Topic: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Started by: bcook1971
Started on: 6/9/2004
Board: Actual Play
On 6/9/2004 at 6:19am, bcook1971 wrote:
[Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
(Session I. Session II.)
"This was the best one yet." That's what my players told me. I've been having trouble keeping the group focused, so I switched sites to my apartment. Fewer distractions on hand helped considerably. i.e. No TV, no computer-based video games, no stereo system, etc.
I started out thinking that it might be the last session instead of next to last, as planned. But no; there was so much going on, I could barely fit it all in. Lots of combat: Rafael returned from California with Mellisa to a mansion under siege by agents of the Order of Force; Agent Styles responded to a queer call from his retired partner about the strange behavior of their captian, to find himself wrestling with associates turned demon slug drones; Professor Gerard handily delivered his adoring former student to Nefero for a grissly sacrifice in a ritual to bind Vorx, the demon who would confer immortality; Freddy the Freak trailed Vinnie Dilberto from the Eagle Gang Slaughter to his home where he assaulted the cabbie in wolf form; Styles and a team of gov't agents busted the Eagles' safehouse, shortly after Rafael arrived to collect his belongings.
That last battle sprawled out over a handful of scenes:
• The Spider Butler on the landing out front.
• Rafael bursting out the side window, dispatching an agent at the rear and disappearing down the gravel back lot and the field beyond.
• Styles taking cover at the forklift, then diving through the glass into the center office of the warehouse.
• The final showdown between Styles and Freddy on the stairs leading to the roof).
It was a little irritating having Jason do chargen for his upcoming Traveller campaign with players whose characters were off screen, but at least they didn't compete, volume-wise, with game play. And if I could pick my problems, I'd find that one to be manageable.
There's going to be a honking bloodbath, next (and last) session. Gerard will likely come at odds with Styles. Cory (the Professor's player) has been steering his character towards damnation, while Jason (Styles' player) has consistently played the role of exorcist and sorcerer hunter. With Nefero as an ally, Gerard could be impossible to put down, alone. All the while, Styles' run-ins with Dilberto have led the characters closer and closer towards disclosure as to their sorcerous involvments. Will they join forces? Even then, can they hope to win out against the horror that is Razor Bear?
** ** **
I had a couple of troubles with the system. When Styles fought the Spider Butler, that thing just couldn't be stopped; it had Armor and Big. Between Styles and another agent, they peppered it with shotgun blasts; still, it kept coming. Finally, Jason figured out that his Fast dice don't go through a gun, throttled the thing and tossed it into the side of a limo.
[Side note: Jason (and through him, everyone else) figured out that role-playing mechanic of the Sorcerer system at this moment. I said, "That's awesome! You get two cool dice," and it clicked. Everything he said after that was an attempted embellishment, much to the improvement of game play.]
Styles vs. Freddy went on three or four rounds too long for similiar reasons (i.e. Freddy's parasite also conferred Big).
Second thing: I really had issues with next round penalties. What kept happening was mooks and level bosses would get popped with high next and couldn't announce. But they weren't dead yet. And when their next penalties wore off, they'd go right back to attacking. It created an awkward hiccuping effect that gave me fits. Maybe I should have just said, "The bad guy's stunned; play on."
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 11031
Topic 11330
On 6/9/2004 at 9:16am, Paka wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
It sounded like the change of where the game is played made a big difference. Did you notice more people paying attention to other's threads?
I've found that the players really have enjoyed watching each other play and its made the game all the more enjoyable. It also charges scenes with energy and allows players to really enjoy the weaving and parallels between scenes, sometimes even generating scenes that are downright funny or just downright tragic.
Settling in to a game where everyone isn't in a big party has been the biggest idea alteration in my past month of Sorcerer GMing and how to act when a scene that has nothing to do with you is important in this game.
On 6/9/2004 at 2:57pm, sirogit wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
The next round damage thing always made perfect sense to me. You could also describe it as "You've knocked him off his feet." "He staggers in pain." "His head is still reeling back."
On 6/9/2004 at 3:13pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Hello,
Bryan, I'll focus on the system points you brought up.
I had a couple of troubles with the system. When Styles fought the Spider Butler, that thing just couldn't be stopped; it had Armor and Big. Between Styles and another agent, they peppered it with shotgun blasts; still, it kept coming. Finally, Jason figured out that his Fast dice don't go through a gun, throttled the thing and tossed it into the side of a limo.
I guess I don't see the problem. Shotgun doesn't work; throttling does. Sounds like an awesome scene to me.
Styles vs. Freddy went on three or four rounds too long for similiar reasons (i.e. Freddy's parasite also conferred Big).
Here's another place where I don't get it. What do you mean by "three or four rounds too long?" As I see it, it takes as long as it takes.
However, those replies of mine aren't too helpful. I think I can give you some more substantive feedback for both of these, via my take on your second thing.
Second thing: I really had issues with next round penalties. What kept happening was mooks and level bosses would get popped with high next and couldn't announce. But they weren't dead yet. And when their next penalties wore off, they'd go right back to attacking. It created an awkward hiccuping effect that gave me fits. Maybe I should have just said, "The bad guy's stunned; play on."
I have three points for this one. The first also applies to the above issues as well: the players simply have to learn the new idiom and take steps that are appropriate for it. "Dinking the guy doesn't work - we have to take him down," and then announcing actions which are consistent with that. It really does fly well, but it requires overcoming years of RPG training which have continually enforces the notion of "keep hitting dink-dink-dink, he'll wear down before you do."
Whereas consider a thug who's taken enough penalties to stagger him, so he has no action (and hence one-die defense, period). Why aren't your players really smacking him right then? That'd take him out for good.
Take-home point: in combat against a big fuckin' nasty demon, or against determined assailants, announce actions which reinforce each other regardless of what order they land in, and which generate bonus dice both for tactics and for style. This is what your players have to learn. It is totally different from D&D of any kind, Champions, or Storyteller play.
The second point is that I suggest not listening to your gut, which is saying, "Oh, ignore system, just make it happen as you see fit," and quite likely has similarly been entrained into you by years of playing games which only yield satisfactory outcomes when you ignore them. Trust the system. It works. Let the players learn, which takes a while (it's really different!), and see what happens.
The third point does not contradict the second, although at first glance it might seem to. My third point is actually to play the NPCs. They keep getting knocked down? So why return to the attack? You wrote,
... when their next penalties wore off, they'd go right back to attacking
and that what catches my eye. Instead of overriding the system to say, "OK, they're stunned," (and boy does that look like old-school Champions to my old eyes), why not say, "Guido decides that getting waxed four times in a row really sucks, and says screw it."
The key issue for mook combatants, as I see it, is not that they "go down easy," but that they have little or no stake in what's going on, and therefore aren't especially interested in fulfilling their orders beyond a first try.
The key issue for demon combatants, as I see it, is that they have the opposite situation: ultra-complex and nuanced goals in any conflict situation, which are much more important then simply "hit the PC again."
Playing to both of these key issues, and once your players finally grok what to do (and how not to fall into "RPG combat-think" mode), will result in extraordinary complex combat situations in your Sorcerer game.
Best,
Ron
On 6/9/2004 at 9:00pm, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Paka wrote: It sounded like the change of where the game is played made a big difference. Did you notice more people paying attention to other's threads?
To some degree. It's hard for them. And I concur: switching to multiple narratives has been a huge change. That, and using a modern setting.
I'm going to be paying close attention to how I behave as a player when I'm off screen during my group's upcoming Traveller campaign. I highly suspect that my sympathy for their disinterest is somewhat justified.
Ron Edwards wrote:Bill Cook wrote: Styles vs. Freddy went on three or four rounds too long for similiar reasons (i.e. Freddy's parasite also conferred Big).
Here's another place where I don't get it. What do you mean by "three or four rounds too long?" As I see it, it takes as long as it takes.
Well, back and forth with no apparent progress can be wearing; that's the issue.
Your second point makes a lot of sense to me. My experience of combat hiccuping was probably mostly internal. If I'd come forward a bit in narrating the antoganist's state, I'm confident my players would have seized the opportunity to land finishing blows.
That reminds me: when Freddy ambushed Vinnie Dilberto at his mother's place, he landed 15 penalties (9 next and 6 lasting) on the first attack after Luke failed a Perception check. Well, Hell, he's only got a Stamina of 4. So next round I had Freddy as a wolf, claws in Vinnie's chest, poised to announce and Luke could do nothing. And I thought, Hell, he could kill him, but it seems so cheap. So I had Freddy jog down the hall and kill his mother instead, as payback for the gangbanger slaughter.
** ** **
Just thought a bit more about the details. Ok. With the Spider Butler (St 5, P 6; Big, Armor), you've got to accumulate 12 or more lasting penalties to incapacitate him. Since he's got Armor, no matter what you hit him with (there went tactics) or how fancy you narrate (there went style), all damage from blows is reduced to fist damage (i.e. X next; 1 lasting); so, essentially, you've got to hit him 12 times. Worse, since he's got his gob stuffed with next penalties, he can't fight back. And it's . . . tricksy, my precious, to narrate this in such a way that communicates what progress the players are making in taking him down.
When a character is damaged so that his next penalties temporarily incapacitate him, the transient nature of the effect is no consolation if in the next round he takes more damage, furthering the cycle. It makes next penalties a tease toward hopes for survival.
On 6/9/2004 at 9:14pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Just thought a bit more about the details. Ok. With the Spider Butler (St 5, P 6; Big, Armor), you've got to accumulate 12 or more lasting penalties to incapacitate him. Since he's got Armor, no matter what you hit him with (there went tactics) or how fancy you narrate (there went style), all damage from blows is reduced to fist damage (i.e. X next; 1 lasting); so, essentially, you've got to hit him 12 times. Worse, since he's got his gob stuffed with next penalties, he can't fight back. And it's . . . tricksy, my precious, to narrate this in such a way that communicates what progress the players are making in taking him down.
You are aware that each round that spider butler uses his Armor of Big counts as a Power use on top of whatever other powers he's using. Its not a static "always on" defense.
...unless I'm really misremembering...
On 6/10/2004 at 3:39am, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Too true. I assume you're alluding to demon fatigue. (p. 110) It's like blood loss in TROS: it just gets away from me!
Anyway, I mean to relate my experience, not gripe about perceived breakpoints. And that entails expression of frustration. But it is based on respect for the design.
On 6/10/2004 at 1:21pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Hi Bill,
Couple things, intended to help you for your experiences next time.
Regarding the "one-hit gets through" Armor issue ...
Recall that all rolls are reduced by penalties. If a demon is coping with a wad of penalties, then it is highly vulnerable to rituals, even snap-shots. This concept applies in two directions.
1) I have found many role-players to be subject to tunnel-vision based on previous training - they cannot conceive of shifting tactics, because in all their previous experience, nothing ultimately is superior to "I hit him again."
2) The GM ought to consider that a demon who is consistently brought down to few or no dice, even if it's not taking lasting damage, is well aware that it is grossly vulnerable to Banishes and Punishes. I don't care who Bound it; at that point in a conflict, the demon is likely to be interested in protecting its own hide.
Overall, I believe I am seeing a "kill it by taking it down to nothing" kind of approach on both your and the players' parts. Other issues like temporary damage or tactics are seen as secondary, or "layers" which delay or distract from the fundamentals: find the vital variable (e.g. BODY in Champions) and hit-hit-hit until the thing "goes down for good."
(Side note: it hasn't occurred to your players that when a strong foe is reeling from a solid hit or two, that now is the time to deliver coordinated attacks, all at once?)
My final point is important: be willing to have the demons win, and be as certain as you can be about what the demon is there for anyway. In your description of Freddy's attack on Vinnie, you are right about one thing: Freddy had Vinnie totally helpless. What puzzles me is why you were then at a momentary loss about what to do?
Why was Freddy there? To kill Vinnie? If so, then kill him. Yes, kill him. To say "Freddy is there to kill Vinnie," in Sorcerer, is to say as well, "And I as GM will kill this player's character."
But I suspect that this was not your mind-set. I suspect instead that you were in a mind-set that presents a weird disconnect between system-driven outcomes and GM-desired outcomes. That a player-character simply being taken down and at a foe's mercy is a source of dissonance, requiring a quick re-write of "what the demon is there for" in your mind.
So my suggestion is to decide what the demon is there for, period, and to commit to that as a possible outcome. If you'd Bang'd the scene from the perspective of, "Freddy's there to make Vinnie's life hell," then you know that Freddy has no intention of killing Vinnie, just rendering him helpless and then doing whatever. You'd have had Freddy trot down the hall and kill the mom with no "hitchy-wait, uh" sensation at all.
Ralph's point about fatigue is a good one too. Keep that in mind; a demon will poop out faster than an athletic person, if it's firing off its abilities all over the place, and yeah, that applies to Armor.
Best,
Ron
On 6/10/2004 at 4:57pm, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Ron Edwards wrote: If a demon is coping with a wad of penalties, then it is highly vulnerable to rituals, even snap-shots.
Good point. My players (like most Sorcerer initiaties, I imagine) focus on the demon abilities and neglect the rituals. They've actually popped up a few times (e.g. Jason announced to cut a slug out from under Styles' captain's skin, and I said, "Oh, you mean you want to Banish his demon. We'll just call the knife color." Logan, who plays Mellisa, a five-year old girl, asked to find some LSD and Summon a brawnier version of her dimension-hopping gremlin/demon, to use as a combat pawn.)
Ron Edwards wrote: (Side note: it hasn't occurred to your players that when a strong foe is reeling from a solid hit or two, that now is the time to deliver coordinated attacks, all at once?)
Well, they mostly operate in separate narratives. Even when they end up in the same one, they don't hold clear alliances and have no enemies in common, at least not in the same scene (so far), so they tend not to announce in co-ordination.
Incidentally, free agency is a fascinating aspect of this campaign. Could it be inherent to Sorcerer play? Anyway, it's thrilling how they're so commited to their own distinct motives that they exhibit no drive to partner solely on the basis of a character they cross being run by a player. It's the exact opposite of that thing where everyone meets in a bar, assuming they're all going on a quest together.
Ron Edwards wrote: Why was Freddy there? To kill Vinnie? If so, then kill him. Yes, kill him. To say "Freddy is there to kill Vinnie," in Sorcerer, is to say as well, "And I as GM will kill this player's character."
This is just chilling. And here I thought I was cold-blooded;)
And you pretty much pegged the disconnect in my mindset. What's alarming about your suggestion is that it could have the most extreme consequence to play I can imagine: player character death. It's even more egregious when you consider the setup: a wolf lunges from the shadows; pass a Perception check or probably die.
I've got mixed feelings. I like the discipline of making decisions and commiting to a course of action, but I'm unsure how my players will process the play results. It's probably a training issue, i.e. I could allay my fears by explicitly preparing them to expect sudden, commited threats where the dice may speak death.
On 6/10/2004 at 6:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Hi Bill,
I was just wondering whether my ultimate point got across ...
... that if you, as the player of the demon, have already decided that the demon is there for some other reason than killing the character, that this solves the disconnect too.
And that way, you don't have to be "Mr. PC Death Dude," either.
What I'm after is to break the mind-set that has settled in so deeply, with so many people, that player-characters can be attacked by deadly opponents and yet be immune to death (or for that matter any consequences), simply because they know that ultimately, the GM's control over outcomes will save them.
(I must emphasize that in games like Prince Valiant, Castle Falkenstein, and Extreme Vengeance, the player-characters are literally immune to death-by-dice as well - but that is not the same as the mind-set that I'm talking about, in which the dice are supposed to be able to kill the character, but "somehow" never do.)
In Sorcerer, it's all about the fictional characters' intentions. If the demon is out to to kill you, it can kill you. Don't mess around with death in this game - even though the rules only bring characters to "need intensive care," that's still pretty ugly.
So my real advice to you is to bring demonic opponents into play with goals and priorities of their own that are very different from "slaver slaver kill," and then (a) you won't be facing that disconnect and (b) the players will have many more options for dealing with it in combat than merely going into hit-hit-hit mode.
Best,
Ron
On 6/10/2004 at 6:20pm, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Ron Edwards wrote: I was just wondering whether my ultimate point got across ...
... that if you, as the player of the demon, have already decided that the demon is there for some other reason than killing the character, that this solves the disconnect too.
Definitely. Freddy was there to kill Vinnie. He trailed him from the slaughter of eight gang members by Vinnie's hand! Freddy's purpose, overall, being a sorcerer himself, is a little more subtle (i.e. supply Janis, the Matron of the Hive, with guns for here hired muscle and drugs for her orgies (read: mass rituals to bind her spawn drones); command his gang; live large like a pimp), but in this case, he'd been grievously incensed.
On 6/10/2004 at 6:44pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Hi Bill,
Right, but as evinced very clearly from your own play-account, you as GM did not want to play Freddy as ready to kill Vinnie. When he could do it, you revised your play of the character right there! You re-wrote him in your head.
My claim is that, now that you are aware that the system isn't going to protect player-characters from ignominious defeat, you can now avoid having to re-write characters like this right there in play. Instead, you can say, "H'm, does Freddy really want to kill Vinnie? 'Cause if I say yes, then it might happen. And Freddy is fictional - I really can decide now that he's willing to do something else, e.g. beat Vinnie senseless and then kill his mom."
And then you can play in full willingness to take it wherever the dice can go, because all the outcomes are acceptable.
Best,
Ron
On 6/10/2004 at 11:58pm, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] First Campaign III of IV (SPOILER)
Ron Edwards wrote: Right, but as evinced very clearly from your own play-account, you as GM did not want to play Freddy as ready to kill Vinnie. When he could do it, you revised your play of the character right there! You re-wrote him in your head.
I don't deny it. I had assumed that Vinnie would prevail without realizing it and was unable to accept the consequences of Freddy's success.
Ron Edwards wrote: My claim is that, now that you are aware that the system isn't going to protect player-characters from ignominious defeat, you can now avoid having to re-write characters like this right there in play.
I didn't expect that the system would, honestly. I see the shift being that I'm not going to protect the player characters (via illusionist drift). And, before that, that I decide a character's purpose and make a commited approach. So the work, for me, is overcoming my fear of unwelcome reactions and preparing the group to accept the potential consequence of character death.
I may not have been clear earlier, but I actually had Luke make a Stamina check for Perception when Freddy attacked him. Since he failed, I said he couldn't announce, so Freddy's attack roll was opposed by a single obstacle die. Now that I understand D&D-style surprise is imbedded in the attack roll (as is D&D-style initiative), I see my handling as a distortion of the system.