One of the recommendations I've read in the Sorcerer books was to get the back stories "laid out" in the first or second session of play.

I think this is because there is no pay off in keeping it hidden. In fact, it seems to me that to do so (hide the REAL "plot" from the players) is just un-Sorcerer-like. But that's one of my problems: I've been trained for so long in other modes of play that this hide-the-real-GM-secret-story is normal and expected behavior.

While I think I could figure out how to "lay out" the story bones in some sort of plain way (direct exposition from me, right at the start), is that it? I'd like to hear from you with Sorcerer-fu skills who've done this before. Or am I making this more difficult than it seems?

Thanks in advance!

Hi James,

It's a sticky knot for the so-called "experienced gamer" because what he's done is master a very, very difficult art, and now is expected to accomplish a different goal with comparatively very easy tools.

He could accomplish a different goal with the same tools. He could accomplish the current goal with easier tools (in fact, has probably already done so on his own). But a different goal? He points to his tools and says, they won't do that! Or different tools? Hey! They won't work for my old goal!

This problem will run around like a hamster wheel in the head of the new-to-Sorcerer gamer. It has been known to lead people to fling the book away from them in rage and fear.

Numero Uno
Forget about the goal. That whole business about wowing the players with your amazing and horrific back-story? And wowing them at the same time as their characters? Just forget it. The good news is that you'll still wow the players and the characters, merely in a much easier and straightforward way.

Numero Dos
Forget about the tools. Yeah, I know you have them: specifically scene-framing without consent and IIEE manipulation, at any stage of the process. You'll have to let go of the idea that this cool NPC is gradually going to become The Nemesis. Or that the sweet and innocent NPC will become the touchstone for the player-characters to swing into action. The good news is that such nemeses and touchstones will appear, merely in a much easier and straightforward way.

Paul? Jesse? You would be the primary sources for James, I think. Help the man out.

Best,
Ron

Hey James,

One thing to keep in the front of your mind as you're running a Narrativist game is that the player characters are protagonists, and that the world and the situation should react to them as such. NPCs should engage with them. You know how in episodes of The Incredible Hulk TV series characters always found themselves confiding in Dr. Banner? Do that, for both decent folk and villains. The main villain doesn't protect his secrets, and menace the player characters via agents, he engages them. Perhaps he sends his guards away, and spends time with one of them. He reveals his secrets, his doubts, his drives. Perhaps he introduces a character to his attractive daughter. "She doesn't speak the local language, so she doesn't get out much. I love her dearly. I'd be grateful if you'd consider taking her to dinner." In your first session, use NPCs to engage individually with the characters, reveal backstory, and draw them into the relationship map. The deeper you draw them in, the easier it is to problematize their decisionmaking.

Paul

I've noticed a reaction to your comment Paul, that again I think is from years and years of playing in other ways. That reaction was this: if I introduce an NPC, potentially adverserial or otherwise, in that way the players will immediately begin to look for "the hook" into what's really going on, as it's been done over and over before.

Should these sorts of concerns be laid to rest as openly as possible was well? It seems like I would do myself a favor and try to spell out to the players that a game like Sorcerer isn't going to be like so many of the others we've all played before. The expectations for what's going to happen are just shaping up to be waaaay different.