Sorcerer: A Generic RPG?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Clearly, it isn't.  If only because it doesn't claim to be.

But, on the first page of the game opens with these words:

"Many role-playing games amount to not much more than a series of goreous coffee-table books.  Others spark the imagination with a set of simple, high-potential ideas.  Sorcerer is written in the tradition of the early editions of Traveller...."

Ron then goes on to mention some other early games, something about "low budget labors of love..." blah, blah, blah. ; )

The thing that happened when I first bumped into the word "Traveller" was this: I didn't think he was going to talk about labors of love, I thought he was going to talk about games that, like Traveller, were *very* light on coffee-table art books (note the almost lack of any art in CT), and very heavy on "sparking the imagination with simple, high-potential ideas."  Because that's what Classic Traveller did in spades.

Specifically, the Classic Traveller rules suggested the possiblity of many worlds, background, stories, but provided no specifics for background, worlds and stories (and by today's standards, the little black books would be pillaried as snake oil salesman's con game).  Classic Traveller assumed not only that you'd want to go through the hoary details of creating your own worlds and background, but you'd enjoy it.

That's the first quick assumption I made about Sorcerer -- that it would be like CT in this regard.

I made a quick, even more complicated association with Traveller at that moment, again frontloaded by the "sparking...ideas" quote: I assumed Sorcerer would by like CT in that it would posses what I came to think of as Empty Set Lego Blocks.

Here's any ESLB from CT: "Theocracy."  You roll up a world, and you disocver it's government type is a "theocracy."  What does that mean?  Well, it's a definition, and we know what the definition is -- but what does that mean on *the* world you just rolled up?  What will it mean in game play?  Nonthing, until you define it.

"Pouncers" in the CT animal encounter section is another example. Here are more: Tech level of B.  Social Standing of Duke.  The Scouts.  The Empire.  We can infer some ideas from the rules, we can presume from our own reading and experience, but ultimately we get a series of interlocking ideas with labels waiting to be filled with concrete definition.

So, I assumed Sorcerer would do this as well.

And it frickin' does!

From Sorcerer: Humanity.  Stamina.  Binding.  Parasite.  Sorcery.  Demon.  Lore.  They are at once as evoctive as CT's Imperium, and as absolutely opened ended in what any group might decide the Imperium actually is.

Only tonight did I really how strange it was I would make strange connection in rules design (by misreading the sentence, mind you).  

And only tonight did I realize how incredible that Sorcerer actually does this.  With books like "Sorcerer and Sword," and mini-supplements like "Schism" and "Electric Ghosts," we're seeing an amazing range in how to interpret these rules to create compltely different story possibilities, themes and environements all built off the same engine.  Just like all the interstellar empires and worlds and animals and societies you could infer/generate using the empty sets from Traveller.  

By investing these empty sets with specific meaning, by hookingg them up to different elements you can build all sorts of new meanings that feel organic and of a piece.

For example, a "theocracy" on a world with a Starport Class D is going to be a very different than a "theocracy" found on a world with a Starport Class A.  

In the same way, a game where "demons" are the letters of an ancient, forgotten and utterly banished language luring "sorcerers" to speak their sounds so as to be spoken first in words, then sentences, and finally shape the thoughts (and so actions) of humanity once more -- automatically you begin thinking: what is "binding" in this world? -- what will "lore" actually be in this environment?

My questions are these:

1) What other games possess (or possessed), this kind of open-endedness in terms of empty set lego blocks?

2) What are the similarities and differences between a "Generic" RPG (like GURPS or BESM) and the "Generic" SF game Classic Travaller and a "Generic" (I wouldn't know how to label it) game like Sorcerer?  

I make no claim that there won't be more differences than similarities, but my hyper-pattern making brain sees *something* going on here.

****

House Rules:

For the purpose of this thread, the premise is correct: Sorcerer uses ESLB's just like Classic Traveller did.

If you need to actually argue the premise itself, (ie: "If the mini-supplements *were* different than Sorcerer you might have a point, but careful reading will show they're all the same god damn thing: demons are demons and nothing you say is going to change that," or "If the mechanics in the mini-supplements bore any relation to the rules found in Sorcerer, you might have a point, but clearly the mini-supplements are entirely different rules, smashing the Sorcerer engine into little tiny shard that will cut your feet open when you start on them" -- start another thread.  

Variations of these points that actually aid in the examination of the premise will of course be welcome.

(Am I allowed to do that?  The Forge is a fucking strange place.  I'm going to give it a try.)  

Christopher

[Jared A. Sorensen]

My take on the whole Sorcerer thing is this:

If your game is about "What would you do/risk for power?" and you're using the basic Sorcerer rules (roll a pool of X-sided dice, highest number wins, successes carry over as bonus dice to related actions), then you're playing Sorcerer. It doesn't matter what the "color" trappings are because Sorcerer doesn't care. I think of it less as a customizable game (like generic game X) and more as an intensely focused game. Ron says (in so many words), "This is what my game is about." and that's all he cares about. It doesn't matter how you define Game Term X, Y and Z so long as they relate to each other and to the game's (capital-P) Premise.

Sorcerer is not an engine, per se. Sure, you COULD use the die mechanics and stuff for other games (Donjon Krawl springs to mind) but that's not Sorcerer. It's a superficial resemblance at best.

To use the sandbox metaphor, Sorcerer gives you the box itself (this is the "thematic space" you have to play with, fill it with whatever you like), Classic Traveller gives you the sand ("here are concepts to put in a box of your own choosing"). Metaplot and setting heavy games (Vampire comes to mind) give you pre-built sand castles ("here are the castles which our writers spent a long time building -- so for god's sake, don't touch them!").

Heh.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Ack.

I'm so confused!  (Really, sincerely.)

Every RPG is a series of *something* with color added on top.  ("Color" is a term I've bumped into a few times around here, but have yet to have it defined.  I'm sure I'm gonna here about it now.)  I'm assuming the color of Sorcerer is more integral to the premise and the mechanics...

But if color didn't matter, why bother including nearly a whole page in the rules about how demons can take all these different forms?  (p. 58)

Also (ack!) when is a mini-supplement not Sorcerer?  I mean, it's really like Sorcerer, but not like it (because of rules tweaks and different color).  Are these books supposed to be completely different games?  I don't know -- maybe they are.  I was working from more shades of gray across the Sorcerer "line".

And, in another thread, the Sorcerer and Sword character examples, I saw people coming up with great spins on demons.  If that doesn't matter then a) why did people have fun doing it?  and b) why bother defining, say, what the actual cinematic/narrative effect of a demon's "disease/rot" or "energy discharge" is.  You've got rules for the application and effect?  Why add color?  Doesn't the "color" (and I'm probably using the wrong term here) have story implications/ramifications, emotional ramifications -- a demon that looks like your beloved, dead wife is one kind of demon, a "fighter-jet space-ship with hyper-sophisticated, artificial-intelligence mechanical mind" (p. 58) seems, at least to this imagintive primate, to be a different kind of demon.

And finally, if having empty sets doesn't matter, why not define everything with the same encyclopedic nattering as AD&D.  In AD&D a Magic Missile is a Magic Missile and we know exactly what it looks like and does.  Did Ron leave so much undescribed only to save paper?  "Here guys, go make up the manifestation and effects, because I trust you, and really, too many trees have died already"?  Some games define everything.  Other games say, here are the building blocks -- you describe them.

****

And I've just come up with a couple of games to answer my own question while I was typing:

Whispering Vault of course did this with the effects of powers and summoned critters.

And, The Questing Beast has empty sets labeled Monologue of Victory and Monologue of Defeat.  Clearly, we could just say, "Did it!"  But the whole point of the game is to add the color on.

Right?

Ack!

Christopher

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christopher,

You are making this way harder than it is ... part of it is that Jared was a bit over-hasty with his use of "Color," because what he meant was "Setting" and even some aspects of "Character."

As I see it, the kind of game design you are describing - Traveller, for instance, and Sorcerer in the latter-day - basically was swept under the rug for about ten solid years, from 1985 or so through 1995 or so. The very idea of having the Premise be well-understood, so make up stuff as you see fit, fell into some weird industry Limbo that no one ever acknowledged. I'd say the last game of that sort was probably Champions 3rd edition. It had been replaced by GURPS, which claimed to be setting-less, but lookey lookey, if you wanted to play it, you needed one of their setting books. But it's setting-less! Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.

Let's break it down: Sorcerer has a coherent Premise which is reinforced by its System and Character mechanics, the latter of which includes Situation. It also provides much structure with which to produce Setting, and it provides, if not Color, at least a nice 64-Crayola box for you.

GURPS, on the other hand, offers no Premise, just implies it with "genre" (based on setting-books) and specifically does not enforce it with System - instead it provides System "in its own right." In practice, you get Exploration of System per se as the priority, with Exploration of Setting as the next step.

[By the way, do not confuse the technical term Exploration with the literal sense of explore in in-game-world terms. I am referring to what you spend most of your time imagining during play.]

This distinction has led me, for years, to confuse the hell out of gamers by insisting that GURPS is not "generic" in any way, shape, or form. Its claim to being "good for any setting" is flawed; what really happens is that any setting's inherent content may be subordinated to the priorities of the system.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hey Ron -- and, of course, everybody --

So, more questions

Did Traveller have a Premise?  Was it hidden?  Is that why everyone kept saying they didn't know what to *do*?  (I think the fear of this response from players was in part what led publishers to get more and more concrerete with all details.)

What *is* the value of being imaginitive in these matters?  Some people do say a demon is a demon in Sorcerer, no matter how one dresses it up.  (Even Jared, perhaps too hastily, I don't know, said it.) I think there's a value, but for the life of me I couldn't *define* the reason.

Oh, and I never really thought there was much connection between CT or Sorcerer with GURPS.  I just wanted the difference better explained for me -- and, gosh, what a suprirse, you did it.

Christopher

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Did Traveller have a Premise?  Was it hidden?  Is that why everyone kept saying they didn't know what to *do*?  (I think the fear of this response from players was in part what led publishers to get more and more concrerete with all details.)

I think one of the problems with Classic Traveller was that, besides not having a Premise in the Narrativist sense (being that it was very much a Simulationist/Gamist game), it very nearly didn't have a Premise in the larger, group-involvement sense (what erithromycin calls a Pitch in this thread). There was no clear idea of a "default campaign."

Supplements such as The Traveller Adventure defined the default campaign as "tramp freighter crew trying to make a credit," which is actually much more Gamist than Simulationist.

(Hey, Mike Holmes, remember when you were calling Classic Traveller a textbook example of a coherent Simulationist system? I disagree! And not only do I disagree, but I have a detailed argument to support my disagreement! But we can take that up in another thread, if it even matters.)

{edited to correct a horrendous attribution error--sorry, Ron}

[Dav]

Christopher;

In my little bitty opinion, many games have a System attached to a Premise or Setting.  This is a complete departure from the Sorcerer method, wherein the System is inherently the Premise for the game in many ways (notably, Humanity).  

Whereas most systems break-down into a few key areas:
1) Random number generation
2) Statistical distribution of success/failure based on #1
3) Detailed methods of interpreting the success/failure field

Sorcerer takes the System and inherently integrates it into the overall character and surrounding.  While it could be argued that any game with a Humanity mechanic exists as such, most games have Humanity defined as a finite currency that is used to "pay for" statistical augmentations (most notably, cybernetics), Sorcerer takes Humanity one step further and defines the mechanic as the currency of interesting conflict.  While, this is largely an empty set (as you mentioned) to be filled by the participants of the game, it is concretely defined, despite the open-ended definition.  In essence, it takes the system from what most games have (i.e. Existentialist design -- or, a System by-itself) and gives it actual value beyond that of the 3 basic purposes of system (above).

The concrete value of Humanity (as the trait of conflict), is the entire purpose of Sorcerer, and the point of contention above and beyond any other interpretations of the game.  In the end, I agree, that demons are demons are demons, despite the defined mythology surrounding them in a given Sorcerer setting.  Sorcerers, likewise, despite variations, are still sorcerers, no matter the brush you paint them with.  Humanity, however, is the fully mutable concept that becomes the core element of the game.  

Thus, Humanity, is, in the end, Sorcerer.  Premise, as stated, is that you are a guy with power to manipulate demons.  Setting is wherever you choose, and any powers have kitsch and flash to match the setting.  

All the mini-supplements have one important concept to them, and that is how they define Humanity.  The rest is the smoke and mirrors.

Of course, Ron more eloquently words these concerns in "System Does Matter", and thus, you likely could just read that and then turn to me and say, "You're right, what Ron said."

Dav

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hmmmm.

Jared, Ron, Metalfatigue, Dave,

Thanks for the replies so far.  For some reason though, I'm just not buying the demon is a demon is a demon thing....

(And let me say, I haven't played Sorcerer yet (though I introduced it to a gaming group last night, and got lots of interest and will soon be playing).  I know I'm talking out my ass to designers of the game and mini-supplments and battle-scarred Forge vets... I really appreciate your indulgence, I argue this with humility.)

But as I sat in the bubble bath moments ago, I got an answer to my own question.  

Q: "What *is* the value of being imaginitive in these matters?"  

A: Aesthetic integrity.

If the Gamist wants a game that is balanced and challenging ("Okay, I lost, but that was fair,"), and the Simulationist wants a game that creates or re-creates a specific kind of feel or event ("Wow, that was so like out of LeMorte D'Arthur"), I'd say the Narrativist wants something (besides everything else usually named) that is aesthetically pleasing ("That was great.")

What was great was the *whole* thing -- starting with the premise, then humanity, and moving outward.  So that once you define Humanity, you need to make sure you have demons and lore and special effects that reflect the premise.  When everybody's imagination is hooked up to reflecting the premise and specific session's humanity, everything becomes a funhouse full of mirrors reflecting that premise.

In painting, for example, you create a pallet for each painting.  You don't want to use every color in existence, because then you're going to end up with a splotchy thing the eye can't read.  You limit you choices to, say, colors that are oppositte each other on the color wheel, and one that's near one of the others.  Say: Orange, Red and Blue.

By using these three colors, and mixing them together, you can get a really broad range of effects, with colors that pop out when placed next to each other, or knocked down to greys when mixed.  You're exploring a bowl of fruit with a narrow set of tools, and then seeing how much variety you can create with this narrow set.

This provides unity and vareity in the color scheme, and let's us both grasp the painting (not too many colors) and be not get bored (variety by mixing those colors).

So: a bowl of fruit (a demon), painted with one pallette (a specific humanity), is going to look very different than one painted with a different pallette (a different definitin of humanity).  Yes, it's the same bowl of fruit.  But for those who care about colors (which is pretty much everybody, even if they're not aware of it), it's a very different painting.

Ron addresses this in Chapter 4 of Sorcerer, discussing the *aesthtic* desire (there's no other need to even mention it), to not let the world be full of "individulized" lores and demons, but to instead build a coherence for what demons are, what lore is and so on.

But this should all come from the Premise, which, mechanically is addressed by Humanity.  So whatever the Humanity is starts a series of choices about what demons are, what lore is and so forth.  *Because the look and logic of all this should make the element of Humanity tangible in the players imagination moment to moment.*

A less artsy-fartsy example, one that Ron's brought up several times, is Aliens.  There's Ripley, who in the original screenplay had lost her daughter because she'd been in deep sleep so long.  There's Newt, who's lost her parents.  They bond, each filling a missing familial role for the other.  

Now.  I could have the antagonist be a six foot two synthetic creation that looks like a muscle-bound Austrian with red eyes that glow when you rip his eyes out -- OR, I could have the antagonist be a MOTHER out to protect her young.  Notice that by doing this you strengthen the emotional stakes for Ripley because, whether we're aware of it or not (and I agree with Ron here, as audience members we're often not aware) it's all tying together.  

When the Queen Alien and Ripley face off in the egg chamber, each protecting their young, We Get It -- even if we're not being explicitely told (even if the scene of Ripley learning about her daughter's death has been cut from the movie).  Even if we couldn't articulate it after leaving the theater.  It's there, it holds the movie together, and it's not about the smart-guns are the cool actions sequence -- which are great.  This is the stuff that makes all the cool stuff worth something.

I'm suggesting *this* is the stuff that makes a Narrativist session great.

The Premise makes it possible.  The Mechanic makes effective.  But without a clear intention to make all the so-called "chrome" elements consistent with the Premise and Humanity, it's still going to feel false and flat.  (Like a painting done with only pure yellow, red and blue.  There was clearly no *thought* put into the specific possibilities offered by the limited premise.  It's stuff on a convass saying: "Fruit"  But it's dull.)

So, I've read Ron's essays.  Got it.  What I'm suggesting is that there's a part of Narrativism that goes beyond the rules that's still nescesary for good Narrativist play.

And -- these concerns *are* in the Sorcerer mechanics (time to finally bring this back to the start of the thread!).  

These issues are addressed by Absence.  By *not* defining Demons, Lore and Demonic F/X, (as opposed to, again, a AD&D spell list with absolutely quantified "flash"), Ron leaves much of the session's aesthics open -- allowing the group to build a great painting with the humanity/pallette they wish to use.  

That's why I think a demon is not a demon is not a demon.  At the barest bone mechanical level, yes.  But who cares about that?  If you only look at what we *normally* think of as rules, yes, its true.  

To say such a thing, though, is to miss the possibilities offered by the Absence of specific chrome elements (which is part of the rules design), and miss the elements that would make a Narrativst game Great.

With Bells on my Boots,

Christopher

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Well, you're right...perhaps I did speak too hastily. A demon is not a demon, etc.

In terms of raw game design, the psychic powers in Schism, the ghosts in Electric Ghosts, the primal urges in Urge and the demons in Hellbound are all demons. However, my demons (in Schism) are a LOT different than Dav's or Raven's (they're even different than Clinton's, although our stuff shares some similarities).

I can't speak for dem guys. I got my demons, my definition of humanity and the whole play structure straight out of Cronenberg's films (et al). Sorcerer asks you some questions...what I think the mini-supps do is answer them in very different, very specific ways. Joe Vanilla Sorcerer player is *probably* going to use something akin to Ron's examples in the book (Sangoku, the Black Wheel, etc.) and use demons in a "traditional" way. Or not. Whatever.

But again I'll say it. Sorcerer is not generic. The system could be pulled out and used for another game, but Sorcerer itself is for Sorcerer games (like Careers, Monopoly and Payday all share similarities and game elements, you couldn't play Payday with Monopoly). And I think that's your question, although now I'm not too sure.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Jared, good point at the end...  And my fault.

No.  Sorcerer isn't generic in the way GURPS is supposed to be "Generic".

I wanted a discussion about the ways Sorcerer can spin off so many permutations within it's framework -- like Classic Traveller could.  I find that fascinating.  It's both definite, and undefined.

Since several people on older threads suggested that in fact Sorcerer *doesn't* spin off -- (a demon is a demon is a demon; if Conan gets power from Crom for fighting bloody battles, he's no longer a barbarian warrior, but just another Sorcerer who might as well be drawing pentagrams on the floor of his mum's basement.)

I brought in Classic Traveller as a new way to view the matter.  Clearly a Government: Theocracy isn't the same thing from world to world in the Imperium.  What are the implications of thinking about Sorcerer's "chrome" that way?  Clearly in Traveller it's *not* just chrome.  I don't think it is in Sorcerer either.  I think it's a comparison that can help get a new perspective on this.

I mentioned GURPS to beg the question, "What do we mean by generic?"  Though the Premise of Sorcerer centers the game, there's still, in the rules themselves (per above) lots of room for innovative, exceptional and surprising stories.  Meanwhile, every GUPRPS game is going to feel kind of the same.

So, I wanted to discuss how come some people don't see the possibilities within the Sorcerer rules as written?  

(Or, in fact, are those possibilities not there?  That's why I flipped when Jarred, who wrote Schism, said it doesn't matter how you define X, Y and Z.  Could the guy who wrote a mini-supplement with a spefic and unique setting be saying I got it all wrong?  I realize now he was thinking I was talking about using Sorcerer as a generic game engine.  My mistake.  I am, however, talking about Sorcerer as an open ended "rules set" -- which includes the empty set descriptors as well as the resolution mechanics.)

So what do we mean by generic?  That's another question I wanted to explore.  Generic games don't really exist.  But Sorcerer offers so much variety as to touch in many ways on the *promise* of a "generic" game.  Are unable to see it as such because the packaging isnt' what we expected?  (Again, that's a *real* question.  At this time I think it is, but I might be wrong.)

I also had no idea "generic" is such a well defined term around here -- referring to a certain group of specific games -- and failures at that!  I apologize for the confusion. (But remember!  I've only been here for two weeks!)

However, I was trying to crack concept of "generic" open: "Look, Sorcerer! Limitless game settings in one small book! Right?"

I think all those possibilites are there because it's not trying to handle *everything* but is both open-ended (a la Classic Traveller) and *limited* in Premise.  I think that's a point worth exploring further.

With NO Bells on my Boots,

(Some jackass, wanting to check out my clearly empty Jeep Wrangler for booty, sliced the back window open to crawl in over the back seat -- instead of using the convenient and clearly visible ZIPPERS(!!!) that are RIGHT THERE(!!!))

Christopher

[Gordon C. Landis]

hmm . . . maybe it's just the influence of my probably-misplaced post over in the Indie Game Design "No Premise" thread, but it seems to me the key here is that "generic" is, in fact, not a "switch", it's more like a spectrum.  Sorceror is Nar-focused (not generic), with a clear (not generic), broadly-applicable (somewhat generic) framing Premise.  As long as it's a Nar game about Power (under some definition) and the Cost thereof (under some definition), you can do it in Sorceror.  In fact, Power and its' Cost is such a good, general Premise, it's probably *possible* to cast just about any story into those terms.  In that sense, the one "generic-able" element makes the game as a whole very generic.

On the other hand, not all stories are *well* served by casting them in those terms.  You do something to the story by looking at it that way - and thus it becomes identifiably a "Sorceror" game.  If you didn't want to do that . . . you shouldn't have used Sorceror.  Thus, NOT actually as "generic" as you might think, especially when viewed in a Narrativist light (where the Premise means so much).

Gordon

(Whose boots know better than to *actually* stomp on the guy who cut his way into Christophers' Jeep . . . but the image does a have a certain appeal.)

[Christopher Kubasik]

Gordon,

Yes.

Christohper

[Ron Edwards]

Hi everyone,

Isn't Christopher going to flip when that copy of Soul shows up in his mailbox? It's all about his points on this thread.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

So, um, I'm reinventing the wheel?

Sorry about that.

(I did wake up this morning thinking, "You know, using different words, they probably have discussed this already.")

And I am like a kid waiting every day for Captain Marvel De-Coder Ring to show up.  Sorcerer's Soul and Sorcerer and Sword!  Wahoo!  Only days away!

With a Whistle for You All,

Christopher

[Christopher Kubasik]

Well everybody,

My decoder ring arrived just this afternoon.  Instead of getting some key work done I consumed Chapters One, Two, Seven and the Appendixes from S&S, and Chapters One, Four and the Appendix from SS --

And Ron, that was prettymutherfuckin'spooky.

Thanks,

Christopher