Duelling Imperatives

[Julian]

I'm not looking for the terminology.

I'm looking for the mechanics, and see neither hide nor hair of them. It looks like straight task resolution to me.

It's not like there's anything wrong with task resolution, but when the rulebook is saying one thing, and the rulebook's author is saying something completely different, I wonder what's up.

So, I've got to ask: where in the book is the subject of conflict resolution, even in its most basic, primeval form, addressed?

If "Rituals are typically considered conflicts in Sorcerer", why do none of the examples address the subject?

[Ron Edwards]

I'm spreading my hands in frustration, man. It's conflict resolution. Play it that way and the rules/system will make perfect sense in actual play.

In the absence of a conflict of interest among the fictional characters, never roll the dice.

When such a conflict is present, then always roll the dice.

It's not the terms that were lacking in 1996-2000; it's the actual cognitive and communicative information that was lacking, in my head and in the community. The italicized points above aren't clear in the book (and in some places are badly obscured) because I, and we, didn't know we had to say it - I only knew "it" through use, and to explain "it," could only gesture vaguely.

The fact that rolls in Sorcerer concern short-term actions at the same scale as "to-hit rolls" in traditional role-playing isn't relevant to these points.

I don't really know what else to tell you. You see a contradiction. I see a guy who isn't seeing my point.

Best,
Ron

[The_Tim]

Here's the deal with Sorcerer.

You don't roll to do things.  Not as such.  You roll to get things done.  The text isn't perfectly clear on this, but it is strongly implied in several places.  Especially in S&S, where it points out that a failed roll is not a failed action but a stymied goal.  The dice do not determine the form of an action, but instead the results.

[Eric J-D]

And to make all of this crystal clear, Sorcerer & Sword--which has the same publication date as the hardcover version of Sorcerer--states very clearly that Sorcerer is a *conflict* resolution system.  So although Ron wrote the text of Sorcerer much earlier than the text of S&S this pretty much cinches Ron's claim that he wrote the game with the concept of conflict resolution in mind even if the text does not use this precise language.  By the time S&S was published (again, same year as the hardcover version of Sorcerer) this terminology was now available to give a name to the ideas that Ron was working with when he initially wrote the game.

I feel kind of strange having to present this defense when the game's designer has already made it pretty clear that he wrote the game with the concept of resolving conflicts rather than tasks in mind.  In fact, I'm not quite sure what you're really so exercised about, Julian.  Frankly, from the day I bought Sorcerer way back in 2001 this was how I, at least, understood the mechanics of the game, so there must have been something there in the text that I was picking up, however subtly it may have been presented in the language of the text.

Cheers,

Eric

[Ron Edwards]

Heh, "subtly." You're very kind, Eric. My word choice would be inadequately, or historically impaired.

Best,
Ron

[Eric J-D]

Ron,

Okay, if you say so.  My point was simply that somehow this did in fact get communicated to me.  S&S admittedly brings it more clearly into the foreground.  I suppose some part of my last post is a delayed response to threads I recall from long ago that castigated you for "not making things clearer" in the text.  For some reason, I suppose because I somehow managed very luckily to catch the vibe you were on when you wrote Sorcerer, I could never really understand the complaints.

This will no doubt stand as the first and last time in my life where I can say I caught a really big wave and simply rode that mother. <grin>

Cheers,

Eric

[Peter Nordstrand]

How is this not highjacking Lisa's thread?

[Ron Edwards]

As of Julian's second inquiry/objection post, the effect has been a threadjack, but there's no clear break-point from the dialogue with Lisa.

The only question now is where Julian wants to take it, and at that point, yes, a new thread may have to begin.

Peter, ask me moderation-type questions in PM, please.

Best,
Ron

[Lisa Padol]

There's been no hijacking. Julian is asking the same question in my mind.
Neither of us have an issue with tweaking or ignoring rules.
Neither of us have an issue with being told, "Well, the rule wasn't actually clear in the main book."
Julian, feel free to correct me if any of the above misrepresents you.
If folks want to start another thread, feel free. I've got a convention tomorrow and, unless I hear otherwise from my players, a seventh session next Tuesday. I reckon maybe one more after that should wrap the campaign.

-Lisa

[Julian]

I don't have an issue with being told "Well, the rule wasn't actually clear in the main book." I've been there myself more than once.

My issue is being told it's there, going back and looking, seeing not a hint (and indeed counterevidence), and never getting a cite, a hint, a place to look at more closely, just being told "it's there. No, really."

I'll believe it's in the supplement, but its presence there does not mean it was there when the system was first written. (Although, if the supplement was published at the same time as the main book, and Ron knew enough then to make it clear there, why did he not go back and make it so in the main book?)

The vibe I'm getting is that the system presented in the book is not actually the system Ron actually plays, and may never have been, that one would need either the supplements or extensive conversation with Ron in order to get it "right".

[Eric J-D]

I'll believe it's in the supplement, but its presence there does not mean it was there when the system was first written. (Although, if the supplement was published at the same time as the main book, and Ron knew enough then to make it clear there, why did he not go back and make it so in the main book?)

The vibe I'm getting is that the system presented in the book is not actually the system Ron actually plays, and may never have been, that one would need either the supplements or extensive conversation with Ron in order to get it "right".

I think that it is probably time for a new thread if you are really interested in continuing to have a conversation about this particular issue, but I'll leave that up to Ron since it's his forum.

However, I am still puzzled by some of the things you continue to say.  The quote above suggests to me that you are implying that Ron is not *really* being honest when he says that he wrote the game with the general outline of the concept that would become (circa 2001 or so) known as "conflict resolution" in mind, despite the absence of such terminology from the main book.  In other words, you seem to be saying, "yeah, well Ron can say that all he wants but there is no evidence of it in the book that *I* read."

If my reading of what you're saying is correct, this implies that you know better than Ron does what must have *actually* been in his mind when he wrote the book.  The absence of obvious language, etc. of "conflict resolution" must *prove* somehow that Ron is deluding himself in his claims to have intended the game to model "conflict resolution."  The game must *really* be a "task resolution" game since you find no evidence anywhere that Ron had a different intent. 

Is that where this is driving?

Cheers,

Eric

[Eero Tuovinen]

Hey, guys: not to be impertinent, but I have grave doubts that you're even discussing conflict resolution with the same understanding of the term. It's one of the trickier beasts of rpg theory, I should say, and one word that's often used to mean wildly different things. Like "realism", I should say. My take? Sorcerer is obviously both task and conflict resolution, but that's because I see both as necessarily excisting in any rpg. So you see, I for one have a rather different and unique analysis of the terminology under my belt, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So it's more than likely that you're simply talking past each other.

So yeah, a new thread is the least you could do to sort the matter out, if you want to get into it.

[Julian]

I'll believe it's in the supplement, but its presence there does not mean it was there when the system was first written. (Although, if the supplement was published at the same time as the main book, and Ron knew enough then to make it clear there, why did he not go back and make it so in the main book?)

The vibe I'm getting is that the system presented in the book is not actually the system Ron actually plays, and may never have been, that one would need either the supplements or extensive conversation with Ron in order to get it "right".

However, I am still puzzled by some of the things you continue to say.  The quote above suggests to me that you are implying that Ron is not *really* being honest when he says that he wrote the game with the general outline of the concept that would become (circa 2001 or so) known as "conflict resolution" in mind, despite the absence of such terminology from the main book.  In other words, you seem to be saying, "yeah, well Ron can say that all he wants but there is no evidence of it in the book that *I* read."

If my reading of what you're saying is correct, this implies that you know better than Ron does what must have *actually* been in his mind when he wrote the book.  The absence of obvious language, etc. of "conflict resolution" must *prove* somehow that Ron is deluding himself in his claims to have intended the game to model "conflict resolution."  The game must *really* be a "task resolution" game since you find no evidence anywhere that Ron had a different intent. 

Is that where this is driving?

It's in the vague general vicinity.

It's really easy for a game designer to fail to accurately get what they intended onto paper. We don't really read the rules properly. We know what they are. I'm willing to believe primordial conflict resolution was burbling away in Ron's head as he wrote Sorcerer.

But that doesn't mean it made it to the page.

It's why cold playtest is so important.

If I took the basic Sorcerer book and gave it to the guys I played D&D with a few years back, and gave them no other clarifications, would I see conflict resolution appearing in play? Would they be running sorcerous rituals in terms of the underlying conflict?

I seriously doubt it. I just haven't seen any indication it can be extracted from the book by people who are not familiar with the concept.

Now, if it's actually supposed to be in there, there's a problem, probably with the book itself.

[Valamir]

If I took the basic Sorcerer book and gave it to the guys I played D&D with a few years back, and gave them no other clarifications, would I see conflict resolution appearing in play? Would they be running sorcerous rituals in terms of the underlying conflict?

I seriously doubt it. I just haven't seen any indication it can be extracted from the book by people who are not familiar with the concept.

Now, if it's actually supposed to be in there, there's a problem, probably with the book itself.

Interestingly enough, I was having this same conversation with Joshua K not too long ago, so I'll say here the same thing I told him.

Your above statement is completely false, and here's why.

Because neither you, nor your old D&D group were the target audience for Sorcerer.  It was not written to enable them "to get it".  It was targeted squarely on that group of people who already got it.  To the people who were running Champions and other games Ron was familiar with in a manner very similar to how Ron was running them and encountering the same "rules getting in the way" problems.  The people he wrote Sorcerer for were the people who already had the same primordial ideas about conflict resolution burbling away in their heads and didn't need to have their hands held and walked through the process in careful language.

I believe Ron has expressed his astonishment before at how many people were actually in that same boat and flocked to Sorcerer like drowning sailors to a life raft.  People who didn't need to have it explained to them.  They read it, and they knew what they needed to know to run it the way it was meant to be run.

So yes, as Sorcerer has gotten more attention from mainstream gamers, there are more and more people who don't already come with that ability encountering the game, scratching their heads and not seeing what they thought they were going to see from all the discussion.  It isn't there because it isn't meant to be there.  To put it blunty...if you can't see it...it wasn't designed with you in mind.  (and that's not an insult, because I couldn't see it either...my first reaction to Sorcerer was along the lines of "what piece of crap trying to pass itself off as an RPG is this...its only got three stats for chrissake")

Its like buying a high end router for fine carpentry work.  The instructions can tell you all about plugging it in, turning it on, wearing goggles, and how to change bits; but it doesn't (and can't) tell you how to produce fine furniture with it.  If you're already a master carpenter, you already know how to produce fine furniture and don't need to be told.  If you're not...well...that's hardly the manufacturer's responsibility.  You should fully expect your first few pieces of furniture to look like utter crap.

Now, I've beaten Ron up repeated in the past over this very issue.  I'd love to see a second edition of Sorcerer that WAS targeted at you and your D&D group (and me of a few years ago).  The question, however, is whether the effort and money it would take to produce such a thing effort and money well spent.  Based on what I know of Ron's current projects I'd say, heck no.  He's moved on way past Sorcerer.

But in many ways, this forum *IS* the second edition text.  So there's really nothing lost.  Sure.  I'd love to get my hands on an inch and a half thick hard bound Sorcerer that incorporated the full ideas from all of the supplements and this entire forum into one massive piece of gaming goodness.  But I've resigned myself to the fact that it ain't gonna happen.

Point is...the book was written for those who already got it.  The forum is here to help those who didn't/don't.  And the author himself is standing by to do as much handholding as humanly possible.  How much more do you possibly need?

[Eero Tuovinen]

But in many ways, this forum *IS* the second edition text.  So there's really nothing lost.  Sure.  I'd love to get my hands on an inch and a half thick hard bound Sorcerer that incorporated the full ideas from all of the supplements and this entire forum into one massive piece of gaming goodness.  But I've resigned myself to the fact that it ain't gonna happen.

Heh, I just want to point out that Ralph's not the only one to go through this conversation with Ron. I wouldn't be surprised that if we held a show of hands there'd be quite many of us. Must be annoying for the man himself.

But be that as it may, I agree with Ralph 100% that the available web material more than makes up for any lacks in the actual text for anybody who's of the mind to dig it out. While a second edition would be great for so many reasons (not the least because I feel Sorcerer's not getting the credit it deserves these days), I kinda like Ron's attitude of keeping the game as a "historical artifact". Because, that's how they do it in other arts. You don't hear people clamoring for a remake of Star Wars, do you? And if appreciating a work takes some research into the mind-set and culture of the creator, well, them's the breaks, at least if you're willing to consider it as a bit of history rather than entertainment.

On the other hand, I feel faintly ridiculous talking about historical developments spanning all of a decade, if that. I guess rpgs move really quickly.