Our first try 2

[cmnash]

We met again last night and continued our preparation for our first Sorcerer game.  I had done my prep and lifted from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=11965.0 the checklist of things to define for the game, as listed by Ron. That list is:

1. Come up with an overall look & feel

2. Come up with a look & feel for sorcerous rituals. Everyone should have a solid image of what their character really did to bind that demon they have.

3. Get a nice look & feel for demons

4. Have a neat list of descriptors to choose from that fits very well with both #1 and #2, and don't forget Cover.

5. Consider what you, as GM, will levy Humanity checks and award Humanity gain rolls for. You don't have to have any big debate or analysis about this - in fact, I strongly recommend not doing so. Just consider it, as GM, and tell'em what you come up with. Give an example or two.

6. Make sure the Kickers are inspiring to you, as GM.

So I'll address each of these:

Overall look & feel
I had already addressed this with an email which said: "It will be in the near future, in a grimy run down city. Computer contolled automation has increased - it is usual for people to access the fridge in their home from work to see what is in it via the internet and maybe print out a shopping list, or use the internet to turn on their oven/heating/whatever.  Automated cars - as per I, Robot - are commonplace.
The main 'arena' will be a University. On the campus walkways are clean and graffiti is rapidly removed - the opposite of the city ...
It's a very drab town, most people wear browns or grays - people wearing bright colours stand out (think of the Red dress scene in the Matrix)
And it nearly always seems to be raining ..."

All the players bought into this and there was some clarification on the overall tone - is it more 'I, Robot' or 'Seven' ?
In my definition I had tried to play up the duality of the setting, so I plumped for Seven outside the campus and I, Robot on it. Note: this is 'feel' (there are no Robots); 'Seven' is much darker than 'I, Robot'

Come up with a look & feel for sorcerous rituals
I'd had an idea about this which I pitched to the group and got nods around the table for it and at least one 'Cool!' which I was pleased at!
  When conducting Sorcery, time appears to freeze for the Sorcerer and they are transported to somewhere else (mentally not literally). That place does not appear the same for everyone, but there is a common theme of a boundary - for one Sorcerer it could be a grassy hill with a low stone wall, for another it could be a desert with a literal 'line in the sand', etc ...

• Contact ritual - takes you to the boundary


• Summoning ritual - calls the Demon to the other side of the boundary


• Binding ritual - you pull the Demon across the boundary and then bind it (any of the methods from the rulebook)


• Banishing ritual - you push the Demon back over the boundary (I explained this as time freezing again and a hole opening behind the Demon through which you 'push' the Demon back over your boundary)
  


• Contain ritual - time freezes again you construct a boundary of your own around the Demon

I was inspired by the River concept from Ron's modern necromancy threads when I came up with this transported somewhere else concept. The boundary represents the edge of 'here' and 'not-here' where the Demons are ...


Get a nice look & feel for demons
Still working on this ... I have a gut feeling that I want Demons to be mysterious very hard to define in any sense. Defining a Demon puts limits on it and once you have limited something, you can get closer to understanding and/or controlling it.
As 3 out of the 4 Demons created so far are Inconspicuous and the other (a Passer) has Cloak, I'm heading in the right direction with this. I see the Demons as only reluctantly interacting with the physical world - they would much rather use their Sorcerers to do that ...
One interesting thing that came out of character gen was that 2 players both created scent based telltales for their Demons, so as a group we adopted that as a common theme for Demons - i.e. most (not necessarily all) Demons will have scent based telltales
Another theme we adopted was that Demonic names will be 'old' - probably bibical in style - to reinforce their mysterious, enduring nature

Have a neat list of descriptors
As this is our first game, we are using the lists straight from the book, which I feel is a bit of a cop out, but would rather do that for now. If we like the game, then second time around, I'll come up with some myself.

Consider what you, as GM, will levy Humanity checks and award Humanity gain rolls for
We had a discussion about this and eventually settled on Empathy as our Humanity rule. We did consider using Soul (as per Sorcerer's Soul) which would be interesting, but consensus was that Empathy suited the modern setting better.  I did give a couple of examples for Humanity, but I can't remember what they were now :( 
We seemed to have a consensus on what Humanity meant in-game, which was the goal. We also discussed what happens at Humanity zero, and decided to use the 'character dies next session' option that I have seen somewhere ... can't remember where though

Make sure the Kickers are inspiring to you, as GM
3 of the 4 players have defined their Kickers. I was bit dubious about 2 of them, but discussed that with them in the group setting and divined what I think they want from themand found there was plenty of mileage in them


So that's the pre-game definitions sorted and (as usual!) I have some questions that I'd like help with:

Should a chargen post go in Actual Play forum?

What is your reaction to my Sorcery definition? is it 'cool' or 'he's gonna have problems with that!' and if it's the latter what problems?

Thanks,
Colin

[Ron Edwards]

I'm very impressed with what you've posted so far.

I also think it might be useful - right at this point, right on time - to develop a sense of ownership over the material, so that the book and this forum now become something you use rather than something to live up to. Be proud of yourselves and eager actually to start playing.

Maybe consider posting next after playing for the first time, in order to avoid getting wrapped up in pre-play jitters.

That's not to say we should close this thread. All comments or points about this prep are welcome. It looks great to me, and I look forward to meeting you and fellow group members one day.

Best,
Ron

[cmnash]

Hi Ron

I'm very impressed with what you've posted so far.

I also think it might be useful - right at this point, right on time - to develop a sense of ownership over the material, so that the book and this forum now become something you use rather than something to live up to. Be proud of yourselves and eager actually to start playing.

D'you know, I hadn't even thought of it in those terms, but you are absolutely right. I have been thinking of Sorcerer as an intense mental exercise that I wasn't sure I could pull off and was actually getting very nervous about ... but the bottom line is that it's a game, perhaps one that's intended to be intense, but still a game. I had lost sight of that fact ... thanks for bringing out the clue-bat.

That said, it's always nice to get compliments!

Maybe consider posting next after playing for the first time, in order to avoid getting wrapped up in pre-play jitters.

I'll do that

That's not to say we should close this thread. All comments or points about this prep are welcome. It looks great to me, and I look forward to meeting you and fellow group members one day.

Best,
Ron

Let me know when you're coming to the UK and we'll try and fix something up. Seriously.

Ron seems to have - probably deliberately - addressed my question on the Sorcery theme; anyone else have an opinion on it?

Cheers, Colin

[cmnash]

Well, it looks like we won't be playing Sorcerer after all ... :(

Most of my group have said they "were willing to give it a try" but all had expressed 'reservations' about it.

This coupled with my own 'reservations' about playing with 5 players has convinced me not to play it right now - I'd rather not play then perhaps pollute my feelings towards the game by running it badly.

Hopefully, I will be able to run it with a smaller group someday.

Cheers, Colin

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'd like to see a list of those reservations, from the other people. I've been observing this phenomenon dating all the way back to the game's first playtest, so I'm interested to see whether your experience matches mine.

Best,
Ron

[cmnash]

Ron,  I'll try and get a list for you from the players, but to be honest nobody voiced any objections that were strong enough for me to remember.

I think that as soon as I described it as an "Intense" rpg was when their attitude went from "OK what's this game all about then?", to "You want us to play what?!"

2 of them have subsequently said (in a distilled form) that they'd rather play d20 D&D and just kill things ...

I guess it just wasn't meant to be :(

Cheers, Colin

[bruce]

Hi Ron,

Elaborating on Colin's reply a little and speaking as the only player in Colin's group who is enthusiastic about giving Sorcerer a try, my impression is that in our efforts to improve the quality of roleplaying from our perspective (i.e. mine and Colin's) we have uncovered a fundamental difference in gaming desires within the group. To me the two of us are looking for more story, character driven plots, greater intensity etc, all of which Sorcerer not only supports but encourages, hence our enthusiasm for giving it a go. Unfortunately however the majority of our group isn't looking to make any significant investment in the games, in fact that is almost totally opposite to their wishes. Largely they just want to turn up, chill out and have a bit of fun with something simple like D&D where they can just kill things (as Colin put it) rather than having to deal with potentially difficult moral quandries. I guess that to them it's more of a 'release' rather than a 'creative investment'. Perhaps that's not a good way to express it but hopefully you get the drift.

I should add that I don't believe there's anything wrong with them having this opinion i.e. they have as much right to want what they want from the games as I do. It's just a bit disappointing (for me anyway) to discover that this is the case, though in the long run it's probably a good thing that it has come to light

Not sure if this is the same thing you've experienced but I guess it must be a fairly common occurrence.

Regards

Bruce

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Thanks, Bruce. There's actually two phenomena to discuss, I think.

The first is just what you've described, and which is also echoed, at the moment, in an Actual Play thread by Jesse (jburneko). Basically, a role-playing group is often a "group" in name only, as the people are meeting for diverse reasons and only continuing to meet because those reasons/goals aren't being openly violated - mainly because they're not articulated, or, for that matter, satisfactorily met. Sort of like a marriage which would dissolve if honest words were ever exchanged.

This is pretty common, I think. It's also not surprising that games with a stronger Creative Agenda focus (or within a given Agenda, specific kinds of emotional/social commitments) tend to reveal the existing differences and goals within the group. I think it's interesting that advice in books like Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering aims toward keeping the group together, whereas advice in (for instance) Sorcerer & Sword aims toward building new groups around expressly shared goals.

All of that may be especially notable for many recent independent games, but Sorcerer is just one of the pack, as far as I see it.

The second thing is more specific to Sorcerer, and although it doesn't have much to do with your group, it's interesting to think about. There seems to be a distinct "itchy" reaction that a number of people have regarding the game. Sometimes they react to the term/concept of "demon," and sometimes they balk later, at writing the Kicker. At one con I promoted the game at, very early in the process (1995-96, somewhere in there), a fellow had a really strange, aversive response to the phrase "No spells, no elves" on the promotional flyer.

Since that didn't seem to be the case with you guys, I guess there's no opportunity to look into it further, in this thread. But again, thanks for chiming in. It seems to me as if you and Colin are well on your way to a successful time, based on what I've seen with other groups (or "groups") which split on this basis.

Best,
Ron

[cmnash]

Hi,  Just an update on what's happened ...

Well, the group has split as had been expected.  I understand that the other 4 are now starting a Call of Cthulhu campaign run by a guy who's only effort toward being a GM is to read the scenario ... which he has been known to forget to bring when he's running the game ...

Although I am sad at the break-up of our group, both Bruce and I are looking forward to trying some games that take a more narratavist stance and seem less like a trip on a trans-continental railroad ...

We have a 3rd recruit - someone who gamed with the previous group for a short while, but didn't like the rollplay over roleplay attitude of the majority- and I'm hoping to start with Burning Wheel and Bruce wants to give Polaris a crack (if we can get a 4th player) before stepping up to the big Sorcerer league

Cheers, Colin

[Andrew Cooper]

We have a 3rd recruit - someone who gamed with the previous group for a short while, but didn't like the rollplay over roleplay attitude of the majority- and I'm hoping to start with Burning Wheel and Bruce wants to give Polaris a crack (if we can get a 4th player) before stepping up to the big Sorcerer league

The mention of "rollplay over roleplay" set off a couple of alarms for me, so I figured I'd chime in with my concerns.  I'm sure that Ron has discussed the fact that the rollplay vs roleplay dichotomy is a fallacy somewhere, I'm just not certain where at this point.  If someone else has a link to whichever essay it is, feel free to put it up.  If you are looking for Indie Games to facilitate roleplaying without the use of fortune mechanics, you're going to be somewhat disappointed in some of your choices.  I can't speak for Polaris (never having read the game) but Burning Wheel and Sorcerer actually expect you to roll the dice with great frequency.  In fact, the Indie Games I've played to this point actually require more dice rolling than D&D (at least as my group played it).  The difference is what you are rolling the dice for, not the fact you are rolling them.  My experience with Indie Games leads me to believe that their designers think that mechanics (including fortune / dice) are important and should drive the game towards the goals of the creator.

So, my concern is mainly this: If you plan on playing BW or Sorcerer and actually decrease the role of the dice in the game, you're probably going to be very confused when either the game doesn't deliver the experience you expect because you aren't engaging the dice mechanics enough or when you discover that you are actually rolling more then you were before picking up the Indie Games.

[cmnash]

Hmmm ... my definition of 'rollplay vs roleplay' probably isn't the same as yours then and I've not read Ron's articles on that.

What I meant was, in the group that I have left, there was very little effort to do anything other than roll the dice as opposed to playing a role.

In my use of the terms above, I would probably have been better - in Forge-speak - describing it as too much Gamism and not enough Narrativism and a complete rejection of shared authorship - which was something I tried to cultivate in the DnD campaign I ran for the group, even though I didn't know that that was what I was doing!

Having read BW, its BITRs and whole co-operative 'world-burning' makes it something that I'm sure Bruce, myself and Glyn - our 3rd player - will have a great time playing.

And one day we will play Sorcerer

Cheers, Colin