Demons knowledge and players...

[Fabrice G.]

Hi,

I'm about to run my first Sorcerer game and a question arise...what do you tell to your players about demons ? About their true nature, their means, etc.?

Usually, I keep that kind of stuff to myself. But with Sorcerer, I'm wondering if the whole point isn't tha players knowinh it and designing their character from that knowledge.
OOH i'm affraid to spill the fun if i tell them, and OTOH i'm affraid to miss some good characters, kickers and situations if i keep it a surprise...

What did you do ? And, how did it work/fail ?

Thanks.

Fabrice.

(edited to fix the name of the thread)

[Clay]

In my case I told my players about the nature of demons. They are things that aren't real, but want to be. The process of summoning makes them real, and binding pins them to this world. I didn't have an overearching demon metaplot, so there weren't any beans to spill there. The evil in my world came fundamentally from humans; demons were simply abstracts wanting to be concrete.

How much you tell your players will probably depend on what the nature of demons is in your world. I think that the players need to know some basics though, since by the time play starts they have already contacted, summoned and bound one demon.

[Ron Edwards]

Fabrice,

My question for you is, why are you asking me this question, and not asking your players?

Your entire post is based on an incorrect idea - that the GM is the ruler of "the information" that gets passed to players. Read Chapter Four again in some detail, and you will see that the GM and players together answer most of the questions you have raised, before play begins.

Best,
Ron

[Fabrice G.]

Okay, okay...

First, thanks to both of you. Sometimes I just need some "eye-opener" getting me back into the right path.

I think I'm afraid to loose some of my design control and see the game becoming quite something else than what I had I mind...

BUT...
I see my players Saturday, I think I'll give them the mood and inspiration for the game and let them decide for themselves how they would imagine the demons in this context. I'll tell them that I have some ideas about the nature of demons and ask them to tell me if they want to know this stuff or be ignorant of it.


Fabrice, sorcerer game-MASTER ;)

[Ron Edwards]

Fabrice,

Check out Tor's thread Circular campaign design (not a good thing) and then see his threads on his Southern Fried Sorcerer game (one in this forum, and two or three in Actual Play).

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

First, thanks to both of you. Sometimes I just need some "eye-opener" getting me back into the right path.

I think I'm afraid to lose some of my design control and see the game becoming quite something else than what I had I mind...

This reminds me of all those 'player knowledge use is evil' arguments I never understood.  If you really feel the way you expressed it above, I'm pretty sure Sorcerer is not going to be able to deliver.

The way I write about gaming, Sorcerer is inherently designed for more Gamemasterful sharing than the traditional or 'old fashioned' games you sound familiar with.  If control of the design of the scenario includes all the details of how demons interact with their humans, what choices do the players have in character creation?

As far as I have read about Sorcerer, it's a game about gamemasters and players coming together and making a Self-Conscious narrative.  By exercising "design control," I fear you are taking the players out of that equation.

I am right there with you on the difficulties of abandoning the olde "it's all the gamemaster's world" schtick, but in Sorcerer, I understand there is few other ways (unless the players invoke 'vanilla Narrativism' and ask the gamemaster specifically to make that mysterious).  It's a hard habit to kick (even harder to thrust on unsuspecting players), but I think you'll have to 'let go' of this desire to "control."

BUT...
I see my players Saturday, I think I'll give them the mood and inspiration for the game and let them decide for themselves how they would imagine the demons in this context. I'll tell them that I have some ideas about the nature of demons and ask them to tell me if they want to know this stuff or be ignorant of it.

This sounds like an even worse situation than actually including the players in the choice.  I mean I understand how it can look like a good idea to have something prepared ahead of time if the players don't provide something, but 'asking if they want to know the stuff' almost flat-out tells them not to ask (and that they are 'not meant to know.')  This flies in the face of what I perceive as one of Sorcerer's best strengths (as a Self-Conscious narrative game).

You sound pretty committed to the idea for the demons thing, and that's not a bad thing.  If you consider pursuing the 'secrecy' of not telling the players this stuff, you'll rob them of the ability to do any player-authoring of stuff.  (You can't author things you don't know about and if you know there are things that are 'out of bounds' you probably won't want to go near them.)  My suggestion is be above-board and up front if you want the game to be limited to only that way to handle demons; let the players 'riff' off of that knowledge (this begs the question of what will be lost to player knowledge; what fun will be spoiled and whether that should be the focus of the game).

Another possibility you might consider is having the information you wish to keep secret simply a way and not the way to interact with demons.  This will allow the players to individually tailor their character's design to whatever interaction they've come up with; this is basically letting them have another way.  That way you have a secret that they can explore around without it hampering their core player-authoring in an annoyingly mysterious fashion.  ("You can't do that."  "Why?"  "Because of things you aren't meant to know. <-- Cue the campy echo.)

If you go into the character creation with a solidified idea of 'how things work' and a desire to 'keep it a secret,' I don't see what the players will get to do with their character creation other than guess what might be fun to play.  (That's like saying, "I've got a new toy, let's meet outside to play with it!"  You bring a football and they come dressed for high tea and croquet.)  (Let me hit that horse one more time, it might not be dead:)  Involve the players, don't 'run' them.  I don't know what else there is to say.

Fang Langford

[Fabrice G.]

Hi Fang,

thanks for the advices.

I need to make myself clear. I'm all about sharing authorship. That's the main reason of my dissatisfaction with traditional rpg out there. Before knowing about The Forge, all my experience about naratisist games came from the little dreaded article by Christopher Kubasik: the Interactive Toolkit. And that's why I'm so eager to start playing Sorcerer.

My fear about loss of design control is, IMO, about my wants and those of the players. See I have very explicit influences for this Sorcerer game. What interest me in running this game is  playing along those inspirational sources.
Here I'm thinking of a mix between the surreal atmosphere of Twin Peaks or Eraserhead by Lynch, and the organic horror of Cronenberg.

Well, I know my players will have their takes in the stories and the setting. But my fear is that we might not play along those lines if I don't keep some control over the design process. It's not a close subject, but some parts of it are definitely going to be in the game I run...because if they're not, then it's not the game I want to play.

For ex.: my take about the demon is that they're dark human urges that gained* consciousness, and who wants to come fully in the real of flesh.
(think Bob  My basic demon would be a parasite developping from a tumor of a foetus and who would slowly work to gain contrôl of the host (thus becoming a possessor). Well, my question is: do I tell my players all that ? Or do I keep it as some shock revelation ?

(* or were given, that's not the point. The point is a "cronenberg-esque" degeneration of some sorcerer who follow that way of sorcery.)

Well, in light of this discution, I'm going the "freedom of information" route. All I hope is that my players will DO something awfull with it (as it's not something they will be scared, i hope it will be something they'll make scary).

Again, this will be some suggestions from me (it fit quite well with the cronenberg influence, IMO). But if they don't take it, what do I do ? Waste such an inspiring idea ? Hell, no !!

(please, excuse me if i'm being rude or dense...ya just hit the touchy point. But it's a nice reminder not to let this new game change my good ways...)

Ron,

where's you're cristal ball, man ?????
Well, you spotted the right problem (again). I so badly want this game to be "perfect" that I loose all common sense.
I'm still exploring those threads...


Fabrice.

[Buddha Nature]

Hey, if you are looking for the Cronenburg look/feel with the idea that demons are more emotions that supernatural creatures you shoulc check out Jared Sorenson's Schism.  It might help you clear some stuff up and maybe give you more info that you can share with your players.

-Shane (who is still waiting for his Sorcerer stuff to show up)

[Le Joueur]

I need to make myself clear. I'm all about sharing authorship.

My fear about loss of design control is, IMO, about my wants and those of the players. See I have very explicit influences for this Sorcerer game. What interest me in running this game is  playing along those inspirational sources.  (Here I'm thinking of a mix between the surreal atmosphere of Twin Peaks or Eraserhead by Lynch, and the organic horror of Cronenberg.)

Well, I know my players will have their takes in the stories and the setting. But my fear is that we might not play along those lines if I don't keep some control over the design process. It's not a close subject, but some parts of it are definitely going to be in the game I run...because if they're not, then it's not the game I want to play.

Sorry, I'm being terribly unclear.  I'm not suggesting that the players 'take control' either.  You have your wants and the players have theirs; instead of one controlling the other, negotiate!  I'm tellin' ya man; it's the wwaavvve of the future.  If you can't reach a compromise then I can guarantee that either way (player control or gamemaster control) will not be the game the other wants to play.  That's the point in negotiating instead of 'controlling.'  (Negotiation is never wasted when you reach a 'win/win' situation.)

For ex.: my take about the demon is that they're dark human urges that gained* consciousness, and who wants to come fully in the real of flesh.

(Think: Bob, my basic demon, would be a parasite developing from a tumor of a foetus and who would slowly work to gain control of the host (thus becoming a possessor.) Well, my question is: do I tell my players all that? Or do I keep it as some shock revelation?

Yer gittin' it backwards, pardner.  It's not 'do I tell my players;' it's 'getting my players to tell me.'  You aren't the keeper of shock (that would be a whole other game because the shock-effect seriously deprotagonizes the players unless handled veerrryyy carefully), they are.  Meet each player in secret, negotiate a suitably shocking demon that suits both your vision and their desires; have them shock the other players when the time comes for it.

Being a supporter of the shock is just as good as being shocking, plus you don't run the risk of alienating the victim because it's their idea!  I call this 'the need to conspire with the players.'  Imagine it; the game trundles along each player sharing some wicked secret with you.  You and a player working together to 'pull one over' on the other players; you work to shock them big time as a team.  You orchestrate the circumstances for the shock and they play it for ultimate impact.  (Imagine playing Alien as a game, and the first chest-burster was a surprise for everyone playing except the gamemaster who set up the dinner scene and the player who invented the chest-burster.)  Now take that times the number of players you have and voila!  Tons of fun.

I hope it will be something they'll make scary

Which goes perfectly with my 'conspire with your players' technique.

Fang Langford

[Fabrice G.]

Hey Fang,

that's sound reeeeeaally cool !!!

I'll try your "need to conspire"...

Sorry about the misunderstanding, I really felt like you said I shouldn't keep some (even minimal) control (my bad !)...ne-go-cia-tion, hey ! got it ;)

Well thanks...I'll keep you informed how's it goin'

Fabrice.

ps: Shane, I've been waiting two month (!!) for my stuff to come to the cheese contry-that's waiting !! Hold on !! ;)
pps: now I have to rectify...five days for &Sword (that's fast !!!)

[Buddha Nature]

Shouldn't take too long to get Schism I'd figure.  Its a PDF, I though Jared would just email it to you...

-Shane

[Fabrice G.]

Hi Shane,

I guess Schism would effectively be a very good choice as it is directly inspired by some of the sources I choose for this game. I think I'll wait a little, but I'll buy it. I want to see what I can do for myself first.


Fabrice.