Blood Simple

[Judd]

If Tony Soprano appeared as a character in Blood Simple would he be a Human or a Demon?

Tony could be the sorcerer and his posse are his demons.

The shrink could be the sorcerer and Tony is her demon.

Anthony Jr. could be the sorcerer and his dad is his demon.

His wife, daughter, etc.

It could go any number of ways.

[Ron Edwards]

In Judd's reply, you will find a lesson to be learned about Sorcerer and about role-playing in general, Jason.

Your question was nonsensical. Think it over, figure out why, and when you think you've got it (I recommend 24 hours) then post it here.

Best, Ron

[The_Tim]

I just want to commend the brilliance of using the sacrifice rules as the way to model making a person into your demon thing.

Also I want to ask about Necromancy in the setting.  I can easily see weapons, trade mark kill methods, and similar things acting well as Tokens for more ruthless Sorcerers.  The kill easily, win respect from low lives, and deaden you emotionally until you end up just another killer on the Hell-side of town.

[Jason13]

Hi Ron,

The context of my question was to find out where Judd would have Tony Soprano appear on the spectrum of Human to Demon in a Blood Simple game. In part to get a better angle on where he is coming from in respect of cultural references and also as a bit of fun because he seems like a good guy. 

Perhaps I phrased the question incorrectly?  I know that there are multiple different answers to the question, after all I have read the rules multiple times.  I picked Tony Soprano because he has many admirable qualities and lot of undesirable qualities.  So again I ask the question to you Judd and anyone else who wants to chip in with their thoughts, if Tony Soprano appeared in your game of Blood Simple what would he be and why?

Is that clear enough now for you now Ron?

Regards

Jason

[Ron Edwards]

I am not asking for clarity. Your question is not unclear, it is nonsensical.

My post was a favor to you, in order to instruct you in something important. Consider your next step carefully.

Best, Ron

[Jason13]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Ron!  It all seems pretty simple to me. 

You know who is going to play in your game.
You explain the premise of Blood Simple
You help them create PC's that they want to play.
You link them that into your r-map with their cool kickers.

..and one of the NPC's on the r-map is Tony Soprano or someone based very closely on him (because he is cool) what do you think he would be and how would you play him in that game for your group...

and what is this "consider your next step carefully" all about?

If you have something to say, then just say it.  No need to be obtuse.

This is supposed to be a forum to discuss a roleplaying game (a fun activity), not a class in Zen theology.

Regards

Jason

[Ron Edwards]

Consider your next step carefully = what you just failed to do. I suggest spending some time at Story Games or Anyway, which are better environments for you at this point.

I'm done with this conversation, Jason. Don't post to it again. More discussion of Judd's material and thoughts is welcome.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Damn. I am moderating myself. Ralph just made a really good suggestion.

The issue here is that I am not willing to help you revise your question, Jason. It's my hangup, not yours.

So - Jesse, Judd, whoever, can you dig up some threads that'll help get Jason on track? I'm the wrong guy and obviously way too stubborn.

Best, Ron

[Jason13]

Hi Ron,

I am not trying to be difficult, I just really don't understand why what I am saying is wrong?

To make me feel doubly bad, I now feel like I am screwing up Judd's thread with what I thought was a fun question.

I am also quite stubborn as well but if I am shown why I am in the wrong I will admit it and move on...

Regards

Jason

[Eric J-D]

Jason,

Although I don't have any threads to point you towards in order to help you understand why Ron's right that your question is nonsensical, let me point out a few things that you should be ware of:

1) Ron is not trying to be difficult or harsh by refusing to help you.  He is in his "teacher" mode and in this case that means the appropriate pedagogical approach is to step back and tell you that you need to do some work to figure out why your question was nonsensical.

2) Anyone here could  give you an answer to your question, "Why is what I am saying wrong?"  To do so, however, would ultimately be of less long-term benefit to you than for you to figure it out on your own.  Plenty of people here are very patient with this process and willing to steer you in the right direction, but ultimately it is in your best interests to do the work yourself.  What you will gain by doing so will vastly outweigh whatever short-term payoff you might get from someone simply handing you an answer.

3) Ron has pointed to the place where you want to start this process.  Judd's reply really contains everything you need to figure this one out on your own.  You actually don't need a single link to any other thread because the answer is staring you in the face.  So, start by thinking about how Judd's response (which in another context might come across as simply waffling on or dodging the original question of "Would Tony be a demon or a sorcerer?") is actually the answer to the question "Why is my question nonsensical?"  In what way is Judd's seeming non-answer an answer to a much more important question and issue?

I hope that helps.  Really, it is important to realize that no one here is trying to play Mr. Superior Zen Master or anything like that.  It is all about helping you to learn something by trusting that your own no-doubt very fine brain can figure this out on its own.

Cheers,

Eric

[Thunder_God]

3) Ron has pointed to the place where you want to start this process.  Judd's reply really contains everything you need to figure this one out on your own.  You actually don't need a single link to any other thread because the answer is staring you in the face.  So, start by thinking about how Judd's response (which in another context might come across as simply waffling on or dodging the original question of "Would Tony be a demon or a sorcerer?") is actually the answer to the question "Why is my question nonsensical?"  In what way is Judd's seeming non-answer an answer to a much more important question and issue?

This pointed me at the answer. That and hearing Judd on RPG.net.

That and my own way of thinking.

Your question isn't nonsensical per se, but answering it does not answer the question itself. Only you can answer the question.

I hope that will steer you right rather than sound all Zen-like, because that is the answer. And it still requires you to develop the understanding for why it is the answer yourself.

[Judd]

Hi Ron,

I am not trying to be difficult, I just really don't understand why what I am saying is wrong?

To make me feel doubly bad, I now feel like I am screwing up Judd's thread with what I thought was a fun question.

I am also quite stubborn as well but if I am shown why I am in the wrong I will admit it and move on...

Regards

Jason

Nothing's screwed up, Jason.  One of the few advantages of forum communication is taking a moment like this and rather than turning it into an internet brawl, it becomes a learning experience for everyone involved.

I really don't know what threads to direct you to, Jason.  If anyone does, please PM them to him.

Thanks all.

[Thunder_God]

Page 58 and 113 of core Sorcerer book?

[Eric J-D]

Hey Judd,

As I said in PM I think the one-sheet and character sheet are super spiffy.  Looking them over, though, I remembered that there was some discussion in the past about the Stamina descriptors shading over, in certain cases, into areas covered by Cover.  These all look really good, but "Foxy Dame" still seems to be a descriptor that could extend itself beyond things ordinarily covered by Stamina.

What do you think of something like "Body That Won't Quit" or "Great Pair of Gams" as substitutes?  They're still evocative of the hard-boiled detective genre, but they seem a bit more restricted to the physical arena covered by Stamina.

Just a thought.  Let us know how it all plays out.

Eric

[Judd]

Hey Judd,

As I said in PM I think the one-sheet and character sheet are super spiffy.  Looking them over, though, I remembered that there was some discussion in the past about the Stamina descriptors shading over, in certain cases, into areas covered by Cover.  These all look really good, but "Foxy Dame" still seems to be a descriptor that could extend itself beyond things ordinarily covered by Stamina.

What do you think of something like "Body That Won't Quit" or "Great Pair of Gams" as substitutes?  They're still evocative of the hard-boiled detective genre, but they seem a bit more restricted to the physical arena covered by Stamina.

Just a thought.  Let us know how it all plays out.

Eric

Thanks, Eric.  I'm not too worried about descriptors that cross over into covers.  Probably the worst example is the lore descriptor, tarnished badge, which could easily be seen as treading on the feet of a cop cover.  But I like the little areas where its fuzzy and it hasn't been a problem in play.

Foxy Dame might extend itself beyond things normally used for descriptors, I hold to it being a stamine desciptor that makes sense.

From the book:

"it is truly the available energy the character expresses through physical acts."

Sounds like a Foxy Dame in a red dress, set to heat up a noir thriller to me.