Third print supplement - maybe

[Blake Hutchins]

Hi Clay,

On the gender issues thing: abso-fuckin-lutely.  I too can't wait to see what Ron has to say here.

On the other bit:  I think the examples in Sorcerer et. al. are more than sufficient to stimulate thinking, and they're very accessible to the novice player (IMHO).  Sword and Soul opened up a ton of doors for me as they are.  Part of my reaction to your suggestion derives from me hating the flip to page X to check the answer to the question on page Y structure.  *shudder*  Reminds me of H.S. Algebra class, and even if Ron took that route, I think it would get waaay old after the first reading of the book.

Now, a deeper discussion of relationships and relationship variables, map structures and variations -- all that stuff gets me going.

Best,

Blake

[Ace]

It sounds like an excellent addition to the Sorcerer library to me.

If you feel like it talk a little about  sex as Transgression too. Not only is homosexuality considered a form of Transgression there are purely mystical forms as well

Things like Tantric sex and the ever popular Virgin on an Altar are  facinating stuff, especially the real psycological reasons behind them and not just the oooh and aahhh.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Blake,

I prostrate myself, of course, before your judgement on my post's lack of "coolness" -- (and am I honored for the attention? -- I am).

But let me add quickly that I think my note about connecting Ron's material about relationships to the Lone Mysterious Hero Jesse has brought up is cool....  If only because that's the sort of thing Ron Edwards can address in two paragraphs in the 3rd supplement ("many GMs find themselves with PCs absolutely uninvolved with either the other PCs or anyone on the planet....") and wrap up with a clear statement of how the tools in S&3 help solve that problem.

Should Ron do this?  I have no fucking clue.  But if Ron is intrigued, it would be swell if he addressed it.  Because a) Ron is great at just... diagnosing the problems at most gaming tables and prescribing excellent suggestion for curing them... and b) almost every solition addressed to Jesse in his thread was about addressing the PLAYER... Which of course always puts players on the spot.  What I'm assuming is that whatever Ron comes up with, it will help in this regard not by chaning who the player is, but by giving them a new tool (or tools) to play with to change their play.

Significantly, what Ron's posted so far (and it's scattered throughout the Sorcerer Library as well), is that a character's coolness is not based on his wifty abilities and the crap he owns.  No, coolness is who you interact with, who those people are, what they mean to you, and what you do for them.

This thinking goes directly against most RPG session settings -- and explains a great many posts across the internet describing games sessions that just don't seem to "go" anywhere.  A cool character without the need to interact, without ties that must be acted on and that cause personal and invested action (as opposed to a wad of cash to rob another piece of software) will all go soft eventually.

Do I think addressing "Who is your character, and exactly why is he cool?" in this context, directly and explicitely in terms of Relationships, is a cool idea.  Yes, I do.  I think it starts solving the problem form the correct angle, instead of thinking more bonus dice, more background material to read, plots created by the GM, a funny accent or whatever, is going to be as of much use.

And if anyone's the guy to do this concretely, concisely and with panache, it's Ron Edwards.  So I mentioned it.  (Though I needed another night of sleep to get it out clear.)

Again, I have no idea if Ron's interested.  Though I think he is.

*****

To others who just wondered why I was "bashing" traditional styles of RPG, an explanation.

For those of you at home thinking, "Why's this guy ragging my style of play?  We like background material, my players like me to create plots.  We like funny accents."

Great.  Here's one thing though.  At other RPG sites, people will come on and say, "My players all have this haibt I don't like."  Or the players say, "We want to have a good time, but the GM just doesn't have anything interesting going on."

Then I'll say, "Here are some tools that might help."

And then they say, "No, no.  My players/GM are traditional players.  They don't want that stuff."  And then I say, "Okay."  (And then, I've disovered, some of the people secretly skulk, thinking, "Why's he trying to shove all that Narrativism crap on me?")

And then they come back having played, post the results of a so-so session -- And everything syptom they're describing of why they found the seesion lackluster would've been addressed by trying out some Narrativist tools.

So, here are the two points:

1) In my comments above, I wasn't trying to shove Narrativism down your throat. But I was saying, "Often, I read complaints about this online.  Maybe it's time to try a new solution."

2) The Sorcerer Library is doing a Bang Up job of identifying these problems (common, and part of the standard style of RPGs, frankly), and I'm excited about one more volume I could point people to and say, "Listen. You don't even have to play the damned game.  Just read these four volumes and you will see a gajillion tricks, tools and rules to try out and really get the kind of game you clearly want to be playing.

The issue of the mysterious stranger player character is one of these problems, and in a book on relationships, it be cool to have it addressed.

Take care,
Christopher

[Blake Hutchins]

Hey Christopher,

Let me try to pull my size 10 hoof out of my mouth.

I wrote waaay too glibly, assuming your post and others in that line to be in accord with what Ron articulated he wanted to do from the get-go, so I didn't mean those -- or you -- specifically.  Consequently, the entire "cool" comment was an unfortunate example of maladroitness on my part.  What I was thinking when I rattled it off was anything that came out of left field, surprised me, and blew my socks off.  However, it can very reasonably be taken as a snipe against other posters here, and that's my bad.  Sorry.

Again, that bit absolutely wasn't meant to say "y'all suck" or "none of the ideas here are cool."  Au contraire.  Lots of cool stuff on this thread, and the ideas you've articulated are positively droolworthy.

OK, I'm going to go stick my head back in the... er, sand, yeah.  Sand.  That's it.  Much less moist than the other place.

Best,

Blake

[Valamir]

Heh, hey Blake, I wouldn't worry to much about it.  Sometimes I actually have to be reminded to stop chewing when I get to the knee ;-)

[Uncle Dark]

Hi, all.

Something Ace said crystalized my one minor concern with a supplement dealing (in part, anyway) with gender and transgression.  What Ace wrote was: "Not only is homosexuality considered a form of Transgression ..."

Not to rag on ya, Ace, but in the circles I work and play in, straight people seem pretty weird to us...  And to unpack that glib comment a bit, it is the narrow, taken-for-grantedness of social/gender/sexual roles I normally associate with straight people that seems weird.

Where I'm going with this is that it may take a gentle hand at the wheel to address transgression, gender, and sex without seeming to be essentialist or narrow-minded about it.

I fully trust that Ron is up to it.  Still, I feel better having said something.

Mind you, if y'all want to start talking about gender essentiallism vs. the social construction of gender as it applies to relationships (transgressive and otherwise) in Sorcerer, I'm game...

Lon

[hive]

I ran an improv game we called "boyfriend vs. girlfriend" a couple of months ago and breaks down as follows:

4 players with direct motives
2 players with of the same players had ulterior motives

1 person as the audience.

Now of the four players, there were one boyfriend, one girlfriend, and two best friends. Each had a direct motive to play towards their goal (what they had written down in the playlog prior to the game). They had to be direct in how they would reach their goal. Simple and Straightforward. The two players with ulterior motives had to get their goals accomplished through manipulation of the others goals. These were created by the audience player. The duration was simulating one week of 'real life'.

Of the 4 hours of play, we had running dialogue (improv scenes), 4 fights, 1 breakup, 1 love triangle, and 1 reunion.

The game ended itself when one of the players announced that he succeeded in his ulterior motive. He was pregnant.

The whole thing went over well and still gets brought up at the diner gatherings. I think the biggest appeal was the fact that you could finally get away with the things the other sex does in real life.

Needless to say, i'll be all over this supplement if it comes to light...


-
h
www.internalist.com

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Blake,

No big deal.  Your post amused me more than anything else.  I'm not used to seeing this kind of "I brush you all off" kind of thing around here -- and chalked it up to typing too fast.  But thank you for the humerous follow up.

Christopher

[Walt Freitag]

Lon has a good point. But my suspicion is that Ron is already well beyond that frame of reference. (Nothing like a close look at the biological world to put the whole breadth of the spectrum of mere human sexuality in perspective. See also, the Violence Future thread Ron linked to.)

In other words, I would expect sexual Transgressions discussed in S-IV to focus on the truly horrific, not just stuff that would scandalize my aunt Matilda (who's probably too busy in her dungeon playroom with her tranny-boy friends to pay any attention anyway). I'd be far from the first to point out that most of the truly horrific stories of sexual transgression can be found between the lines on the eleven o'clock news.

- Walt

[Ace]

Hi, all.

Something Ace said crystalized my one minor concern with a supplement dealing (in part, anyway) with gender and transgression.  What Ace wrote was: "Not only is homosexuality considered a form of Transgression ..."

Not to rag on ya, Ace, but in the circles I work and play in, straight people seem pretty weird to us...  And to unpack that glib comment a bit, it is the narrow, taken-for-grantedness of social/gender/sexual roles I normally associate with straight people that seems weird.

Where I'm going with this is that it may take a gentle hand at the wheel to address transgression, gender, and sex without seeming to be essentialist or narrow-minded about it.

I fully trust that Ron is up to it.  Still, I feel better having said something.

Mind you, if y'all want to start talking about gender essentiallism vs. the social construction of gender as it applies to relationships (transgressive and otherwise) in Sorcerer, I'm game...

Lon

No offense was meant Lon

I don't consider  homosexuality transgressve

However many many people consides any sexuality other than between a man and a woman, preferably married, as Transgressive.

This has a huge impact in the construction of human societies in general.

By and large the "narrow, taken-for-grantedness of social/gender/sexual roles is wierd " attitude you have is quite unusual in the world scene.

A real world example

In some of the Pushtan provinces of Afghanistan a homosexual liason is normal and expected "A man for pleasure- A woman for babies" is the prevailing attitude at least according to the BBC

However in Russia people consider homosexuality to be seriously evil and deviant, Transgrssive if you like.

This does make a difference in an adult game and IMO ought to be mentioned if the sexual aspects of human behavior are appropriate for the supplement.

Sorry about the confusion

[Blake Hutchins]

Christopher,

No worries.  I'm not usually given to spitting out blanket statements (spitting blankets -- hey, is that a demonic image?), and I appreciated the admonition.

Back to the topic at hand, I hope Ron plans to address the comfort level issues discussed in other threads regarding the graphic intensity of sex and violence in gaming.  I found that stuff quite fascinating, and I'm eager to see what Ron kicks out after having mulled it over for a few months.

Best,

Blake

[Uncle Dark]

Ace,

No worries.  I wasn't offended, just concerned that the take on it all not be too simplistic.

I know I'm statisically unusual.  I've also spent a decade or so studying psychology and gender, so I'm a little sensitive to the subtleties.

Although...

This does bring up the question of "transgressive against who, exactly?"  Are we looking at acts which transgress against the mores of the sorcerer, as absorbed from the society in which s/he grew up?  Or are we looking at transgression against social mores which are, somehow, independent of individual belief?

The difference comes up with, say, a gay sorcerer who uses sex as part of his rituals.  In order to be properly transgressive, does he have to have sex with a woman (against his own nature/tastes) or a man (against social convention and/or internalized social rules)?  Does it matter if anyone knows?

Another example: would the mere existence and daily life of a female-to-male transsexual sorcerer be transgressive enough, or would he have to do something to assert his (assumed) maleness to transgress sorcerously?  Or would he have to revert to some aspect of his prior, female self and thus transgress against his own self-ideal?

Then again, questions like this may be some of the things Ron is thinking of addressing.

Lon

[efindel]

While reading through this thread, I had an idea for a title for such a book -- "Sorcerer and Self".  

What will give up for power?  Your culture?  Your family?  Your self?

--Travis

[Clay]

Lon,

In the situation you described, it sounds like the open homosexual wouldn't be a transgressive role at all, since he doesn't have anything to hide. He'd have something to hide if he was straight, but for some reason didn't want anyone to find out.  Chasing Amy actually set this situation up pretty well.

Playing the traditional noir scene though, and that goes right out the window. A fag's a fag, by default transgressive, and there's tons of power available via that transgression, whether for good or ill.  Same goes for gender roles.  My girlfriend's cattle baroness made excellent use of that power.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Travis,

That's interesting, 'cause one of my working titles for The Sorcerer's Soul was "The Sorcerer's Self."

Best,
Ron