The Problem With Sorcerer Is...

[marcus]

... that there is simply too much you can do with it!

With most RPGs, there is a particular world being presented, or at least a particular genre, so it is pretty easy getting started. There is usually a recommended first adventure at the back of the book to start you off. Not too much planning is therefore required to play.

Now with Sorcerer, things are not so simple. Although there is actually an "adventure" (to speak loosely) contained in the basic rules, one cannot simply run it and see what happens because there are so many decisions to make first. This is underlined by "Sorcerer's Soul". Although there are 3 more adventures in the book, rather than easing the work of the prospective GM, they instead, in my view, increase it by showing just how diverse the types of game can be. Before I read Sorcerer's Soul, at least I knew that I was looking at a present-day setting, but afterwards I was not so sure. Now I have purchased Sorcerer and Sword, and so I'm completely stuffed...

I suppose the obvious rejoinder is "ask the players what they want to play". I have tried this approach before, however, and the likely result is that two players will have totally contradictory views whilst the rest will either have no idea or be annoyed I am wasting their time with something I should decide for myself. As a matter of practical experience I have found that I need to come up with an idea myself that I think people will like and then work hard selling it to the players. The trouble is, which of the many possibilities to go for?


Marcus

[qxjit]

Personally, I think this is a strength of Sorcerer, but I can understand where you are coming from.  If you want to play Sorcerer with more color added by default, check out some if the mini-supplements at the Sorcerer Website.  I haven't actually bought and tried any of them myself, but from the descriptions it seems like they certainly fill in the game nicely.

[Christopher Weeks]

That's interesting.  I'm not at all put off by the setup.  I have come up with several game ideas that would require only a little fleshing out to have a one-sheet for a powerful setting.  The problem that I perceive is that it seems like it's going to be damned hard to run.  Honestly, I'm not sure I'm smart enough to keep track of everything I need to and deliver a good bang-packed game of Sorcerer full of the scenes that the players are asking for.  

But I want to play it a few more times before giving up.  :-)

Chris

[marcus]

I was actually not being entirely serious in calling this versatility a problem. I agree it really is a strength of the game, although that doesn't make the decision process any easier!

I have purchased two mini-supplements- Hellbound and Charnel Gods- although Charnel Gods is the only one I have actually received (the author of the latter was kind enough to process my order within a couple of hours, whilst I'm still waiting after more than 2 weeks to recieve a response with respect to the former order- perhaps Mr Harnish is currently on holidays). I read Charnel Gods, but all that did was give yet one more option for how to run Sorcerer! I generally liked the atmosphere of Charnel Gods, but I am worried that confining sorcery to Fell Weapons is too restrictive.

Currently I am tossing up several ideas:

1. A fairly straightforward modern-day Sorcerer game set (at least initially) in Sydney, where my players and I live. This setting would probably cause the players to identify more with their characters, who might turn out to be more like alternate versions of themselves. Also, a familiar setting cuts down on research (I was trawling for hours through an old tourist guide to New York a week ago just to get a basic idea of the geograpy of a place I have never been remotely near). Finally, the setting would tie in well with the first Sorcerer's Soul adventure, The Forbidden Tome. The problem, however, is that the lack of an exotic setting might turn people off.

2. A somewhat Matrix-inspired setting, but with no Real World- there is either nothing more than the illusory world or, if there is, the Real World is not accessable to humans. Demons would be Programs. Humanity would be belief in and compatibility with the reality of the Matrix- 0 Humanity would cause the character to literally cease to be, no longer even being able to believe in his or her own existence. Once again the setting could be Sydney (or at least Sydney-like), as this was where the Matrix trilogy was filmed.

3. A Swords and Sorcery setting along the lines of one of Moorcock's worlds. The Stormbringer RPG was one of my first games (ironically I purchased it first, and only later read Moorcock's Eternal Champion books, which I greatly enjoyed). I always liked the entity-summoning aspect of Stormbringer RPG, but the game as a whole was unsatisfactory by reason of it concentrating more on the spear-carriers of the Young Kingdoms rather than world-shakers like Elric. With Sorcerer one could, of course, rectify this problem and end up with more of a Moorcock feel to the game. Of course, you would start with a new, made up world as Ron suggests, but this fits well with the Eternal Champion fiction as the cunning Moorcock made a virtue out of apparent laziness in making up the same world anew again and again, just slightly changing the details each time.

4. I also tossed up a rather perverse idea, which is as follows. The game is in a modern-day setting where all Sorcerers start out as utter villains. Sorcery is based on persuading the Divinity to send angel-like creatures "to redeem a poor sinner" which the sorcerer then proceeds to shamelessly exploit. The angels only permit this because they have their own sneaky agenda of covertly converting the sorcerer to Good. This is done in a similar way to how traditional demons try and corrupt someone into evil- the angels try and trick the sorcerer into situations where they will end up doing good. In this game, Humanity would represent the capacity to do evil. Sorcerous rituals cause Humanity checks as the Sorcerer must deal with a Good-based entity, and further pretend to want to be Good to manipulate the angel. Humanity would also be lost through the doing of good deeds. It could be gained through evil deeds, but only through exceptionally creative evil, as merely butchering people mindlessly is rather passe for these fiends. If Humanity falls to 0, the erstwhile sorcerer has developed so much empathy for his or her fellow man that he or she now lacks the capacity for true villainy, and knowing this all bound angels are immediately reassigned by the Divinity to assist others who are more evil.

I was rather taken with the inventiveness of this fourth option, but on reflection I think it would produce only a one-joke game that would lose its interest after the novelty had worn off.


Marcus

[Christopher Weeks]

2. A somewhat Matrix-inspired setting, but with no Real World- there is either nothing more than the illusory world or, if there is, the Real World is not accessable to humans. Demons would be Programs. Humanity would be belief in and compatibility with the reality of the Matrix- 0 Humanity would cause the character to literally cease to be, no longer even being able to believe in his or her own existence.

One of the setting ideas that I've come up with is a VR-rich setting based more on Vinge's excellent short story True Names than on The Matrix but incorporating the idea that a program can infect your meat (Snow Crash and The MatrixReloaded).  So your mind would be running daemons that hopped over from the nets.  But I'm hung up on humanity...I want it to reflect a social human interactive impulse -- the need to be social, but I haven't shaken out in my mind how it all makes sense.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I get the "problem" phraseology right off - bug or feature, golden opportunity or game-designer laziness? I'm with you, Marcus; it's a whole different kind of decision-making, I think.

One of the most difficult concepts for me to convey in writing is that, although dictatorship is counter to prepping for Sorcerer, leadership is necessary.

For every Sorcerer game I have played, the most basic aesthetic aspects of the setting have been presented by me, to the players, as a lump. Their willingness to go with it was always examined among us, but it really was from-me-to-them at step 1.

The "paths" games (early stuff), Demon Cops, Azk'Arn, the necromancy game ... all the same way. I see the same thing in Clinton's Bloody Sun and in Jesse's space-station and naked-Gothic-boy games.

Step 1: I say, "Hey, I wanna play Sorcerer with this kind of emphasis." (hand out some pictures, talk a bit, name some movies and books) They say, "Neat, sounds good. Hey, I saw that movie. Hey, what about this book, does it fit?" Some character or demon ideas get tossed around, casually.

Step 2: I do some prep for official handouts, I start thinking about possible scenario prep, we have a character creation session. This is where player-input blossoms, and typically, once the characters are largely established (don't let anyone shirk that back-of-sheet diagram!), only about a quarter of my initial ideas about scenarios will remain, the rest being replaced and improved by what the players have provided.

... then proceed into serious prep and play, repeat, repeat.

Conceivably, another person entirely might do the initial work for Step 1, and either that person or I would proceed on to the GM part. Currently, one person in our group has professed a strong desire to play a kind of money-oriented Miami 80s-type Sorcerer game, and I suppose some time next year we'll do it, especially if she provides a more group-oriented pitch.

Anyway, my point is that flinging up "let's play Sorcerer" and then saying (like Marty), "I dunno, whadda you wanna do?" is counter-productive. The game provides a lot of meat for player-power already, but until someone's played Sorcerer, they won't see it or understand it for what it is. Their input comes in during character creation, but for such players, they don't really know that it's happening and probably won't believe that any such thing is happening until two or three sessions have been played.

And regardless of everyone's experience with the game, all social endeavors require leadership, even it's merely through example and enthusiasm rather than direction.

So Marcus, you're clearly on this wavelength, and I suggest that your option #1 is probably the most useful for your current purposes. ... But you know what I'm not seeing in any of your descriptions? A Premise. A directly and intuitively-understood issue that "sorcery" or just plain "everything" about your idea raises for people who encounter your presentation. I strongly suspect that's why this option looks a little bland to you, and also why your other ideas strike me, anyway, as being over-tweaked and self-referential, as well as too reliant on simulating already-known settings/stories.

Christopher, your comments are interesting to me, because exactly those features you cite - keeping track of things and delivering Bangs - are what I find 100% easy in Sorcerer, in fact, exponentially easier than in other games. I suspect you might not be seeing how useful and relevant player-characters' actions are for the GM's role, once play gets going.

Best,
Ron

[ross_winn]

I must heartily agree that there is a lack of focus, or example, in Sorcerer.

I think it would be a great service to the Sorcerer community, and also to the newer players who are discovering Sorcerer to have an example campaign. I think it is not at all a coincidence that the most popular games to date have all had default campaigns, even when they are left unused.

As a consumer of Sorcerer, and a proponent and cheerleader, when I show or run Sorcerer for new players this is something I almost always here call for.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I must heartily agree that there is a lack of focus, or example, in Sorcerer.

I think it would be a great service to the Sorcerer community, and also to the newer players who are discovering Sorcerer to have an example campaign.

In the words of Jon Stewart: "Whaaaa?"

Let's see - in the main book, there's four example types of sorcerous groups (the Way of the Black Wheel, the Cult of the Dark Lady, the Psyche junkies, and the sanzoku), all of which can be used as a setting. There's a sample adventure, too, although I'll admit I don't care for it. In Sorcerer and Sword, you've got the Clicking Sands, the German fairy-tale bit, and the drugs-veils-and-Arabia setting. Sex and Sorcery adds two more with Azk'Arn and Paragon, as well as another adventure, "In Utero." This doesn't even begin to touch the online support: there's mini-supplements, and my own adventure, The Keys of Uriel, an excellent starting point in my opinion.

If you want to say Sorcerer's unfocused because you have to decide between all these options, then that might be valid, even if I disagree wholeheartedly. If you want to say there's no example settings, though, you'd be wrong.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello Ross,

Frankly, your post baffles me.

The necromancy threads?
The Art Deco Melodrama threads?
Jesse's games?
Clinton's games and proto-games?
Christopher's games?
... and more.

I submit that no role-playing game, ever, features as much example and direct discussion of how to prep for play than Sorcerer, through the medium of this forum as well as the three supplements. Arguably, that's exactly what the three supplements are.

I also submit that more typical approaches to explaining "how to play" in game texts yield extremely faulty training and unsatisfying play.

If you're not seeing it, then there's not much I can do for you. Ross, I do appreciate your support and enthusiasm for the game. But I guess I feel bad now, because somehow, some key feature of explaining my game isn't working for you, and I can't imagine how to fix that.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Weeks]

Christopher, your comments are interesting to me, because exactly those features you cite - keeping track of things and delivering Bangs - are what I find 100% easy in Sorcerer, in fact, exponentially easier than in other games. I suspect you might not be seeing how useful and relevant player-characters' actions are for the GM's role, once play gets going.

1) Do you mean that the game runs itself part of the time because the players are grooving without need of a GM?  Or that Bangs naturally evolve out of the PCs behavior?  Or something else entirely?

2) Honestly, I think that much of my trepidation at running a Sorcerer game comes from the fact that I have a typically long (20 year) history of playing (and running) mediocre railroad-rides.  They often seemed fun at the time, but seem pretty pale in retrospect.  I didn't spend that time learning the appropriate skills for Sorcerer and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around everything without actual play experience to guide me.  Going into the future, I'll be playing Sorcerer whenever possible to see how it's done because I want those skills, but I don't think I'm going to be able to pick them up (in toto) by reading how you do it.

3) You should operate a Sorcerer bootcamp (or something).  I wonder: a)if anyone but me would actually attend such a thing, b)how you'd structure it to be effective (RonCon?), and c)if you could actually turn a profit (either directly or in terms of promotion).

Chris

[ross_winn]

I also submit that more typical approaches to explaining "how to play" in game texts yield extremely faulty training and unsatisfying play.

Maybe, but when I give a copy of Sorcerer as a gift or lend out my copy I invariably get a lot of questions, but no one understands how to play "out of the box" as it were. I learned to play by watching a demo that you gave at GenCon.

If you feel that the examples in other games yields faulty results then obviously there is a need for better examples. While I agree that many are poor, some are quite good, and any competent technical writer can improve upon them.

Also: When I talk about a complete campaign I mean complete. Masks of Nyarlathotep is a prime example. I have yet to see any of the "indie" games do a campaign that involved. Now the things I have seen for Sorcerer are generally very good to excellent, just not (in my opinion) in depth enough.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Also: When I talk about a complete campaign I mean complete. Masks of Nyarlathotep is a prime example. I have yet to see any of the "indie" games do a campaign that involved. Now the things I have seen for Sorcerer are generally very good to excellent, just not (in my opinion) in depth enough.

Ross,

Are you sure that you don't come to this with expectations from other games that might not hold true here? For Sorcerer, you can't have a campaign like "Masks of Nyarlathotep." The amount of player power in Sorcerer means one of two things:

a) You can't plan that far ahead.
b) If you do, you'll end up with frustrated players.

I've tried to write a Sorcerer campaign on that scale. (It was called "In His Service," and involved PCs versus a second fallen angel that neither God nor Satan were real happy about. Epic apocalyptic movie stuff, in general.) I got about 10,000 words in and dumped it. Like any long campaign - and that's what I'm getting from your use of "complete" - it read like this: "So, the characters do this and then the GM does X and the players do Y and the GM does Z, and..."

It's presumptions and railroady-ness. Sorcerer will derail if you try to do this to it.

[ross_winn]

I do come to Sorcerer from a different place than many other denizens here. To me railroading is just poor GMing. One of the cool things about 'Masks' is the ability to drop threads in to existing stories. Maybe this is a semantic argument, I do not know. What I do know is the reaction that I get from new players.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Two issues ...

Christoper's!

1) Do you mean that the game runs itself part of the time because the players are grooving without need of a GM? Or that Bangs naturally evolve out of the PCs behavior? Or something else entirely?

It's far more the "Bangs evolve" issue. The first question is not what I mean, at all, because Sorcerer is a GM-heavy game.

However! The relationship between players' activity and input and what the GM uses (heavily) is very different from other games, and I'm afraid that it's quite easy to mis-read Sorcerer (and I do think there are flaws in the presentation) to mean something it doesn't.

Many good GMs excel at taking player input and weaving them into the "story" being presented and created (by the GM). They take pride in sneaking the story's creation by the players, by using what the players provide as part of what's going on. Their big payback is the awe and admiration of the players: "I can't believe it all made so much sense! I never saw that coming! You're a genius!"

But get rid of that anticipated story-intent on the GM's part entirely. His interest in and authority toward the developing story is exactly equivalent to that of the players, no more and no less. His techniques for contributing to its appearance are different (Bangs, back-story, NPC play, relationship maps, sorcerous technicality, Bobs, Weaves, Crosses, etc), that's all. Their techniques are all aimed at protagonist actions and decisions; his are all aimed at pressure, adversity, and pacing.

That's the "Now" in Story Now. Play produces the story, not prep, and certainly not retro-fitting between sessions (which is what I call what I describe above).

2) Honestly, I think that much of my trepidation at running a Sorcerer game comes from the fact that I have a typically long (20 year) history of playing (and running) mediocre railroad-rides. They often seemed fun at the time, but seem pretty pale in retrospect. I didn't spend that time learning the appropriate skills for Sorcerer and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around everything without actual play experience to guide me. Going into the future, I'll be playing Sorcerer whenever possible to see how it's done because I want those skills, but I don't think I'm going to be able to pick them up (in toto) by reading how you do it.

Well, no one will. I certainly didn't pick up those skills by reading alone; I'd developed them through a variety of play experiences and trying to understand what was and wasn't working for me as a role-playing participant.

I hoped that System Does Matter would help. It did, for some. I'd hoped that the big GNS essay would help. It did, for more. I'd hoped that the three support essays would help, and I think they do - especially since the upcoming Narrativism essay is aimed very much at the issues you're talking about.

But you're right - it's not a matter of reading The Word. As I told Ralph Mazza several years ago, "you have to hit the bag." Then you need to reflect on it. Then hit it some more.

I do recommend opening up some dialogues with Jesse Burneko and with Jake Norwood. Both of them have experienced the transition you're talking about, and both of them are probably better coaches for me

3) You should operate a Sorcerer bootcamp (or something). I wonder: a)if anyone but me would actually attend such a thing, b)how you'd structure it to be effective (RonCon?), and c)if you could actually turn a profit (either directly or in terms of promotion).

Sounds like another GenCon activity for the upcoming year. I'm serious.

Also, the Art Deco Melodrama threads were exactly that, I think. Have you perused those carefully?

Ross'!

I'm not surprised at any of your comments, and your discussion of the Masks book clarifies your position to me. I think it has a lot to do with how we're going to use the word "story" in discussing playing Sorcerer, and that's mainly left to the upcoming Narrativism essay.

One thing I must emphasize: Sorcerer is not a teaching text. I wrote it for people whose experiences and preferences were similar to mine - probably Champions veterans who felt betrayed both by Champions 4th edition and by GURPS, and who'd seen something in Over the Edge, in Fighting Fantasy, and in Prince Valiant which seemed to slip away from the mind, yet also seemed so powerful when it (rarely) was applied during play. And the more we front-loaded or retro-fitted the story, the worse play became, much to our frustration. The core book was written to provide enough stuff to keep that thing from slipping away, and also to avoid any textual stuff that seemed to get in the thing's way.

Now, the supplements are different. Those are teaching texts, and to a large extent were written after I'd discovered Sorcerer had a wider audience that I'd originally written for. Who would have thought that Jesse Burneko or Ralph Mazza would seize the book in one hand, seize my lapels in another, and cry out, "I don't get it! But I want to! Now!!" The supplements were all written in the context of this audience - the gray one I'd never dreamed was so extensive.

So I hate to be a money-grubber (sort of) ... but those supplements are, to my thinking, the place to go. If you want something a little lighter and much, much more directly applied, then I suggest Demon Cops. Jesse considers it the best "how to" Sorcerer text, in fact.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Hello,

The stuff in this thread is really good and very complete I just have a few thoughts I'd like to add.

But get rid of that anticipated story-intent on the GM's part entirely.

That, right there, is the crux of the problem.  I maintain it's not just a GM problem but a Player problem as well.  It's so hard to throw out expectations of how this story should go, whether you're a player or a GM.  So much of our modern storytelling media is based on *kinds* of stories having a very specific *structure* such that enjoyment of the story is part-in-parcel with having your expectations met about how such a story goes.

How much effort is put into people agonizing over superhero rule sets trying to guarantee that the characters will lose early on but win in the end?

Sorcerer is not like that.  It totally floored me that by default the odds are stacked AGAINST the player, particularly when it comes to Sorcery itself.  This goes so against the typical "story oriented" roleplayer's mantra of, "The problem with using dice is that characters in stories succeed when it's *appropriate* to succeed and fail when it's *appropriate* for them to fail."  Thus you have solutions like 7th Sea's Drama Dice which basically enables the players to succeed when it's appropriate and for the GM to make them fail when it's appropriate in order to fufill the structural expectations of how a swashbuckling drama ala Dumas goes.

Sorcerer's ruleset is designed primarily to do two things.

1) It keeps the dice rolls focused on key, meaningful moments of conflict, so that we're not rolling over every little lock that needs picking, wall that needs climing or white lie that needs telling.  The dice are rolled at the MOST important moments of the game.  In fact lots of stuff that is normally left up to GM fiat in other games is actually handed over the dice and lots of stuff that other games go into minute detail about are infact left up to GM fiat.

2) When it really matters, the Player gets an edge via roleplaying via strategy and tactics, via really nailing the story issues via the bonus dice awarded for all these things.  BUT success is never guaranteed.  I've had player's fail rolling 10 dice against 1.

Ron once said that Narrativism isn't about guaranteeing an outcome; it's about letting the dice fall where they may and finding the meaning anyway.  Narrativist facillitating games just keep things focused on the "meat" so that fortune determined outcomes have meaning to find either way they turn out.

This is such a hard concept for myself and even my players to grasp.  Even if my prep is completely "story expectation free" a player will do something in the first session and my mind will latch onto it and suddenly I can't let go of this idea that, "oh my god, this character's story has to end like THIS!"  On the player's end I'm constantly dealing with cries of, "But my character can't fail now!  That's not the kind of story I'm trying to tell!"

Hmmm... I think I've said more on that subject than I was planning to.

Jesse