Last chance on Sword MS

[Ron Edwards]

Hey everyone,

Sorcerer & Sword is going into print in just a couple of months (early November is the plan). That means that within the week, there will be NO more chance to mess with the text.

This one's received an enormous rewrite. The necromancy rules are much clearer and cover many examples. The bibliography is more extensive (yes!). The fight rules and lots of stuff about dealing with die rolls in Sorcerer in general have been expanded. And the last chapter is WAY re-written to explain my "driving with Bangs" concept, which has always been my conceptual partner for the Relationship Map stuff, but never really expressed in print before.

What else? Last chance.

Best,
Ron

[Zak Arntson]

Short of an advance copy (wink wink) ...

Do you talk about the Lovecraftian elements?  And maybe help towards party play (since a lot of the genre is single/paired heroes)?

And while I liked the setting examples you gave in your 1st copy, I felt that you missed the obvious setting example (maybe you didn't feel it necesary to talk about the obvious setting, since it shows up in so many books) of old empires, mostly humans, forgotten gods.  But maybe that's my own bias

I'm also hoping you keep in the bits (and maybe really stress ?) where you talk about building the setting up, inventing as you go.  I really think people need to realize that an good fantasy world does NOT mean detailed map, several invented languages, an entire economic structure in place, a blanketing meta-plot, and a bunch of spell lists.  Again, I'm pretty biased.

Anyhow, I'm REALLY looking forward to this one.  And a bigger bibliography!?  I'm already out of shelf space ...

[jburneko]

On 2001-08-25 01:05, Zak Arntson wrote:
I'm also hoping you keep in the bits (and maybe really stress ?) where you talk about building the setting up, inventing as you go.  I really think people need to realize that an good fantasy world does NOT mean detailed map, several invented languages, an entire economic structure in place, a blanketing meta-plot, and a bunch of spell lists.  Again, I'm pretty biased.

I'd like to second this.  To me Rich Setting has always meant detailed maps with a deep understading of the social, economic and political relationships between every location.  Which meant (to me) understanding which areas had what resources and what they needed in return.  How many days it takes to travel from point A to point B and extrapolating all the potential ramifications of that and so on.  BLEH.  I don't even really care for that when a published setting does all that for me.  So an alternative definition of Rich Setting and how to build it both in and out of game would be MUCH appreciated.

And of course, I'm still waiting for an anotated transcript of play (made up or real).  You know one with footnotes like: "I had this event occure because ...." and "That was a detail the player made up and I chose to react like this because..." and so on.  I don't know if Sword is the best place for it but I still want it. :smile:

Jesse

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jesse,

I'm still waiting for an anotated transcript of play (made up or real). You know one with footnotes like: "I had this event occure because ...." and "That was a detail the player made up and I chose to react like this because..." and so on.

The best thing I've read like this is the "How an Adventure Works" section of Over the Edge, written by Jonathan Tweet. Have you read it? You definitely should, and the Robin Laws essay that precedes it too.

But I agree, I'd love to see the Ron Edwards version.

Paul

[Ron Edwards]

I'll add it to my list of "Thing people want Ron to write about" and get back to Sword stuff.

This is it - anything else you want to say about what's in or not in this supplement. Now's the time.

Best,
Ron

[Supplanter]

This may be a candidate for the author veto list, but I'd like to see some discussion of playing what the basic rules call "persons of power" - i.e. non-sorcerers. In a sword & sorcery adventure, it seems like it's one thing to have one guy carrying around a demon sword or whatever, but to have _four_ guys doing it seems (in advance of actual play) like overkill. And no, it doesn't help if you spread it around so one guy has a demon sword and another guy has demon armor and the woman has a demon pendant... :wink:

Hey, it's not like I'm asking for clerics!

Best,


Jim

[Zak Arntson]

On 2001-08-26 22:56, Supplanter wrote:
... i.e. non-sorcerers. In a sword & sorcery adventure, it seems like it's one thing to have one guy carrying around a demon sword or whatever, but to have _four_ guys doing it seems (in advance of actual play) like overkill.

I'll say it again, the most important thing for a successful and fun "raw" fantasy roleplaying game would be to emulate the genre while facilitating party play of 3-5 players.

I also would like to see how the non-sorcerers fit into the world.  Maybe their Demon is Fate?  From the books I've read, not many are tied to a literal demon, but all are somehow coping with a destiny they may or may not want.

(of course these topics may be in the earlier version of Sword, but since they don't stick out in memory after reading it a few months ago, they could stand to be stressed)

[Ron Edwards]

Well, some of this is there and some isn't ....

The whole CONCEPT of "the party" pretty much has to be abandoned. It's not canonical, and more importantly, it's not consistent with the whole idea at hand.

My solutions for this consist of a variety of tactics. They include a diversity of sorcerer concepts (much broader than the pseudo-diversity Jim rightly describes), a VERY important focus on the "demon-less sorcerer," which is exactly what Conan is, a look at the different roles heroes can play relative to one another, and a lot of stuff about Author stance which facilitates playing across protagonists who are physically separated.

In other words, I offer solutions, but they aren't easy or familiar.

Best,
Ron

[Zak Arntson]

On 2001-08-27 00:28, Ron Edwards wrote:
In other words, I offer solutions, but they aren't easy or familiar.

Actually, that gets me more excited than ever.  I'm looking forward to seeing how you suggest managing a group of players while sticking to the 1 (maybe 2) protagonist genre.

[Supplanter]

Ron, it's gonna just kill you when I let someone make a zero-lore POP in &Sword, isn't it? :wink:

One thing about the demonless sorcerer concept: IIRC (the famous bound Sorc pdfs having gone temporarily missing around here), in exchange for starting without a demon your character gets - bupkus, don't they? Put more precisely, isn't the only compensation that they avoid the pregame humanity roll that they might have won anyway if they did start with a bound demon?

This seems fine according to the "economic model" I discussed in the context of ADRPG trump artistry, but you decry the economic model.

Best,


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

Jim,

I don't follow you. If a Sword character starts without a Bound demon, he or she doesn't have a Binding roll to consider. I see it as a straightforward consequence, not matter of "balance" or "compensation" at all.

It's neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to have a Bound demon; it's neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to have an initial Binding roll. Either way is "good," because in Sword, whatever the character IS sets the tone, topic, and any concern of play. Choosing one or the other starting mode has no element of strategy, no more than jotting down notes about a protagonist for a story to be written is "strategy."

Also, I think you are caricaturing my position regarding your economic comments. I found much to agree with you about on that thread, and "decry" is wholly off the mark in terms of values/judgments.

Best,
Ron

[Supplanter]

It's neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to have a Bound demon; it's neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to have an initial Binding roll. Either way is "good," because in Sword, whatever the character IS sets the tone, topic, and any concern of play. Choosing one or the other starting mode has no element of strategy, no more than jotting down notes about a protagonist for a story to be written is "strategy."

Fairly stated. I take your point. (Scuffs dirt.) Okay, I'll make everyone take at least one point of Lore.

Also, I think you are caricaturing my position regarding your economic comments. I found much to agree with you about on that thread, and "decry" is wholly off the mark in terms of values/judgments.

Here I'll disagree, based on subsequent remarks in a currency thread. Of course, it's not bad in itself to decry something - I did it myself one time. It's only bad to decry something I approve of...

Best,


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

Ha! Okay, we're all decriers together. Or maybe my "recommendation against" is another man's decry ...

Ah well. Good to have you here, Jim.

Folks - Sword is off to the layout man, so whatever its inadequacies, they're destined for print. Thanks for all the comments and support.

Best,
Ron