Sorcerer & Sword Comments

[hardcoremoose]

Enough of us have it now, so I thought I'd start up a new thread to discuss the salient points of the sourcebook.

And what a sourcebook it is!  Fun to read, fantastic artwork, and a proper homage to its source material.  Ron obviously loves this stuff, and it shows.  I read it straight through in pretty much one sitting, and I'm jazzed to play Sorcerer again.

One thing that caught my attention - not only in S&S, but also in the core rulebook - is the breezy, easy way that Ron covers vast amounts of material, especially when it comes to the scenario prep stuff.  It works for me, but then again, I'm already familiar with the terminolgy and theory behind it.  I'm wondering what the non-CoRE contingent makes of this, whether it strikes a chord or not.  Not that I expect to get that answer here, of course.

The part I liked best?  The chapter on setting.  I'm not sure where the idea of growing the setting as you play was first put forth - I know Dying Earth, and maybe Alyria (not sure about about this last) have similar takes on the concept - but this stuff really captured my imagination.  It perfectly describes what first endeared me to the REH stories, and I can't wait to attempt it in play.  

Overall - and here I'm stepping out of my role of fawning sycophant to try to give an honest appraisal - this is one of the best sourcebooks I've ever seen for an existing game.  Awesome.

- Scott

[joshua neff]

Like I said in the other thread, I won't have time to give it a proper read-through until next week. But my first impression: it looks GREAT! I love the cover, the cold-steel logo & the dark-blood background (& Raven, great pic on the cover). And the interior art is gorgeous. Man, this book looks good.

[greyorm]

I'm not sure where the idea of growing the setting as you play was first put forth

If I'm not mistaken, and I can remember accurately that far back, it was first stated in D&D -- either in an article in Dragon magazine or one of the main rule books (likely the 1st Ed DM's Guide).  I remember thinking, "Well THAT'S an interesting way to do things."

So the idea is a fairly old one, but not often used in the vast majority of games on the market (D&D or otherwise), and Ron probably adds some nice Edwardian touches to the concept that make it very useful (I wouldn't know because my copy still hasn't arrived...*sob!*).

[Blake Hutchins]

Heh.  I grew my setting as we played our first game.  That's how we all did it, way back in the Polyester Age.  Just goes to show, the shortest route between two points is a circle.

Best,

Blake

[erithromycin]

Ooh. It's so good it makes me tremble even thinking about it. I just want to say, Ron & Manu, that you can ignore just about everything I said in the Dune/Sorcerer crossover thread. It's all doable with S&S. Which is fantastic. It's so damn friendly, and easy to read. And I have a copy! In Scotland! Haha! Though I did get funny looks when I was doing my Christmas shopping with it in my bag, as I was pulling it out and cackling maniacally as I read it while waiting in queues. So much niceness, so nice to look at. A sterling job. Now to hunker down and wait for Soul in realback...

[Ron Edwards]

Thanks, Drew. As soon as the discussion in the Dune thread turned toward Destiny, rather than demons per se, I said "Spoo! I get it!" and sat back to wait until Sword hit the mailboxes. I'm glad that it's making sense to others too.

I should like to see some Sorc&Sword play in the next few months. Oddly, I got all inspired myself just recently and am prepping up some notions. It will probably have to wait a little while, though.

Best,
Ron

[Eric]

I should like to see some Sorc&Sword play in the next few months.

Third Thursday in January, assuming I have a copy by then and everything else holds steady.

Eric, for whom things rarely hold steady . . .

[Tor Erickson]

Hi Eric,

I think I speak for many here at the Forge when I say that I'd love to hear about your S&S game.  It sounds like you've already gotten to a character creation session (the thread on prices); does that mean you're starting to work out setting details?  

I've never seen an Actual Play S&S game discussion, and I'd be mighty interested to hear how it goes.  I originally wanted to do S&S for our Sorcerer game, but nobody else had a clue as to the source literature and I realized it was going to take too much work to try to explain that "No, sword and sorcerery does not mean Kevin Sorbo as Hercules."

Tor

[hardcoremoose]

I'd love to play some S&S.  My eventual goal is to jump on the mini-supplement bandwagon with a Sorcerer & Sword related product, and I have the bare bones laid out, bleaching in the sun.  But some actual play...that's where it's at...the whole thing would take shape.  However, I'm kind of tapped to run Orkworld for my current group - which I'm really jonesin' about BTW - and anyway, I've run Sorcerer for them before.  I may have to give some of my old gamist/simulationist buddies a call and see if I can goad them into play something "Stormbringeresque".  They love that game.

- Moose  

[Eric]

On 2001-12-22 15:38, Tor Erickson wrote:
Hi Eric,
I think I speak for many here at the Forge when I say that I'd love to hear about your S&S game.  It sounds like you've already gotten to a character creation session (the thread on prices); does that mean you're starting to work out setting details?

Tor, I'd be happy to keep you all posted, but I have to issue the disclaimer that it the game is a port of our 7th Sea campaign which has been on hiatus while we've been playing Ars Magica.

Given that we're coming from an Ars campaign that emphasized politics and magic, I'm hoping that this S&S version of 7th Sea will be more about politics and swordplay.  I really want to see how Ron made Conan into a sorcerer; the party currently has no magic users.

I've never seen an Actual Play S&S game discussion, and I'd be mighty interested to hear how it goes.  I originally wanted to do S&S for our Sorcerer game, but nobody else had a clue as to the source literature and I realized it was going to take too much work to try to explain that "No, sword and sorcerery does not mean Kevin Sorbo as Hercules."
Tor

I don't know how our campaign will compare to a "pure" S&S campaign, but I'll post our experiences for what they are worth.

-- Eric

[Ron Edwards]

Ahhhh ... I see. Thus the Price discussion actually concerned the L5R disadvantage "Brash."

I think the exercise sounds like a lot of fun, and I'd be glad to hear all about it. 'Sword is a very different sort of game in some ways, especially if you're interested in the out-of-chronology sequence of play and Destiny, both of which work well for the Rokugan setting. I suggest examining the differences in combat mechanics very carefully; L5R combat (both iaijutsu and kenjutsu) is designed according to different assumptions of play from Sorcerer's.

Have you read the Tomoe Gozen trilogy by Jessica Amanda Salmnson? I highly recommend it for both games - definitely the type of story representing their zone of overlap. The heroine also presents a good example of sorcerer-by-the-rules in the same way Conan does.

Best,
Ron

[Eric]

On 2001-12-23 12:53, Ron Edwards wrote:
Ahhhh ... I see. Thus the Price discussion actually concerned the L5R disadvantage "Brash."

The current characters have the 7th Sea arcana Overconfident and Hedonist.

I think the exercise sounds like a lot of fun, and I'd be glad to hear all about it. 'Sword is a very different sort of game in some ways, especially if you're interested in the out-of-chronology sequence of play and Destiny, both of which work well for the Rokugan setting. I suggest examining the differences in combat mechanics very carefully; L5R combat (both iaijutsu and kenjutsu) is designed according to different assumptions of play from Sorcerer's.

And of course, 7th Sea is a different game from L5R, although I suppose it is closer to the second edition of L5R.  I've read both editions, and I ran the Hare Clan adventure, but I used it as part of a Feng Shui campaign.

I don't feel a great need to preserve anything more for the original 7th Sea campaign than as much of the characters as the players want, and the basic setup. The game is set in Santa Domingo and the players are the shadow cabinet for the newly appointed Governor, the previous governor having been apparently murdered by his bodyguard.

Have you read the Tomoe Gozen trilogy by Jessica Amanda Salmnson? I highly recommend it for both games - definitely the type of story representing their zone of overlap. The heroine also presents a good example of sorcerer-by-the-rules in the same way Conan does.
Best,
Ron

   Yeah, I loved the Tomoe books.  I'm looking forward to my copy of S&S so I can see how you built Conan as a Sorcerer.

-- Eric, wondering if there is mail today . . . .

[Ron Edwards]

Eric,

I must apologize for an attack of Rigelian mindworms, which is the only way I can explain my reading of "L5R" for "7th Sea." Or, I think it's just because I've got the former game on the brain at the moment.

Best,
Ron

[Bailywolf]

Ron,

Just got my copy in yesterday, and spent today burowing through it.  A delight!  I especialy enjoy the lack of overhead as GM.  I've always felt compelled sit at one extreme or another in this- to generate vast, complex, and fully realized settings before even begining play... and by then, I'm usualy sick of them, or on the flipside to run totaly off-the-cuff with no prep at all.  One turns into a morase, the other total chaos.

Enlisting the players in the setting creation... ah, an excelent way of both binding the characters into the setting and fleshing it out.  "So, tell me where Burndon MocMoron is from?"  says the GM to the player...

S&S is much more fully realized now... the .PDF was good, but the book delivers the goods much better.  

Your three mini-settings are great mind-seeds for jumping off a fast and dirty campaign, or inspiring new ones.  

The Bibliography is an excelent resource in itself.  I've only read about half the recomended reading, and then only the most common (Howard, Moorcock, Lieber).  Neato.



No complaints about the expanded mechanics; all looks quite playable.  I don't know if I'd use the destiny mechincs myself, but found no problem with them other than personal preference.  


One issue I'd like to bring up is of group dynamics.  In virtualy all the S&S source material I've read, the protagonist is typicaly a loner or one partnered temporarily.  F. and the G.M. are perhaps the only exception to this I've read much of... and of course Elric's unfortunate companions.  

The "Adventuring Group" is so much more a product of High and Quest Fanstasy, derived in structure from a more Authorian Romance than from the low personal adventure of S&S pulps.  Most figural right now is certainly "The Fellowship of the Ring".  

What techniques would you recomend for keeping a coherent group dynamic in a genera which (in my experience) favors individuals as primary movers, while still maintaining the esential S&S crunchy goodness?  



A great expansion all around.  

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Bailywolf,

Thanks for the comments! I appreciate it a lot, especially from someone who has the PDF.

You've probably already read the material in the supplement that deal with this issue. I think it's clear that the Fellowship of the Ring model is usually worthless in Sword-style play. But I do see how one can have, say, three or four players involved.

1) Nothing says that every character has to be involved in every story, especially if you're running the out-of-chronology method.
2) Even if you do have them all involved, there's no reason why each character actually has to see or deal with one another in a given story. Given the high degree of Author stance that I recommend, this doesn't break player engagement either.
3) Character relationships can become sources of narrative conflict throughout many of the stories. By "conflict," I do not necessarily mean that the characters have opposed interests or don't get along; I mean stuff like the Howling Tower and Tomoe Gozen references I give as examples.

Oh well, I'm looking over this post and it seems kind of short and maybe unclear. Let me get an argument or two dusted off and I'll come back to it.

Best,
Ron