Getting Started

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'll get back to you on the Grette/Humanity-loss thing. Have to check out what I wrote in full.

Regarding the swords, no, the bonus only applies to the lighter sword in that encounter.

Contrary to popular belief, bigger swords receive no special emphasis in most classic sword-and-sorcery fiction, and in many cases were treated, in story terms, as evidence that the opponent wasn't much of a man.

Best,
Ron

[James_Nostack]

Hi - I apologize for butting into Lisa's thread, but I had a question about damage penalties and when they apply.  Since this seems to be a "clear away elementary confusions" thread, here goes--

Basic Situation
The demons Azathoth, Beelzebub and Citibank get into a skirmish.
1.  Intentions are declared.  Azathoth and Citibank team up to attack Beelzebub.  Beelzebub attacks Citibank.
2.  Modifiers are assigned if necessary.
3.  Dice are rolled to determine initiative and general combat performance.
4.  As a result of Step 3, these are the results...

5.  Azathoth attacks Beelzeub.  Beelzebub chooses to "suck up the pain."
6.  Beelzebub attacks Citibank.  Citibank chooses to "suck up the pain."
7.  Citibank attacks Beelzebub.  Because Beelzebub has already acted, it can make a regular defense roll.
 
Let's say as a result of Step 5 Beelzebub suffers a 2-dice penalty.

It is my recollection reading these forums that the penalty applies to the next roll rather than the intention of the following round.  So, my question is, when does that 2-dice penalty apply?

A - During Beelzebub's attack in step 6.  (Can't be right, can it?  He rolled in step 3.)
B - Beelzebub's 2-dice penalty gets converted into a 2-dice bonus for Citibank's defense in Step 6.
C - Beelzebub suffers a 2-dice penalty when defending in Step 7.
D - Beelzebub suffers a 2-dice penalty in the following round.  (I get the impression this is wrong.)

thank you for your time,

[Valamir]

Step 6.

Beeze's 2 die penelty translates to a 2 die bonus for Citi, who then gets to "suck up the pain" using 3 dice instead of 1.

[Lisa Padol]

Regarding the swords, no, the bonus only applies to the lighter sword in that encounter.

Contrary to popular belief, bigger swords receive no special emphasis in most classic sword-and-sorcery fiction, and in many cases were treated, in story terms, as evidence that the opponent wasn't much of a man.

Gotcha. That's what I would have thought, but Josh noted that the phrasing could support either interpretation.

I have a setting more or less in mind, and am wanting to diagram the R-map from the source I'm thinking of playing with. The one sheet should probably come first. OTOH, no harm in diagramming the book's R-map, as that is stuff that I will want to change, and it may give me a better idea of what I want in the one sheet. I'm currently partial to Humanity as Sanity, but haven't made up my mind. Really fuzzy on what demons should be given what I'm trying for. Somewhat fuzzy on Lore, but not as bad.

-Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

Oh yes, there was a reference to Lore increasing. Now, this makes perfect sense, but is there a mechanism for this, or is it more by feel? Do Stamina, Will, or Cover/Past ever increase? I'd sort of assumed only Humanity changed.

-Lisa

[Judd]

Oh yes, there was a reference to Lore increasing. Now, this makes perfect sense, but is there a mechanism for this, or is it more by feel? Do Stamina, Will, or Cover/Past ever increase? I'd sort of assumed only Humanity changed.

-Lisa

Character stat improvement is covered in the book.  My book is in my car but look it up, its in there.

[Lisa Padol]

Character stat improvement is covered in the book.  My book is in my car but look it up, its in there.

Okay, will do.

-Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

Character stat improvement is covered in the book.  My book is in my car but look it up, its in there.

Okay, will do.

-Lisa

Done. Found it!

Jeez, there are few enough rules to Sorcerer that you'd have thunk I'd remember them, especially as I just reread Sorcerer a few days ago!

-Lisa

[Judd]

Done. Found it!

Jeez, there are few enough rules to Sorcerer that you'd have thunk I'd remember them, especially as I just reread Sorcerer a few days ago!

-Lisa

It doesn't have rules for figuring out your strength if you are left-handed in no armor but it is a misnomer to think its rules-lite.

[Lisa Padol]

It doesn't have rules for figuring out your strength if you are left-handed in no armor but it is a misnomer to think its rules-lite.

It is not rules light. It is rules haiku. There are precisely as many rules as are needed. Or at least, that's how it seems to me. When I actually try to run the thing, I'll find out if I still think so.

Got an R-map in mind. Got a setting in mind. Got ideas for Humanity, Demons, and Lore. The thing to do now is to start trying to get the one sheet down and see if it makes sense.

-Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

I've started the first draft of the one sheet. It's chaotic and will need to be reworked at least once, as I shift further away from my source material. The juxtaposition of Sorcerer and its supplements with a third read of The Fall of the Kings does very interesting things to the brain.

Setting: In and around a university in sort of a Renaissance period, more or less. Everyone knows there's no such thing as magic. Sure, there are stories about how there once was, but that was just silly superstition. We are Enlightened now.

Source Material: Ellen Kushner and Delia Sherman's The Fall of the Kings and Kushner's other Riverside works. An Instance of the Fingerpost. Faren Miller's The Illusionists. Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Of these, The Fall of the Kings is a primary influence.

Humanity: I'm seeing a sort of three-tiered thing, but that may be an illusion.

Sanity. Sorcery seems to require magical, illogical thinking. Insane thinking, in other words, except that the conclusions are correct. There cannot be demons, but you have just bound one.

Social Obligation. If you drop this altogether, you risk becoming a socio- or psychopath type, someone who just can't function in society. Hm, that is not what a socio or psychopath is, is it? But if Humanity bottoms out from this one, you can't function in society.

Freedom. If you go too far the other way, you are denying who you are. This ties in with the inner animal concept in interesting ways, I think. And I think both this and Social Obligation involve the idea of Sanity. I'm not sure if this means I have really 2 definitions, rather than 3, with Sanity underpinning both. OTOH, Basil from my source material doesn't have a problem balancing the two until he gets involved with magic, and then, his Sanity is definitely in question. Okay, that's simplistic, but it argues a certain tripod structure.

Demons:

Possessor: Inner animal, ancestor

Object: Ancestor bound to an object. Theoretically, one's inner animal could be as well.

"Passer": This would either be an animal that's one's inner animal pulled out, or an ancestor, perhaps as an animal. The question is whether this would be an ordinary animal with a telltale or something clearly unnatural. I think the former. Does this still count as a passer?

Passer: The human kind of Passer should be fairly rare. This could be an ancestor returned. It could be something completely different. I want this type to be rare, but really creepy, precisely because it is so rare and -- just plain wrong, even by sorcery standards. I am not sure how much I want to nail down what it is. If it's all right if the players don't know, I'll keep it fuzzy. That is, it can be ancestors or Something Elses.

Inconspicuous: I'm not sure about these. Josh asked if a blade of grass is a Passer or an Inconspicuous demon. I think the latter.

Parasite: Not at the moment. Still, what happens if one's inner animal changes one? That is, if someone grows horns or hooves, or turns into a deer altogether?

The Inner Animal Thing: (Gaa. I need a better term for that.) All people have... Something. A potential that can be wakened to primacy. It is an animal personality. It can be wakened within the person, in which case, you get someone acting really strangely. Say your inner animal is a deer. If a sorcerer Summons and Binds it, you're not going to be able to digest red meat. Telltale is fairly obviously weird behavior. Not that it screams "Demon!" to most people. Everyone knows there's no such thing as magic.

You can pull that part of a person that's an animal out and have it take the shape of an actual animal. This is sort of a cross between Pullman's daemons and Passers, I think.

You can Bind it to an object. In that case, you get an Object demon. This is probably trickier.

Object or Animal must be of the appropriate type. If my inner animal -- need a better term -- is a deer, you can't have it take the shape of an animal that isn't a deer.

Ancestors: Dead sorcerers. Or perhaps only sleeping. They can possess objects and people, effectively becoming a Possessor or an Object Demon. I don't think the whole inner animal concept can mix with this. And a really powerful dead-or-sleeping sorcerer can Bind himself? No. No one accidentally Binds a demon. Even the pyschologically inviting one is dicey. No, in Sorcerer terms, maybe the dead-or-sleeping sorcerer is waiting for a Summons. Maybe even as an Object which serves as a Contain so it doesn't fade, but it must be a deliberate summoning. (So, in Sorcerer terms, the book in The Fall of the Kings is an Object Demon, and it confers a Perception (Truth) of some kind on the Sorcerer, and the special effect is that the "spell" is read aloud. I think the book either Desires or Needs its abilities to be used.)

Now, if I'm sticking close to The Fall of the Kings, then the whole Inner Animal thing is seen as a good by some, or at least, as a necessary. But, sorcery must be transgressive. OTOH, in FotK, it is. We'll have to get a touch further away from FotK, but this isn't a bad start.

Lore: TBD, but should include Folklore / Supersitions and Scholarship.

Need descriptors for Stamina, Will, Cover

Like I said, this needs at least one reworking, but it's starting to look like it might cohere.

Mm, if I don't scrap it all, I will need to decide the gender thing -- are women allowed at University? Now, Fall of the Kings has a very specific set of gender constraints, which is part of what makes it dovetail so nicely. Keeping the societal prejudices -- women allowed grudgingly into the University, and not many of those -- may make good sense,  but I am not sure I want to go further than that. Magic and gender interact in some fascinating ways in the novel, but, given that I'm already treading dangerously by not changing the tech level of the setting, I don't know that I should stick with the gender pattern for magic. I need to shift away from the novel at least one or two more steps, but I want that flavor of danger and transgression.

-Lisa

[droog]

It is not rules light. It is rules haiku.

Playing Sorcerer
Is really not difficult
Humanity is

[jburneko]

Hello There,

I've been following this thread with some interest.  I like Sorcerer prep.  I haven't read any of your inspiration sources so what I'm about to say may be way off base.  Take it and leave it as you feel necessary.

Your one-sheet feels a little too tight to me.  Part of the goal of a one sheet is to get everyone on the same page with Look & Feel and the issues at stake that come with being a Sorcerer.  There should be enough room after that for the players to seize those concepts and make them their own.  Your one-sheet seems a little too close to a classic RPG setting book that is trying to explain how magic works, where it comes from, what role it plays in the world, etc.

When this happens (and believe me, it happens A LOT to me) I try to distill the whole thing to a raw concept that I find exciting.

In your case what I'm seeing is a general intest in the animal nature of human beings.  Hunting, Mating, Flight, Fight, these things don't go away they just become more complicated.  Some see "civiliazation" as an attempt to tame or even remove these things.  To what degree is that a good idea?  Sounds like a good Sorcerer setup to me.

So your whole Demon concept could be summarized as: Beastial entities where Rituals are characterized by animalitic activity.  An *example* of such might be an "inner animal" awakened into full possessor status by ritualized pretatory seduction of its host.  By abstracting the concept a bit, you leave room for the players to add their own take and spin on the concept while firmly defining what's interesting about it. 

I do like the rennaisance university setting.  Ultra-sophisticated, ultra-civilized, the perfect backdrop.

Now, like I said, I maybe 180 degrees off from what you have in mind.  I haven't read your sources and I'm sort of pulling my ideas from films like Brotherhood of the Wolf and The Village.  So, take or leave as you see fit.

Does this make sense?

Jesse

[Lisa Padol]

Playing Sorcerer
Is really not difficult
Humanity is

I like. Thank you.

-Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

Your one-sheet feels a little too tight to me.

I would have said too loose, too trying-to-do-too-much.

Part of the goal of a one sheet is to get everyone on the same page with Look & Feel and the issues at stake that come with being a Sorcerer.  There should be enough room after that for the players to seize those concepts and make them their own.  Your one-sheet seems a little too close to a classic RPG setting book that is trying to explain how magic works, where it comes from, what role it plays in the world, etc.

Mm, while I'd thought the point of the one sheet was to define what sorcerery was and how it worked, I think I actually had a different problem. I think my problem was that I was trying to get far enough away from my primary source of inspiration that I'm not trying to copy it while still trying to fit in too many things that I liked about the book. My first stab at fixing this problem was to pull from a couple of other sources, which, while that's good in so far as it gets me away from the primary source, meant that I was now trying to squish in a couple of extra balls.

When this happens (and believe me, it happens A LOT to me) I try to distill the whole thing to a raw concept that I find exciting.

Yes! This is exactly what I was floundering around trying to do.

In your case what I'm seeing is a general intest in the animal nature of human beings.  Hunting, Mating, Flight, Fight, these things don't go away they just become more complicated.  Some see "civiliazation" as an attempt to tame or even remove these things.  To what degree is that a good idea?  Sounds like a good Sorcerer setup to me.

So your whole Demon concept could be summarized as: Beastial entities where Rituals are characterized by animalitic activity.  An *example* of such might be an "inner animal" awakened into full possessor status by ritualized pretatory seduction of its host.  By abstracting the concept a bit, you leave room for the players to add their own take and spin on the concept while firmly defining what's interesting about it. 

I do like the rennaisance university setting.  Ultra-sophisticated, ultra-civilized, the perfect backdrop.

Mm, I like this. I'm not sure how it shakes down into a one sheet, but it focuses things nicely.

Now, like I said, I maybe 180 degrees off from what you have in mind.  I haven't read your sources and I'm sort of pulling my ideas from films like Brotherhood of the Wolf and The Village.  So, take or leave as you see fit.

Does this make sense?

Oh yes, thank you! I'm still scratching my head on a couple of things.

1. Okay, so there's a civilized -- animalistic dichotomy. This is simple and works even better than I'd thought with the university setting. Should I ditch my notion of sorcery requiring illogical, insane thinking? I believe that the answer is yes. Or, a more complicated answer that means the same thing is "Yes, unless the sanity thing can be framed in terms of the civilized -- animalistic dichotomy. Two poles are fine; don't try to make this a tripod structure." Sound good?

2. Do I want to do anything complicated with gender and sexuality? The sane answer is, "No, play it as it lies within the concepts you've already got." The thing is... well, I was rereading Sex & Sorcerery. And I spent a lot of time saying, "Nah. Too simplistic. Nah, doesn't work that way." But... all this time, I am reading The Fall of the Kings, which is proving me wrong and Ron right in just about every sentence, and in ways that I find interesting. So, I want that element of danger. But, I don't want to take it as it appears in The Fall of the Kings. It's too tied to that setting. OTOH, the only alternative that popped into my head (admittedly, after not all that much thinking about it) was "Eunuchs", which conjures up a whole different kit and kaboodle. Granted, it's a potentially interesting kit and kaboodle, especially if I wanted to do enough research to set the game in China, with bureacratic universities, but I don't, really, and without that, I'm grafting on something that I'm sort of hoping can substitute for something else. The something else was very well thought out, and this isn't. And, amusing as it is in a silly, over the top way, the idea of eunuchs doesn't quite fit into the whole civilized-animalistic dichotomy. So, either I find something that does, either as I redesign the one sheet or with all the other players in play, or I shrug and decide I don't need to do everything all at once right now the very first time I've ever tried GMing Sorcerer.

Does that make any sense?

I've not seen those movies, but I definitely want to see Brotherhood of the Wolf at the very least.

My sources: Instance of the Fingerpost and Name of the Rose are mysteries where the philosophy is at least as important as the nominal mystery. The former is set in 16th or 17th century Oxford (I forget which), and has 4 sections, each written from a different point of view. The latter is set in a 14th century monaster, and I had a blast reading it. It was set over the period of a week. I read it over the same period, between Christmas and New Year's, remembering enough Latin to appreciate the excellence of the translation and syntax and to get about one out of three untranslated Latin words. I finished New Year's Eve, with the words spinning, and, for some reason, my taking another swallow of champagne to make them stop spinning didn't work.

Phillip Pullman's trilogy His Dark Materials has everyone in one world having a daemon. This is utterly natural. But sorcerery should not be a natural thing that everyone does.

The Fall of the Kings -- um. Okay, I'm torn between saying, "Just read it" and saying, "Read Swordspoint first". Swordspoint came first, and is fascinating, if rather romantic. So, sue me -- I'm a romantic. The Fall of the Kings is set 60 years later and is one of the most unsafe books I've ever read. It read much better the second time, once I'd gotten it through my head that the author did not want to retread ground covered by her earlier book, thank you very much.

Anyway, back to the drawing board. But I think this will help. Thanks!

-Lisa