Just received it and I have to say I'm quite pleased. Right now I'm planning on my next campaign to be based on it. A few questions I have:



I'm a little surprised at the concept of "Requiring a humanity check either way" situations. Though not really confused or displeased with, as it makes alot of sense with the source material.

It differentiates from my typical judgement, that Humanity-relevant behavior is based in contrast to the other options available. Though it makes me wonder:

1. Is that the intended assumption, that Humanity-risking behavior is not about your choice's contrast to another choice?

2. Would this mean I should display some tact into putting characters into situations where they -have- to lose some humanity(Barring a tricky idea)?

3. Does summoning licensed demons require a Humanity check? I'd instinticely think not.

Hi,

Great questions!

I think that Sorcerer lends itself to a kind of basic, "classroom" version in which, yes, you can do X and face a Humanity check, or decide not to do X and not face the possibility of losing Humanity.

But that's just a starting point, and the good news is that "graduating" from that starting point is very easy.

1. You might see situations in which both Humanity checks and Humanity gain rolls are mixed up in the action.

2. You might even see situations in which either kind of roll is more-or-less guaranteed, simply due to the character's approach to it. Typically this occurs by player choice; it's not as if the GM is sitting there with a "Humanity check whip-hand."

3. In Sex & Sorcery, I talk about dual Humanity, i.e., two different and separate ways to improve and lose Humanity. It sounds complicated, but is actually quite easy in play - the human mind processes "conflicting value systems" pretty fast and intuitively.

Does any of that help?

Final question: any Summoning, Binding, and Contacting forces a Humanity check, no exceptions.

Best,
Ron

Fascinating answers, I'll have to take some time to mill them over.

Another thing I'm curious about the book, is under the section about Mini-supplements, and the guidelines under fiction - no snippets, color text, or excerpt style prose, only complete fiction.

I've heard of your feelings for fiction-presented-as-roleplaying supplements, and highly concur with them. Is the reason that you specifiy complete fiction because you view incomplete fiction such as blurbs and color text as "One of those mainstream RPG things" that next to no one really appreciates, exists in no other medium, and is too present in the hobby as is? Or is there some more philosophical reason to not include them in books related to your own work or Sorcerer espicially?

I'd be interested in your answer, too, Ron. Personally speaking, I find flavor text (in small doses) and examples of play to be extremely helpful, both in understanding the game and in sparking my desire to play or run the game.

Hiya,

Putting on the mean-boy hat.

I think that if a game is based on (say) ancient Rome, then you should learn about ancient Rome to play it. And although the rulebook can provide perspective on the topic, especially as needed for play, it cannot substitute for the actual knowledge that the writer used in producing the book.

Let me put it this way:
- step 1: I get inspired by a source, let's say "Wicked City" (in the case of Demon Cops)
- step 2: I play and write up all sorts of stuff, customized to Sorcerer
- step 3: I present it to you-all as a document, intended to help you get inspired and provide enough game-relevant knowledge for you to do it yourself (note, not to re-create my experience)

Now, what if, in step 3, I try to perform step 1 for you, as a full substitute for seeing "Wicked City"?

I think that's lame and fucked-up. In fact, I think it perpetuates the kind of anti-intellectual semi-knowledge that characterizes fringe fan-clubs and broken social contexts.

"I've never read Tolkien, but my elf character is Allianorana, and she's a 12th-level Ranger! You have to call me by her name because I'm in costume."

"Dashiell Hammett is the key, man. His stuff inspired 'Yojimbo,' you know. And it's way better than Chandler's, you can't ever beat the original. Which one do I like best? Ummm ..." (goes on to refer exclusively to the film version of The Maltese Falcon and The Thin Man, both of which differ significantly from their source novels)

Blowhards. I hate'em. I hate gaming texts that reward them. I

If you want to play Demon Cops, go rent Wicked City; it's not hard. If you want to be prepped for Sorcerer & Sword or for the Humanity issues in The Sorcerer's Soul, hit the reference list in the book. I was inspired by these things, but I don't want your experience to be a watered-down version of my experience, I want it to be yours. So you have to investigate and seek inspiration of your own. Check out what I reference, see where it leads you, cross-reference it to your own knowledge and to your own tastes.

The fiction and pseudo-fiction that permeates role-playing texts, in my view, represents the worst possible version of the general problem I'm talking about. It's pastiche by definition; it cannot "be" what inspired it, and yet it must exemplify what inspired it. Hence it is a predigested gruel version of that inspiration.

Furthermore, it cannot teach or illustrate anything about using the system or about orienting oneself toward play in a creative/aesthetic sense. I specifically refer to the fucking awful noise in White Wolf books where they juxtapose a column of "play" with a column of "story" - I consider it the most mendacious prose I've ever read.

By contrast, the story "Paragon" in Sex & Sorcery is presented not as an example of play, but of Premise and thematic outcomes. Playing Narrativist is predicated in Sorcerer, and especially in its supplements, so the story doesn't teach "how." It's not showing what Premise and theme look like in stories, but illustrating a particular Premise + theme in case it was still fuzzy for anyone.

Is all this snobbery? Not from a Narrativist perspective, it's not. And specifically, not from a Sorcerer Narrativist perspective. I wrote this game to apply pressure, not to coddle. It's not an outreach project like the whole GNS thing turned out to be, nor even Trollbabe as a game. It's the deep end, and I'll help ya, but if you drown anyway, that's OK by me. Think of it as ruthlessness, with very little judgment (beyond my willingness to see people drown if they can't swim).

So anyway, that's my view on the fiction thing.

Best,
Ron

Heh.

That little rant is far too fun to allow to be buried in this forum.
It needs to go up on the Sorcerer site.

You seem to be suggesting that RPG's should always be about the source material -- that I shouldn't play Demon Cops without watching Wicked City. Why? If an RPG has been around for a while and generated a following, then it seems to me that you could meaningfully talk about, for example, the " Demon Cop experience" as its own thing, without referring back to the source at all.

Even the most clearly designed purpose-built game isn't proof from drift... the street finds its own uses for things.

I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I'd like to share my perspective as someone who's bought and played all kinds of games, including far too much White Wolf stuff.

For me, the "fiction and pseudo-fiction" serves a useful purpose in conveying theme and style, providing clever ideas which help me get excited about the game, and making the reading experience more pleasurable in general.

Admittedly, there's a point of diminishing returns, defined as the point at which the unhappy gamer realizes he has just paid $20 for some crappy gaming fiction and a few optional rules. I'm sure you can think of your own examples. I've been an outspoken critic of that in online forums in the past, for what it's worth.

It seems sort of like the fat content of meat; some people like their burgers lean, but I like the added flavor -- as long as I don't get the suspicion the butcher is saving money by adding excess fat.

Anyway, it's interesting to hear your perspective.

Danny

Hi Danny,

You seem to be suggesting that RPG's should always be about the source material -- that I shouldn't play Demon Cops without watching Wicked City. Why?

If an RPG has been around for a while and generated a following, then it seems to me that you could meaningfully talk about, for example, the " Demon Cop experience" as its own thing, without referring back to the source at all.

Hope you don't mind I continue to use this thread for a string of quick questions!

1. Would five be too many players(Non-GM) for demon cops y'think, considering I'm a relatively inexpierienced GM? I predict that the players may have around a 25% absence rate, meaning there would usually be around four players present(ignoring the whole issue of attempting to fix this absence rate.)

2. What is/could humanity loss as a result of dealing with a licensed demon justified in-game as, exactly...?

3. I'm intereasted in using a soundtrack for the game as suggested. What's a good way to set that up? Themes for different characters? For kickers you set up? Emotions?

4. I'm thinking of writing a formal Player's Rights and GM's Rights document, do you think that's a bad idea and social contracts like that are better off explained orally?

Hi there,

1. Would five be too many players(Non-GM) for demon cops y'think, considering I'm a relatively inexpierienced GM? I predict that the players may have around a 25% absence rate, meaning there would usually be around four players present(ignoring the whole issue of attempting to fix this absence rate.)

2. What is/could humanity loss as a result of dealing with a licensed demon justified in-game as, exactly...?

3. I'm intereasted in using a soundtrack for the game as suggested. What's a good way to set that up? Themes for different characters? For kickers you set up? Emotions?

4. I'm thinking of writing a formal Player's Rights and GM's Rights document, do you think that's a bad idea and social contracts like that are better off explained orally?