Playing again. Sort of.

[Jake Norwood]

So after a multiyear hiatus of gaming I got together with some members of my college gaming group over Thanksgiving. We played like highschoolers again, finishing an entire story in two very long sessions of nonstop caffeine-fueled gaming. The game was Sorcerer, a game which, I think for the first time, I actually really got in-play.

The first improvement to our play was that we spent the time to create a shared space before playing and generating characters. Sorcerer has a framework for this, of course, in its definitions of humanity, demons, etc. We defined humanity, loosely, as the value of human life. All demons (at least starting demons) were parasites in the form of blood (universal need: the host must drink human blood to the point of killing the victim). The starting concept was something like Vampires, quite a bit more Anne Rice than WoD, but once other rituals and demon types entered the picture it morphed gleefully.

At the close of play we all decided that we must play again, so we set up a weekly online meeting using Ventrilo, a voice-chat program used by online computer game players.

We have successfully met up this way every week, although several sessions were swallowed up in either getting the computer settings right or just BS-ing about this and that. Normally I hate that sort of thing taking over a gaming session, but more on that later. We have successfully played thrice. Once to run Sorcerer again (it fizzled, see below), once to pick a system and make characters for the next game, once to play the next game.

Observations (this is the discussion part of my ramble)

1. I have no idea how to use the "Fast" ability for demons. Really. I'm not sure if the players noticed, of course, but one of these days I've got to figure that one out.

2. The idea of Premise in Sorcerer had never previously really gotten past "what will you do to get what you want" for me. It never took on much more firmness, like Jell-O that you forget to chill first. This game changed a lot of that. In defining Humanity as we did and setting up that nasty universal need, conflict was created. Conflict is, of course, the fuel for all this kind of stuff. It was great to see one player hoard her character's Humanity, carefully guarding her actions, never going into a bloodletting spree, and killing other vampires (banishing their parasite with a stake, etc.) to bring up her Humanity more. At the same time, her character was actually the least "human" of them all...colder, more dispassionate, lonelier. It did an excellent job of showcasing the (common?) error of viewing Humanity as a measure of how, um, "human" you are. Another player's character killed, slaughtered, bound the parasite demons of vanquished foes, etc., until he rather consistently hovered at 1 Humanity. And yet, it was his clear that his character's insecurities, passions, and so on was an expression of his characters human-ness. Part of what I loved is that this paradox was the exact exploration of premise discussed in a recent thread on the Adept Press forum. Premise in Sorcerer does not assign clear value judgements--it leaves that (a) up to the play group and (b) focuses on the question as opposed to the answer. Kind of zen, really.

3. When a story is told, it's told. We tried to continue the game online following the previous story's climactic conclusion (lots of blood...it's me) in the first online game. That follow-on session was quite good, but my heart wasn't in it. It's like watching a sequel too soon after the original when the sequel was clearly not part of the original plan (even if odds and ends were left open in the original for a sequel). Compare the Lord of the Rings (sequels = part of the same story) to Underworld and Underworld II (sequel is superficially and cosmetically related to the original, but it's a different story which needs its own time). So we decided that although we may come back to these characters and their overarching "story" eventually (and to Sorcerer certainly), now was not the time. We moved on to create our next story together.

4. BSing instead of playing. I normally hate this, but on two occassions our group just talked about whatever instead of even getting to the game at all. This did a few things that we needed, though. First, it made us comfortable with the mode of commuication (online voice chat), second--and more importantly--it made us comfortble with each other. These guys are some of my best friends ever, but it had been a long time. Without seeing each other it was important to get reacquainted since gaming is, after all, a social activity and directly reflects not only the individual mental and emotional states of the players, but also the "groupthink" (or lack thereof) of the whole.

5. System does matter. This is a serious "duh" to everyone here, but I want to hit on it again. For the new game we're running a vaguely Firefly inspired sci-fi story with some details stolen from Asimov (the most valuable commodity is ice, pulled in huge ice-teriods across space by "tugboats"). The game takes place on the frontier, as it were, and it will very clearly be a western, in space, with tugboats instead of sexy BSG type vipers. On a lark of indecision we selected GURPS for our system because (a) it has an online character generator (b) GURPS lite is free, so our two players (of four) that don't have a copy of the full book can particpate more fully and (c) the rest of us were very familiar with it from high school (15 years ago, sure, but who's counting).

For a group which is solidly Narrativist with a wicked streak of residual Simulationist (do we even use those terms anymore around here anymore? I should rather say that our first priority is "story now" but we really harbor a resiudal love for the "right to dream," focusing more on exploration of system as opposed to exploration of setting...), GURPS is probably not the right system, especially when the online voice chat dynamic enters the picture. Rule-heavy games, to include my beloved TROS, only really function at full capacity when all players know the system well and are willing and able to put the time into "doing it right." Without the ability to teach other players face-to-face and to pass around the book, the handling time on such systems increases to largely unmanageable levels, especially when your session is only going to be 2 hours once a week. So not only does the system pooly support our first priorty (story now), but it's too unwieldy in our play context for the second priority (something that it otherwise does pretty well).

So, we've done what we all do with games that don't fit our needs...we've drifted it. We only use a few skills, use advantages and disadvantages for color, ignore quirks, roll pretty much everything else straight off of the 4 GURPS stats, and have ignored the total point value of each character entirely (meaning that we've ignored character advancement, too, at least in any traditional sense). I'd change the game outright, but I'm not sure I want to do that now that we've started something that will only last maybe 5 sessions anyway. Plus, as we know, system does matter...and a new system will ever-so-slightly (or dramatically) change the premise, tone, etc. of the game.

I could have (and still might?) run it with Over the Edge, which suits the needs of online play better, not to mention the whole Nar thing. Alternately, Sorcerer, where the ship is a demon, could have been pretty cool (but oh, the change in tone). I don't have Burning Empires yet, though that would have been great, I'm sure, if all of the players knew the system. Burning Wheel is next on our list, but I digress...

6. I was going to talk about our last session, with its pros and cons, etc., but this is a long post already. So, um, maybe later.

Good to have something to post about out here again.

Jake

[James_Nostack]

Hi Jake, it sounds like you guys had a pretty good time, at least with the first few games!  That moral conundrum you mentioned regarding humanity scores sounds like it would be one of the most rewarding parts of playing Sorcerer--"This guy ought to be a monster, but I still kinda like him; she's so good, but God she disgusts me."  Discovering, or creating, these weird cracks in our moral foundation seem to be what the game's about.

You know, I don't think I've ever seen an AP report for Sorcerer where the players were like, "Hey, we resolved our kickers: let's use these guys again, with different kickers."  It seems to be a bit like second and third seasons of the same Primetime Adventures series: I guess it could happen, but I haven't seen it. 

Most importantly, it's great that you managed to reconnect with some old friends, and have fun playing a game and tellin' stories & such.  I wonder what Adam Verone, Tim Melvin and Hollis Waite are up to: if any of you are reading this, PM me!

[Jake Norwood]

Hi James.

Incidentally, since we geared up for a second story in Sorcerer (which fizzled, like I said), we actually did come up with new kickers and did the "character advancement" portion of Sorcerer...two things I'd never done before. Funny thing is, the new kickers were much better than the original ones and I think that the character advancement portion of Sorcerer is one of it's great strengths which, as discussed, is probably largely undiscovered, even by some veteran players of Sorcerer.

I think that the nature of the game is so exhausting, however, that even with all that goodness you just end up walking away to maintain your sanity.

That might work differently for a Sorcerer and Sword game using the "campaign" rules there, since it arcs a little differently.

Jake

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Fantastic! I really like the purity of your setup, in the definition of Humanity and in the basic and clear nature of the Need.

The part that makes me sad is the fizzling. Tell me if I have this right - the first story was face to face, but the second was planned for some kind of internet medium, right? If so, then I'm sad but not surprised. Sorcerer, it seems to me, relies very heavily on the unique dynamics of face-to-face communication.

As for Fast, here's how it works.

1. The case of a demon who makes another person faster. Let's give the person Stamina 2 and the demon Power 6. Let's say the person is engaged in some sort of combat in which he and a bunch of other people are all fighting with tire irons, and the ability is currently on.

For that person, roll six dice, with four of them being a particular different color than the others. Set the order of that person's action according to all six dice. However, when that person's turn comes up, only use the two "real" dice (his Stamina) values for the effect; i.e., what the defending individual has to roll against.

2. The case of a demon who makes itself faster. Let's give the demon Stamina 5 and Power 6. Let's say it is engaged in some sort of combat in which it and a bunch of other people are all fighting with tire irons, and the ability is currently on.

For that demon, roll six dice, with one of them being a particular different color than the others. Set the order of that demon's action according to all six dice. However, when that demon's turn comes up, only use the five "real" dice (its Stamina) values for the effect, i.e., what the defending individual has to roll against.

Finally, note that all of the above counts no matter what action is being taken, and what score is being utilized.

Also, check these out:

Questions on Fast and Parasite Stamina (this is pretty old, but I think it's the first time the solution is mentioned, so I include to give the person credit)
Demon abilities in combat
[Sorcerer] Damage effects and demon abilities

Let me know if that helps and if you have any other questions.

Best, Ron

[Jake Norwood]

Ron,

That, I believe, solves my Fast problem altogether. We were rolling the demon's power at the beginning of the "round" for initiative, but then re-rolling stamina (or whatever) when it was that player's turn, which seemed pretty wrong. The multi-colored die thing works great.

Second issue, the fizzle, has little to do with Sorcerer as a system, I think. In fact, I'm pretty strongly considering Sorcerer for future online play since the rules capitalize on decisions and verbal interaction over stats, skills, numbers, and so on. I think the source of that fizzle was really my fault--all the players were on board (and had bought books), but I had lost interest in that story and I wanted to move on to something else. The switch from one medium (face to face) versus another (voice chat) probably did contribute to the problem, however, in that play-group expectations really needed a re-set. Carrying on a game that had been smashingly successful in person led to unrealistic expectations for what we could (at least currently) accomplish under this new medium. A fresh game (both system and "story") helped re-set those expectations. I think we could return to Sorcerer (possibly even those characters, though I hate to stay in one place for very long with my games) in a few weeks with success.

As for the "purity of setup," I agree that that was probably the factor which most strongly contributed to success. Previously when playing sorcerer we just sort of did "you can summon whatever you want, however you want." By using Sorcerer to mold around a more cohesive idea and setting up boundaries play became much stronger, and defining needs, demon types, etc., became easy. The practice of definining things is crucial in Sorcerer, I see now. Here are some more things we did:

-All prices were traditional vampiric sort of things. Sunlight, garlic, etc.
-Telltales were vampiric for PCs and highly individualized for the parasite demons. Whenever a parasite's power was in use the telltale would show pretty obviously, which lead to some great color.
-Banishing, as I previously mentioned, required pounding a stake (another demon, incidentally) into the host's heart. Once the host was dying the soon-to-be-homeless parasite could be bound by another sorcerer by drinking the blood. Thus the more murderous character, by the end of the first story, had four very similar, very needy, very very very powerful (Power 13 was average, I think) parasite demons in his blood.
-Humanity 0 being loss of character to the parasite(s), becoming "Nosferatu"

As players got comfortable within these boundaries I moved a little outside of simple vampiric lore, introducing a Passer demon bound to the villain (another vampire) and therefore other rituals, etc. Another fun thing was that the Holy Order of Cornelius, or the "Cornelians," an order of monks who, predictably, hunt vampires. All they really are, though, is another group of sorcerers. Their demons are all inconspicuous or item demons. The "ah hah" moment was when the players realized that they and the Cornelians were the same thing, sorcerers, who had simply stumbled across a different first demon. Fun.

Good stuff. Glad to be playing again.

Jake

[Ron Edwards]

Institutional memory is a wonderful thing! Check out THIRST: what do you do? and Random vampire game mechanic thoughts from 2002.

Clearly you did a little mechanics-driven deconstruction on the vampire concept, which is cool. I'm also interested in what, if anything, differed thematically from the Rice concept, especially as you knew and enjoyed it over a decade ago?

Best, Ron

[Jake Norwood]

Institutional memory is a wonderful thing! Check out THIRST: what do you do? and Random vampire game mechanic thoughts from 2002.

Clearly you did a little mechanics-driven deconstruction on the vampire concept, which is cool. I'm also interested in what, if anything, differed thematically from the Rice concept, especially as you knew and enjoyed it over a decade ago?

Best, Ron

Wow, there's a lot here, and I don't know that I have time to address it all, so if I miss anything just poke me again.

First I want to hit on those threads. In Random vampire game mechanic thoughts I wrote:

I would actually avoid the beast to some degree...it seems like a lame excuse to be bad to me. If I'm bad, it's on *my* head, not some beast that lives within (but that isn't really me). What makes beast mechanics not work (to me) is the lack of control. I think a vampire is *all* about control, and that it's even scarier when the bad things he does are by-products of his choice to control, not his loss of it.

This is part of why I loved Sorcerer for this idea, and part of why I gave up on writing my own and just modified it as an in-house mini-supplement to Sorcerer instead of a brand new game.

Sorcerer's base-line premise, "What would you do to get what you want?" Is really at the heart, if you ask me, of all Rice-style Vampire fiction. What you want initially, of course, is Immortality (although often it's a death-wish at the same time, and interesting OT paradox). But once you've got it, you want to connect to people, you find others like you, and you work to maintain your immortality even at the cost of those others. This suited Sorcerer to me perfectly, and my own previous designs failed to hit that as succinctly. My focus changed from exploration of immortality while possessing vampiric super-powers to the more interesting (to me) challenge of "how far will I go," which is really what gaming has always been about for me, anyway (just look at TROS).

The Control issue is present in Sorcerer as well, though I'm not fully satisfied with how I handled it in-play. When a player was feeding and chose not to kill they contested Humanity against the Demon's (or Demons') Power.  If the Demon won they killed, plain as that. I let the players take ownership of the killing, of course--describe it, etc.--and I avoided the V:tM type faux remorse in favor of making victims generally likable and letting the player deal with the issue instead. I feel that failed (a little) on two ends. First, I took away (some) control in the Humanity Roll; second, I let them blame the beast for some of their evil...which isn't what should really be. The plus side is that it generated regular complications in the plot line, including a PC killing a human they really liked and had bigger plans for. It was fascinating to see that little bit of genuine remorse followed by a decision that humans are, after all, expendable. And that meant a Humanity check (which I found very effective).

I'm out of time for now. I'll hit the rest later, but feel free to comment now.

Jake

[W. Don]

Hi there.

I think the source of that fizzle was really my fault--all the players were on board (and had bought books), but I had lost interest in that story and I wanted to move on to something else. The switch from one medium (face to face) versus another (voice chat) probably did contribute to the problem, however, in that play-group expectations really needed a re-set. Carrying on a game that had been smashingly successful in person led to unrealistic expectations for what we could (at least currently) accomplish under this new medium. A fresh game (both system and "story") helped re-set those expectations.

I know you've already stated that it was your wanting to move on that cause the fizzle, and that's that. However, I'm curious about those expectations — the ones specific to shifting to another medium of play.

Those are a huge deal. I'm finding out for myself just how huge in the process (ongoing) of transitioning my play group from a decade of face-to-face to stark text only, e-mail play. A lot of it seems to be "How do we do this?", not so much in a rules sense, but in a more basic, general process sense. (I hope to post a bit more on this later on.)

Did you and the group know what to expect? (E.g. "To play, we talk. This is how we talk...") Was this process of play discussed at the outset? Do you think it could've helped if it was?

In fact, I'm pretty strongly considering Sorcerer for future online play since the rules capitalize on decisions and verbal interaction over stats, skills, numbers, and so on.

Yeah. Out of a bunch of games, we chose Sorcerer for our play-by-mail. For me, the thing that clinched the deal was its emphasis on free and open discussion as the means for fleshing out things before the dice are rolled.

Thanks for your post, Jake. It's given me things about my e-mail game thingie to mull about.

  — W.

[Jake Norwood]

Hi there.

I know you've already stated that it was your wanting to move on that cause the fizzle, and that's that. However, I'm curious about those expectations — the ones specific to shifting to another medium of play.

Those are a huge deal. I'm finding out for myself just how huge in the process (ongoing) of transitioning my play group from a decade of face-to-face to stark text only, e-mail play. A lot of it seems to be "How do we do this?", not so much in a rules sense, but in a more basic, general process sense. (I hope to post a bit more on this later on.)

Did you and the group know what to expect? (E.g. "To play, we talk. This is how we talk...") Was this process of play discussed at the outset? Do you think it could've helped if it was?

I'm pretty sure we didn't. One of us had done it before, but playing a more tactical type D&D game using the MapTools program, so it's a much different experience. Talking about it before hand might have helped, but it could have hindered, too, since you begin the game with lots of new protocalls to try and remember...it would have stiffened it up some, I think.

As for expectations...So much of the way we play is reliant on subtle body signals, etc. As a players we are all, to one degree or another, performers (especially the GM), and without audience reaction to play off of it becomes more like radio and less like theatre, with all that that entails.

Jake