Christopher,

Rereading my earlier post, I realized that perhaps I wasn't being entirely clear about what I see as a *potential* drawback to the approach you described (i.e. stopping short of narrating the desired effect of an action and so forth).  It's funny that you posted this today because only yesterday I was writing up a handout on Sorcerer's initiative system in combat for a group of new players.  Let me use part of the example I wrote up:

Okay, so let's look at a combat scene involving Manny and a couple of Little Joe's thugs.  The thugs have come to beat the crapola out of Manny to instill an important point, one dear to both Little Joe's and old Polonius's heart--"neither a borrower nor a lender be"--at least not unless you plan to pay some serious interest.  But Manny's a bit thick-headed and not so willing to be schooled in the finer points of debt repayment without first testing the tensile strength of his crowbar against goon A and B's noggins.

A fight ensues.

The GM declares that Thug A is going for a haymaker to Manny's jaw while Thug B is going to try to circle around and put a vice lock on Manny's arms.  The Thugs each have 4 Stamina, so they get to roll 4 dice.  Manny's no brute though.  He only has a Stamina of 3.  Luckily, the Gm rules that Manny's crowbar gives him a bit of a reach advantage (+1 die).  So, Manny is looking at an even roll.  However, Manny's player wants more (don't we all?) and declares the following: "Manny brings the crowbar down hard against Thug A's kneecaps in order to bring him down to size and says, 'Hey, while you're down there why don't you put your mouth to good use and blow me!?!'"

The GM (vile person that he is) laughs at this unspeakably crude remark and awards Manny's player an extra die for contributing something resembling wit.  Manny's player is now looking at rolling 5 dice against Thug A and B's 4 dice.  They roll.

......

Okay, so to cut away from the example here's my point.  Say the dice fall in such a way that Thug A  goes first with a very high roll (10, 10, 7, 6), Manny next with a mediocre roll (6, 6, 5, 2, 2) and Thug C last (5, 4, 4, 3).  Given Thug A's high roll, Manny's player sensibly decides to abort, thus negating Manny's action.  So events fall out in such a way that Manny never gets to level Thug A with a blow to the kneecaps nor make his perversely clever reference to fellatio.  So what?  Imagining a scene in which he did, however, earned him those extra dice and made it more possible for things to fall out in the way he originally imagined.  Sadly, the dice didn't affirm this intent, but there's always next time.

I guess my big point is that encouraging the players to go for it in their descriptions and to imagine what the next scene will look like if the dice fall their way helps me as a GM to assess how many extra dice a player should get for a particular scene.  It also helps them to take a lot more ownership of the game and to reinforce the dictum that "role-playing rules the dice."  I'll admit that it takes some folks time to get used to the idea that the dice might require us to edit a bit of that earlier intent, but the gains are worth the slight pains it takes in making this mental adjustment.

Again, I'm not at all sure that the approach you describe is going to lead in a direction in which players won't get these kinds of bonuses, so take all this with a grain of salt.

Cheers,

Eric

[Eric J-D]

Aargh, missed the cross-post in my haste.

I agree in full that color and narrativism are not enemies.  In fact they are good friends.  I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought otherwise.  I was merely trying to say that if exploration of color was really the *only* or undeniably *primary* priority of these folks then perhaps something like Jared's add-on would be a better choice.

Cheers,

Eric

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Eric, I see what you're saying.

And all I'm saying in reply is this: I have no idea yet how what I'm suggesting is going to work. The Sorcerer resolution rules might have been written with the "re-write" phase as a major and needed part of the process. (If Ron wants to jump in on this, I'd love it...)

That said, in your example, our guy still gets to use his blow job line if he succeeds in the previous round -- and getst he die bonus right then and there as he pulls the crowbar back for a swing against Thug A's skull.

Christopher