Topic: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Started by: Yokiboy
Started on: 7/17/2004
Board: Adept Press
On 7/17/2004 at 10:17pm, Yokiboy wrote:
[Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hello,
My gaming group has decided to give NAR a try, as it sounds very appealing to most of us. In Sorcerer, and other sorces, they list the optimal size group around 3-4 players, we have 6. Is this too many players to handle? Given that I will GM a NAR campaign for the first time, would such a large group be unwise?
I am also wondering how people organize their first run? My players asked for demo adventures and pre-gens, just to get a feel for what NAR is, and while I own all the Sorcerer supplements, and have some material to pull from, I believe we'd get the most out of it by doing everything the right (hard?) way. What are the suggestions of more experienced Sorcerer GMs?
Looking forward to some helpful pointers,
Yokiboy
On 7/17/2004 at 10:32pm, Old_Scratch wrote:
Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Yokiboy wrote: Hello,
My gaming group has decided to give NAR a try, as it sounds very appealing to most of us. In Sorcerer, and other sorces, they list the optimal size group around 3-4 players, we have 6. Is this too many players to handle? Given that I will GM a NAR campaign for the first time, would such a large group be unwise?
Well, I just finished running my first Sorcerer game last week, so this isn't an expert opinion, but it is one of someone in close to the same place you were.
I would not run it with 6 people! I ran my game with three people, and I though four might be pushing it - and this was a game of Charnel Gods were the Demons were all objects and there was considerable less interaction with them because of the typical forms of communication not being possible.
I would instead urge you to run two games of three people each. Perhaps an experienced GM will need it, but going through the kickers and bangs and giving each player their time is going to be very, very, very difficult for most people I would imagine, especially a first time Sorcerer GM. It was great fun, but it was quite challenging with three people.
I am also wondering how people organize their first run? My players asked for demo adventures and pre-gens, just to get a feel for what NAR is, and while I own all the Sorcerer supplements, and have some material to pull from, I believe we'd get the most out of it by doing everything the right (hard?) way. What are the suggestions of more experienced Sorcerer GMs?
Again, from a newly minted Sorcerer GM, I would not run a demo adventure or pre-gens, the story should be the players, so instead come up with a theme or a setting of interest, develop some really great and atmospheric descriptors for that session and really work through the characters with each player.
Sorcerer works because its each player playing the character and story they want - that's a bit more difficult with a pre-gen.
But I'm less experienced than a lot of other people here, so I'd be curious to hear their opinions on this as well.
On 7/17/2004 at 10:55pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Thanks for the feedback Old_Scratch, I appreciate it greatly!
Old_Scratch wrote: I would not run it with 6 people! <snip>
I would instead urge you to run two games of three people each. Perhaps an experienced GM will need it, but going through the kickers and bangs and giving each player their time is going to be very, very, very difficult for most people I would imagine, especially a first time Sorcerer GM. It was great fun, but it was quite challenging with three people.
I suggested coming up with a backstory together, and then running the first session twice, with half the group each time. This based on the fact that some might not actually enjoy NAR play. I have a hardcore SIM'er in my group, and another that doesn't know that there's any other way to game but GAM.
By running the session twice, we could compare the outcomes, discuss things and see if anyone wants to drop out voluntarily.
Old_Scratch wrote: Again, from a newly minted Sorcerer GM, I would not run a demo adventure or pre-gens, the story should be the players, so instead come up with a theme or a setting of interest, develop some really great and atmospheric descriptors for that session and really work through the characters with each player.
Sorcerer works because its each player playing the character and story they want - that's a bit more difficult with a pre-gen.
This was my feeling also, and I think you're right.
How did you handle Bangs for your first time out playing Sorcerer? Did you find that they were easy enough to come up with based on the campaing planning and character design phase? What about during play, did you end up having to toss some Bangs and improvise others, how did that go?
TTFN,
Yokiboy
On 7/18/2004 at 4:54pm, Old_Scratch wrote:
RE: Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Yokiboy wrote: Thanks for the feedback Old_Scratch, I appreciate it greatly!
By running the session twice, we could compare the outcomes, discuss things and see if anyone wants to drop out voluntarily.
Yes, that's probably the best session - although I wouldn't quite run the *same* session. Same setting, but different characters and bangs for the same setting. Just personal preference though.
This was my feeling also, and I think you're right.
By setting up your own setting you're able to draw upon your own interests and your knowledge of the group and their interests. I think this does a lot to playing up the strengths of Sorcerer.
So what did you have in mind?
May I suggest you peruse some of the actual play sorcerer threads? I've got a Charnel Gods thread that goes all the way from the first ideas of a game to what's going on now in it. Judd/Paka has some really great threads as well, the Ghost City Chinese game and the Mu's Bed are must reads as is School Age Sorcerers.
How did you handle Bangs for your first time out playing Sorcerer?
I sat down, thought of the character and wrote out a series of Bangs early on, and then went over them a couple of days later. Those were the ones based on the characters. Then I looked at the setting and thought about what I wanted thematically and which character is most appropriate for the game. I also thought of some moral issues I'd be curious in seeing addressed and to whom to apply them. Write them all down! Don't just hope you remember them, you get a bang, write it down and if you can, offer a few variations or twists on it - players are unpredictable. After the first session, you're able to draw on more than 1) kickers 2) knowledge of player interests 3) character archetype 4) GM's interests 5) moral issues 6) campaign or game theme-based Bangs by working off of the characters developing stories.
Did you find that they were easy enough to come up with based on the campaing planning and character design phase?
Yes, I found it very easy to come up with some of them. I really wanted a list of about twenty of them, but only five or so really came up. But that was sufficient.
What about during play, did you end up having to toss some Bangs and improvise others, how did that go?
Again, if you look at Charnel Gods Actual Play thread I cover some of this. One player I hardly had to use any Bangs - the player was running their story full steam and carrying out his own agenda and telling the story he wanted to play, and I only introduced two bangs. For another player, I totally fumbled one of my favorite bangs, and I had to make a bang up on the fly when the character surprised me with something I wasn't even remotely suspecting. The last player was less proactive, and I ended up using five bangs or so and squandering my supply of them. I really have to write some more up this session.
So the number of bangs varied upon player, some needed to be invented on the spot or tweaked, some didn't work out, and some stories end up progressing on their own with only the occassional odd bang thrown in.
You really have to be flexible...
On 7/18/2004 at 6:44pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Old_Scratch wrote: Yes, that's probably the best session - although I wouldn't quite run the *same* session. Same setting, but different characters and bangs for the same setting. Just personal preference though.
Oh I quite agree, that is what I intended to do.
Old_Scratch wrote: By setting up your own setting you're able to draw upon your own interests and your knowledge of the group and their interests. I think this does a lot to playing up the strengths of Sorcerer.
So what did you have in mind?
We all agreed that we wanted something sort of creepy, ala Silence of the Lambs or surreal like Twin Peaks. I think Sorcerer would be able to handle this quite well, but we have no more specifics than that. My group are old-school D&D/AD&D/now 3E players, that are very hesistant to try anything else.
Old_Scratch wrote: May I suggest you peruse some of the actual play sorcerer threads? I've got a Charnel Gods thread that goes all the way from the first ideas of a game to what's going on now in it. Judd/Paka has some really great threads as well, the Ghost City Chinese game and the Mu's Bed are must reads as is School Age Sorcerers.
That is a very good idea, I'll see if I can find some of those threads. Thanks for the tip.
Old_Scratch wrote: I sat down, thought of the character and wrote out a series of Bangs early on, and then went over them a couple of days later. Those were the ones based on the characters. Then I looked at the setting and thought about what I wanted thematically and which character is most appropriate for the game. I also thought of some moral issues I'd be curious in seeing addressed and to whom to apply them. Write them all down! Don't just hope you remember them, you get a bang, write it down and if you can, offer a few variations or twists on it - players are unpredictable. After the first session, you're able to draw on more than 1) kickers 2) knowledge of player interests 3) character archetype 4) GM's interests 5) moral issues 6) campaign or game theme-based Bangs by working off of the characters developing stories.
Alright, this is pretty much was I was thinking of doing, we actually discussed Premise a bit too, some interesting ones that came up were "how far will you go to keep a secret?" and "when is what's good for the group more important than the individual". So my players do have a few ideas I can work with, and I'm sure once we discuss setting, theme and design the characters we'll have tons more ideas.
Old_Scratch wrote: Yes, I found it very easy to come up with some of them. I really wanted a list of about twenty of them, but only five or so really came up. But that was sufficient.
Do you mean that about 5 Bangs total were used in your first session, or is that 5 per character? Did you have a hard time giving everyone equal center-stage opportunity?
Old_Scratch wrote: Again, if you look at Charnel Gods Actual Play thread I cover some of this. One player I hardly had to use any Bangs - the player was running their story full steam and carrying out his own agenda and telling the story he wanted to play, and I only introduced two bangs. For another player, I totally fumbled one of my favorite bangs, and I had to make a bang up on the fly when the character surprised me with something I wasn't even remotely suspecting. The last player was less proactive, and I ended up using five bangs or so and squandering my supply of them. I really have to write some more up this session.
So the number of bangs varied upon player, some needed to be invented on the spot or tweaked, some didn't work out, and some stories end up progressing on their own with only the occassional odd bang thrown in.
You really have to be flexible...
Alright, that answered my previous question. Thanks for helping me out.
TTFN,
Yokiboy
On 7/18/2004 at 9:03pm, Old_Scratch wrote:
RE: Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
We all agreed that we wanted something sort of creepy, ala Silence of the Lambs or surreal like Twin Peaks. I think Sorcerer would be able to handle this quite well, but we have no more specifics than that. My group are old-school D&D/AD&D/now 3E players, that are very hesistant to try anything else.
Sounds great. Creepy then? I take it you don't want traditional demons ala Faust then? So what are the demons? Inner demons that haunt the characters? Are they demons that one has become intertwined with and must serve to stay alive (as in The Ring)? Are they the subconscious evil entities that one does not have control of (Perhaps like the Shining? Past selves, or kindred spirits?) Are they wierd cosmic archetypes that the players try to control but the archetypes themselves try to control the characters (Tim Powers Last Call)? Are they wierd creepy ghosts? Or since you mentioned Silence of the Lambs - maybe the demons are passers that are serial killers - almost every serial killer in history has been a demon let loose in the world - and when caught, the demons (or perhaps their sorcerers, set up as patsies) are incarcerated and the other lives to carry out their misdeeds - imagine Hannibal Lector as your demon!
Creepiness? What kind of Humanity are you looking for - I would venture to guess that even though it should be connected to the above, it might be your connection to the mundane shared world that everyone else has... A dual definition of humanity might work as well.
I think those are the two central questions: What is humanity and what exactly are the demons?
Do you mean that about 5 Bangs total were used in your first session, or is that 5 per character? Did you have a hard time giving everyone equal center-stage opportunity?
Two bangs for one player, three bangs for another, and five bangs for the last. No, I had no problem getting all the players in. If you check out the Charnel Gods write up in the Actual Play you can see that the one session, written up in detail, covered an awful lot of ground!
If you want to hash some ideas out in one of these threads you've started, I'd love to see the ideas you're bouncing around.
On 7/19/2004 at 12:08pm, Christopher Weeks wrote:
RE: Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Old_Scratch wrote: Or since you mentioned Silence of the Lambs - maybe the demons are passers that are serial killers - almost every serial killer in history has been a demon let loose in the world - and when caught, the demons (or perhaps their sorcerers, set up as patsies) are incarcerated and the other lives to carry out their misdeeds - imagine Hannibal Lector as your demon!
This made me think of a kind of cool idea. Sorcerers are generally mental health professionals and demons are other peoples' demons. That is, some people are afflicted by mental problems -- demons. Sorcerers can help them with their demons via simple councilling (Lore) or by actually directly interacting with the demons through rituals dressed up as radical psychiatric (or other) treatment. Lector isn't a demon. He's one of the greatest sorcerers alive...but his work has taken a certain toll.
You can get all the creepy you want (and then some) by taking a realistic look at modern or historical mental health practices and the setting has dramatic opportunity for altruism gone awry.
But what's humanity? It seems natural to tie it to sanity in some way, but what I'm really thinking is whatever the opposite of sociopathy would be called. Sort of a social empathy thing. Or a measure of how well you work and play with others.
Has this been done? I know there was a thread some time ago, maybe last fall, discussing sorcerers being mental health inmates.
Chris
On 7/19/2004 at 5:33pm, DannyK wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
I'm a mental health worker IRL and I've thought a lot about this idea. Maybe we should take it to a new thread, tho?
On 7/21/2004 at 9:30am, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Old_Scratch wrote: Sounds great. Creepy then? I take it you don't want traditional demons ala Faust then? So what are the demons? Inner demons that haunt the characters? Are they demons that one has become intertwined with and must serve to stay alive (as in The Ring)? Are they the subconscious evil entities that one does not have control of (Perhaps like the Shining? Past selves, or kindred spirits?) Are they wierd cosmic archetypes that the players try to control but the archetypes themselves try to control the characters (Tim Powers Last Call)? Are they wierd creepy ghosts? Or since you mentioned Silence of the Lambs - maybe the demons are passers that are serial killers - almost every serial killer in history has been a demon let loose in the world - and when caught, the demons (or perhaps their sorcerers, set up as patsies) are incarcerated and the other lives to carry out their misdeeds - imagine Hannibal Lector as your demon!
Creepiness? What kind of Humanity are you looking for - I would venture to guess that even though it should be connected to the above, it might be your connection to the mundane shared world that everyone else has... A dual definition of humanity might work as well.
I think those are the two central questions: What is humanity and what exactly are the demons?
We have yet to define this, but I figure I should have a few examples ready for my group, so they can get to character gen much faster. What we did discuss was your first Demon option, having them be Inner Demons, but I don't want to miss out on Passers though, and am not sure how they'd fit in with that idea...
As relates to Humanity everyone enjoyed the dual definition idea. I used the familiar Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos struggle of D&D fame as the example of how this works (I actually think this would be cool to use as the basis for a Sword & Sorcery campaign). We thought that Empathy should be one part of the definition, but I think that's mainly due to our years of playing Cyberpunk 2020. I would like Humanity to be your Soul, love the Preacher comic books from Vertigo, and will re-read Sorcerer's Soul for some ideas.
Old_Scratch wrote: Two bangs for one player, three bangs for another, and five bangs for the last. No, I had no problem getting all the players in. If you check out the Charnel Gods write up in the Actual Play you can see that the one session, written up in detail, covered an awful lot of ground!
If you want to hash some ideas out in one of these threads you've started, I'd love to see the ideas you're bouncing around.
I'm guessing I should check out that Charnel Gods write up... :D
Btw, the "Mental Health" ideas discussed are very interesting. This could work well for our Silence of the Lambs creepiness that we're after, and we did already discuss using inner demons. Perhaps some people can only be redeemed by binding their inner demon, but then you curse yourself in the process... Hmmm, I really like this idea. :)
Thanks,
Yokiboy
On 7/21/2004 at 6:02pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
For ideas about the mental health angle, check out this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7974
Mike
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 7974
On 7/22/2004 at 12:50am, Old_Scratch wrote:
RE: Re: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Yokiboy wrote:
We have yet to define this, but I figure I should have a few examples ready for my group, so they can get to character gen much faster. What we did discuss was your first Demon option, having them be Inner Demons, but I don't want to miss out on Passers though, and am not sure how they'd fit in with that idea...
Have 'em both!
As the Inner Demons needs get met, it becomes more powerful, and as it becomes more powerful, it begins to appear in the real world, evolving from Parasite into Passer.
Say, for example, when a player's humanity drops below the demon's power, it becomes more powerful and can begin to appear and evolve outside. When Humanity gets to 1 or when the Power becomes five or seven or some agreed upon benchmark than it becomes a Passer and takes a place in the world, a dark child born of the monstrous needs of the player character.
As for Inner Demons - you might want to consider what this is.
Are we talking pop-psychology like Norman Bates in Psycho? The alter-ego of the PC, like Tyler Durden in Fight Club? Are we talking about a demonic thought child residing in the mind, perhaps like in that awful J Lo movie about the Cell or whatever?
Does the demon exist solely in the player's mind? If the player dies, does the demon die? Or does the demon live in a psychically unified sub-conscious mind shared by all humans, a dark otherworld of the mind where the demon approaches and attaches to the character. In this case, the demon can be the start of the problem, the source of addictions, rather than the result of it.
Is it going to be a game of inner angst and battling the bottle, your alcholism that allows you strange mystical powers (cf dipsomancy in Unknown Armies)? Is it a world where many people struggle with this - and the world is full of Dianetics Scientology Cults which try to explain away or secretly nurture these alien and fiendish inner demons from beyond our reality? Is it a schizoid Jacob's Ladder thing, haunted by the past and memories that need to be purged before the soul rests?
Just throwing out ideas...
As relates to Humanity everyone enjoyed the dual definition idea. I used the familiar Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos struggle of D&D fame as the example of how this works (I actually think this would be cool to use as the basis for a Sword & Sorcery campaign). We thought that Empathy should be one part of the definition, but I think that's mainly due to our years of playing Cyberpunk 2020. I would like Humanity to be your Soul, love the Preacher comic books from Vertigo, and will re-read Sorcerer's Soul for some ideas.
If looking at Sorcer's Soul, you may want to look at the evolving demons section - that explains how you can get demons that go from inner parasites to living embodied creatures. It seems like I just saw a movie where someone's inner demon comes alive and kills them, but I'm drawing a blank. Perhaps checking out something like Videodrome might help.
Btw, the "Mental Health" ideas discussed are very interesting. This could work well for our Silence of the Lambs creepiness that we're after, and we did already discuss using inner demons. Perhaps some people can only be redeemed by binding their inner demon, but then you curse yourself in the process... Hmmm, I really like this idea. :)
I'm going to offer a book suggestion to you: try reading "Geek Love" about a freakshow circus which has a lot of wierd creepiness, and a few inner demons, but really its about a profoundly freakish family and their relationships with each other - its a remarkably creepy book and I think you might get something out of it.
As for the process, it seems like "punishing" could be intriguing, like wierd psychotic cutting on your arms, wierd deprivation experiences, and also contain - how would you contain the demon? And it seems you actually mean banishing - after all, binding is pretty much the foundation of the relationship.
I'm curious to hear what you're doing with it - have you written up any of your brainstorming? I find this the most fertile part of my writing - the most full of potential. If you've got some notes and wierdness written down, I'd love to see what you've got!
On 7/22/2004 at 9:40am, Trevis Martin wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
For the evolving demon idea, take a look at the one sheet I posted a while back.
Sorcerer, Embraced by the Dark
regards,
Trevis
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 7422
On 7/30/2004 at 10:56pm, Yokiboy wrote:
1st Session Prep
Hi gang,
Thanks for all the advice and ideas so far, I appreciate it.
I have been busy preparing for our first Sorcerer test-run and catching up on all the liste source materials I've been able to find. Dang, I've been watching horror movies around the clock. :D
My group decided that a test-run was just what we all needed, and they liked the idea of a mini, one-session, campaign called The Party. This is Ron's intro scenario as described in the rulebook. Everyone came up with fine characters IMO, especially as this was their first crack at it.
Here's a look at the characters:
Name: Adam McBane
Player: Daniel
Story: The Party
Stamina: 2 Athletic regime
Will: 3 High self-esteem
Lore: 5 Solitary Adept
Cover: 3 Office Worker
Price: -1 Arrogance (penalized in all social situations)
Humanity: 3 (has yet to roll for his initial binding)
Appearance: Geeky and skinny man in glasses
Telltale: Scars from cuts on his arms
Kicker: Received a mysterious invitation to a party at Alonzo Clarence Shaw's mansion, but doesn't know why, given that the only thing special about him is... Nimbly!
Bound Demons
Name: Nimbly
Type: Object
Bound To: Adam McBane
Binding Strength: Demon +1
Dissatisfaction Meter: Brat (stage 1)
Stamina: 5
Will: 6
Lore: 5
Power: 6
Telltale: Scheming and life-like looks
Appearance: Cute, little porcelain doll
Desire: Scare/kill girls/women
Need: Flowing blood
Abilities:
Armor (Master)
Boost Stamina (Master)
Hold (Self) + Ranged
Shadow (Self)
-----
Name: High Priest William Rennet III
Player: Fredrik
Story: The Party
Stamina: 1 Old man in wheelchair
Will: 4 Belief system
Lore: 5 Mad, does everything for black power
Cover: 4 High priest
Price: -2 Lame
Humanity: 4 (has yet to roll for his initial binding)
Appearance: Old, black priest, leg-less and wheelchair-bound
Telltale: Long, yellow nails
Kicker: Got news that Alonzo Clarance Shaw has decided to give away the church school building to buddhist monks.
Bound Demons
Name: Wendy
Type: Passer
Bound To: High Priest William Rennet III
Binding Strength: Demon +2
Dissatisfaction Meter: Brat (stage 1)
Stamina: 6
Will: 7
Lore: 6
Power: 7
Telltale: Weight fluctuates +/-10kg per day
Appearance: Black, middle age priest
Desire: Power
Need: Alcohol binges
Abilities:
Link
Confuse
Cover: Priest
Special Lethal Damage: Poisonious Fingernails
[+2 more as of yet unspecified abilities]
-----
Name: Sean Riddle
Player: Robert
Story: The Party
Stamina: 5 Chemically heightened scrapper
Will: 3 Belief system
Lore: 2 Apprentice
Cover: 5 Hoodlum
Price: -1 Paranoid (penalized in all situations barring combat)
Humanity: 5 (has yet to roll for his initial binding)
Appearance: Sharp, predator-like features, long, black hair
Telltale: Colors around Sean seem faded or washed-out
Kicker: Received an order to attend a social gathering at the home of his master's long-time nemesis, Alonzo Clarence Shaw, and find out what he's up to.
Bound Demons
Name: Temun
Type: Parasite
Bound To: Sean Riddle
Binding Strength: Master +2
Dissatisfaction Meter: Content (stage 0)
Stamina: 4
Will: 5
Lore: 4
Power: 5
Telltale: Looks like something's crawling under the skin
Appearance: Pale, bony, left forearm
Desire: Art, specifically painting (that's right, performing arts)
Need: Random violence
Abilities:
Special Lethal Damage + Ranged: Acid Spray (Host)
Vitality (Host)
Armor (Host)
Coming from a very long-running D&D 3.5e (converted from D&D to AD&D to D&D 3.0e to D&D 3.5e) campaign, we felt that defining Humanity as Trust would be really cool, as they as a group never trust NPCs. However, we'd like to use dual definitions for Humanity, and also like the default Sorcerer premise of "What do you want, and what will you do to get it?" We're not sure if they fit very well together though, so right now we're only settled on Trust being one definition of Humanity.
I have yet to define the specifics behind what Humanity really is (leaning towards your Soul), what Demons are, and how to conduct Rituals. I have some time to come up with this though, as we cannot game for a couple of weeks.
Well that's it for now,
Yokiboy
On 7/30/2004 at 11:01pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Oh I forgot something, I need some help with the character High Priest William Rennet III. His player, Fredrik, enjoys Gamerism and it shows in this design IMO. He has a Stamina score of 1, and defined his Price as -2 Lame (-2 due to using Mad as his Lore descriptor). He has no legs, having offered these in the ritual used to Bind Wendy, but the wheelchair helps him somewhat get around that (oh you don't wanna hear about all the James Bond gadgets that this wheelchair's been outfitted with).
How and when should the -2 Lame Price affect him during the game? Obviously just about any physical actions, requiring Stamina checks, would be affected, but he already has a Stamina of 1. This will give the opponent 2 bonus dice on all opposed Stamina actions, is this enough of a Price?
TTFN,
Yokiboy
On 7/31/2004 at 12:31am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hello,
This has been a fun thread to watch.
I'll confine my post to your self-appointed powergamer group member, who is about to get a few nasty surprises, I think.
1. The "lame" Price applies to any sort of physical moving-around he does. Period. Yes, including in the chair. It has nothing to do with actually walking.
2. You are right about opponents getting two bonus dice. Any physical confrontation of any kind counts - if he says, "But I'm standing still!" it doesn't matter. Moving is moving.
It strikes me as a perfectly valid Price, and in fact rather severe if properly applied.
You do realize what he's aiming for, right? By making his character so wimpy in one sphere, he's angling for your hesitancy as a GM to put his character into that sphere of conflict at all. If you never have (for instance) one of Yzor's spawn step out of the closet and seize his throat, then he doesn't have to worry about such conflicts, and so he's maxed out on dice for the conflicts that you do fling at him.
Don't succumb to this reasoning. Hit his character with all the same conflicts as everyone else, which is to say, physical, emotional, sorcerous, social, and so on.
Best,
Ron
On 7/31/2004 at 1:38am, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Thanks for the pep talk Ron. I guess you're right, that -2 Lame Price can really be a killer for the High Priest, especially as his passer demon isn't bound so tightly to him, and I can sort of see her push his wheelchair down one of Yzor's staircases in a fit of rebellion... Ok, I won't get ahead of myself, but I am really looking forward to playing this scenario.
I've been watching the old Amityville Horror movie, and several others or similar themes to get the right feel for the setting.
If I may ask, could somone point me to which supplement, and chapter, deals with the dual Humanity definitions (gotta be Soul right)? I simply cannot find it no matter what (could be due to it being 3:30 AM right now).
When playing the Training Run scenario from the main rulebook, should I still design a selection of Bangs to be used during the scenario? It seems that it is such a high octane, action filled scenario that Bangs of the moral kind will be somewhat out of place, and the scenario itself played in an improvisational manner. Do the more experienced Sorcerer GMs agree?
Actually, as I finished the previous paragraph I started thinking; why shouldn't I use Bangs? I'm seeing the party as a very deviant event, in the style of Jesus deSade's party in Preacher #15 (how deviant it gets will depend on the vibes I get from the players though). Given this setting I could easily come up with several Bangs to keep us busy.
I have to get some sleep now, I'll post more later.
TTFN,
Yokiboy
On 7/31/2004 at 9:46pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hi Yokiboy,
Quick post.
1. Never mind dual Humanity. It's in Sex & Sorcery, but just put it on the shelf. All you need is your "trust" concept, not only among the player-characters but as expressed toward NPCs too.
2. Bangs! Yes, you need Bangs. Your phrasing is a little weird ("why shouldn't I use Bangs") because ... well, because you need them, and that's just a given.
Best,
Ron
On 8/1/2004 at 1:46am, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Ron Edwards wrote: 1. Never mind dual Humanity. It's in Sex & Sorcery, but just put it on the shelf. All you need is your "trust" concept, not only among the player-characters but as expressed toward NPCs too.
Alright, I'll trust you, perhaps I'm trying to take on too much for my first run.
Ron Edwards wrote: 2. Bangs! Yes, you need Bangs. Your phrasing is a little weird ("why shouldn't I use Bangs") because ... well, because you need them, and that's just a given.
I was "thinking out loud," and in questioning whether I require Bangs or not for the training run (which we've labeled The Party) I came up with the answer myself; of course I should!
However, I am still a bit confused as to what kind of Bangs I will come up with, given that they're all trapped inside Yzor... The setting feels a bit limited. That's why I was considering simply winging the whole thing. I will try to device a few Bangs though, and post them here.
I do think the whole Bang concept is just new to me, and a lot of the ideas I have for what could happen during the scenario are probably decent Bangs in themselves.
TTFN,
Yokiboy
On 8/1/2004 at 2:50pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hiya,
You're right that you probably already use Bangs to some extent. The thing to watch out for is pre-taping certain outcomes to the Bangs in your head, which frankly is a technique that most GMs have cultivated and will be disastrous for playing Sorcerer.
As for what Bangs might be possible, I think you should consider how rich starting characters are. They are full of embedded conflict - pay special attention to the diagrams on the backs of the character sheets.
You, uh, did get those diagrams filled out by the players, right? And not individually, but all together? These are crucial. Without them, you cannot play well, as the player-characters' associated material will not be contributing to the setting.
You see, you have to re-write the introductory scenario or it won't be anything but a boring demo of a few resolution features. You should re-write it based on three things:
1. The backs of the characters' sheets. That will introduce at least five, maybe many more, NPCs. It will also introduce a great deal of sorcery into the scenario that isn't in the current writeup, as well as (of couse) the demons themselves.
2. Which brings me to this point, that you must embrace the demons and any NPC who strikes your fancy as your own, personal, favorite characters. Not in the sense that you will play them as protagonists, but you should play them as if they think they are. You know how some people just go through life thinking they're the star of reality? That's what the demons are like, and that's what (for instance) Yvonne is like, in the scenario. Play them flexibly and never with an eye toward "helping the players" or "making the story work out right," but rather toward their own hang-ups, agendas, and so on.
(Do not mistake my above point for saying the demons will not help their masters. Of course they will. I specifically said players, not characters.)
3. The back-story of the scenario itself needs some work. Sure, it's a bacchanalia and all sorts of gross and corrupt ... but do you agree with me that the very scene that you reference in The Preacher is actually one of the weakest in the whole series? Ultimately, Jesus de Sade is a boring character, no matter how crude or jaded he is.
So your third requirement is to put personal zest into it. That means coming up with fun snippets and interactions and bits among all the participants that, instead of being little movies for everyone to watch, are opportunities for the players to get involved (note: players, not characters, again). The sequence with the child pornography in The Preacher seems like an OK example, except that it's not especially compelling as a character choice: of course Jesse will put a stop to it and kick ass. But whether your players will find this perfectly enjoyable or old hat is something you can assess.
Does any of that seem like it will help?
Best,
Ron
On 8/2/2004 at 11:15pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Ron Edwards wrote: You're right that you probably already use Bangs to some extent. The thing to watch out for is pre-taping certain outcomes to the Bangs in your head, which frankly is a technique that most GMs have cultivated and will be disastrous for playing Sorcerer.
I'm pretty sure I will be able to handle improvising based on any possible outcome from my Bangs. I never enjoyed angling for "my chosen outcome" in our old game of D&D anyhow, so this feels like a refreshing change of pace. I look forward to being surprised as to where the story leads, rather than trying to keep it on track (yeah I'm talking "railroading").
Ron Edwards wrote: As for what Bangs might be possible, I think you should consider how rich starting characters are. They are full of embedded conflict - pay special attention to the diagrams on the backs of the character sheets.
You, uh, did get those diagrams filled out by the players, right? And not individually, but all together? These are crucial. Without them, you cannot play well, as the player-characters' associated material will not be contributing to the setting.
Sure did, the diagrams were filled out, but unfortunately not in a cooperative manner. My group were desperate to create characters for Sorcerer and pushed me into allowing them to do so upon the conclusion of our D&D campaign, although we knew we wouldn't have enough time to do it properly. I was pleasantly surprised as to how eager they were to try the game though, and I think the idea of playing characters involved with demons felt so far away from our paladin/cleric-centered D&D game that it appealed to them (this was confirmed by the actual characters they created).
Anyhow, we started creating characters late, and everyone fell into the trap of working very much in solitary. So there was next to no colaboration in generating NPCs, but I should have no trouble tying some of them to the backstory and making sure the character's paths will cross. We also have to meet again prior to actually playing the game, and can then discuss the NPC situation together.
I just re-read their stories and diagrams and, you were right, they're full of potential Bangs! Damn, I love this stuff!! :D
Ron Edwards wrote: You see, you have to re-write the introductory scenario or it won't be anything but a boring demo of a few resolution features. You should re-write it based on three things:
1. The backs of the characters' sheets. That will introduce at least five, maybe many more, NPCs. It will also introduce a great deal of sorcery into the scenario that isn't in the current writeup, as well as (of couse) the demons themselves.
Thanks for outlining this, it is exactly the kind of advice I was after with this thread. After a quick diagram inspection I have a 16 NPCs to flesh out, Adam provided 6, while the other two characters have listed 5 each.
When you say "at least five... NPCs" are you referring to a total figure or per character?
Ron Edwards wrote: 2. Which brings me to this point, that you must embrace the demons and any NPC who strikes your fancy as your own, personal, favorite characters. Not in the sense that you will play them as protagonists, but you should play them as if they think they are. You know how some people just go through life thinking they're the star of reality? That's what the demons are like, and that's what (for instance) Yvonne is like, in the scenario. Play them flexibly and never with an eye toward "helping the players" or "making the story work out right," but rather toward their own hang-ups, agendas, and so on.
(Do not mistake my above point for saying the demons will not help their masters. Of course they will. I specifically said players, not characters.)
Okay, that's good advice. Am I, as GM, personally responsible for the personality of the initial demons? Well the players did design them, so I have that to base their personalities on, but how much should the players be involved in coming up with a demon's personality?
I think I have too many old SIM hang-ups, such as being overly tied to Alonzo Clarence Shaw's party and his house, i.e. Yzor, in this case. Thinking, "oh how will I be able to get the named NPCs into the party?" Having looked over the starting NPCs, I will definitely delay their party entrance with a few Bangs closer to home first, and a few NPCs are definitely showing up or accompanying the PCs to the party as well.
Ron Edwards wrote: 3. The back-story of the scenario itself needs some work. Sure, it's a bacchanalia and all sorts of gross and corrupt ... but do you agree with me that the very scene that you reference in The Preacher is actually one of the weakest in the whole series? Ultimately, Jesus de Sade is a boring character, no matter how crude or jaded he is.
So your third requirement is to put personal zest into it. That means coming up with fun snippets and interactions and bits among all the participants that, instead of being little movies for everyone to watch, are opportunities for the players to get involved (note: players, not characters, again). The sequence with the child pornography in The Preacher seems like an OK example, except that it's not especially compelling as a character choice: of course Jesse will put a stop to it and kick ass. But whether your players will find this perfectly enjoyable or old hat is something you can assess.
You're quite right about the Preacher references, although I have yet to complete the entire series, being only a little more than half-way through it (I was introduced to it after its completion). I have a few other ideas for the party already, something more sinister, that will test their Humanity. I am thinking an old-fashioned masquerade ball, with those little masks covering everyone's faces, should be a a good test of their sense of Trust.
Speaking of the back-story, how do I use a Relationship Map for what basically amounts to a one-shot scenario? I am already in love with the PCs and could see them as part of a much longer campaign, but the players insist that they want to try the system, then design characters for the campaign we have cooking in our minds. Do I even bother with an RM?
I have a RM based on a great BBC detective show, having combined two cases to get a fully fleshed out map. It has 12 boxes and features a very cool conflict IMO. How will I use this with the Training Run though, any advice?
I am already thinking of turning this into a two-session campaign, so that we can explore the characters a little more outside Alonzo's party. Or perhaps have a prologue session to the party, where we can see what became of the characters upon resolving their Kickers.
Ron Edwards wrote: Does any of that seem like it will help?
YES!
Thanks,
Yokiboy
On 8/3/2004 at 3:31am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hello,
Wow - that post really lets me know that you're prepared for this. For instance, I was anticipating that your response to my sheet-diagram question would be, "What diagrams? Oh, those?"
When you say "at least five... NPCs" are you referring to a total figure or per character?
Per character. So you're right on target.
Am I, as GM, personally responsible for the personality of the initial demons? Well the players did design them, so I have that to base their personalities on, but how much should the players be involved in coming up with a demon's personality?
Let the player/GM proportions be an individual thing. What really matters is that once play starts you are the demon's player.
how do I use a Relationship Map for what basically amounts to a one-shot scenario?
It can be done, but I think it's crude - i.e., unsubtle. The In Utero chapter in Sex & Sorcery discusses this problem. My suggestion for you is to say, fine, you can keep your character or start a new one, and to keep the events of this "training run" as a feeder for your eventual long-term game.
That is, if you still have this sense of enthusiasm about it. For all you know, after playing this one, you all will feel "done" and will want to start fresh. My real suggestion, now that I think about it, is simply to do whatever seems most enjoyable when the time comes, and let it wait until that time comes.
Best,
Ron
On 8/3/2004 at 1:25pm, Yokiboy wrote:
Character Write-ups
Hello,
Here's the character write-ups, as posted on Sorcerer Web site.
Adam McBane and Nimbly
High Priest William Rennet III and Wendy
Sean Riddle and Temun
Btw, do you keep Binding Strengths secret from the players? I entered all Binding Strengths as "0" as I didn't want to give them away to the players. IMO it will be fun to hit them with a rebellious demon when they least expect it.
TTFN,
Yokiboy
On 8/3/2004 at 2:20pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hi YB,
Wow, your players are really into amputations. My only concern with the characters is Adam's extremely weak Kicker. This character seems to correspond exactly to one of my "sneaky player tricks" in Chapter 4 of the main book.
Btw, do you keep Binding Strengths secret from the players? I entered all Binding Strengths as "0" as I didn't want to give them away to the players. IMO it will be fun to hit them with a rebellious demon when they least expect it.
It's funny - I used to keep them secret just as instructed in the main book, and I recommend that you do so. But: nowadays, we play them "open," not secret at all.
Best,
Ron
On 8/3/2004 at 8:56pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hi Ron,
I must start by thanking you for paying so much notice to me, a single player - among many - of your fine game. I have never encountered such customer service in my life! On the other hand you've earned yourself my respect and a life-time customer - thanks!
Ron Edwards wrote: Wow, your players are really into amputations. My only concern with the characters is Adam's extremely weak Kicker. This character seems to correspond exactly to one of my "sneaky player tricks" in Chapter 4 of the main book.
Yeah the amputations were kind of freaky, I even think that Adam's player was on track with mutilations as well, but settled for his heavily scarred arms, after cutting himself to satisfy the Need of his demon Nimbly.
As far as his Kicker relates he was himself kind of unsatisfied with it, so we could still modify it. Although I was thinking of just spicing it up for him myself, Adam's player is quite unsure of what to make of Sorcerer yet, so I believe he would just appreciate my extra seasoning. See if you like the following.
Adam's Kicker in play (his first Bang) wrote: The office mail guy swings by your cubicle, probably with some more corporate memos about the form or procedure of the hour, but something actually catches your eye. A completely white envelope, an almost gleaming white, without even a smudge, nor a stamp, on it, but your name listed front and center.
Inside the envelope you find an ornate invitation to a party, at Alonzo Clarence Shaw's mansion. He's a famous trendsetter and powerplayer, why would he invite you to a party? Wait, is that his address? That's in that posh area outside Stamford, Connecticut, where you picked up that cute, young girl last spring... that was never supposed to end the way it did, but Nimbly enjoyed it...
Remember that Adam is stuck with a demon that desires that he scares or kills young girls or women. Given the type of sleeze that Adam is, I am sure he'd rather prey on defenseless girls.
Of course with that setup he might not want to attend the party, but what kind of protagonist misses such a chance in the spotlight? How would Yvonne know about the young girl? Perhaps she doesn't, I haven't thought of that yet, and I will want to see how Adam's player reacts too, he might have some even meatier ideas.
Let me know what you think.
TTFN,
Yokiboy
On 8/3/2004 at 9:50pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hey,
Way too vague. Have the invitation include a scrawled personal message from the girl on it.
And this girl NPC really needs to be someone from the back of the character sheet, not someone that you've made up just because the character "should" care about her.
Best,
Ron
On 8/3/2004 at 10:37pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: [Sorcerer] Playing NAR for the First Time
Hello,
How about this, he mentions looking for his long-lost sister as one of his character goals, Yvonne could be that sister. Now that puts a very sinister spin on it IMO, since Yvonne is in essence setting up her poor brother to have his demons eaten by Yzor and become the main course for Yzor's spawn. I like it!
Btw, I'm reading all those demon links you recommended I'd check out, and found one in which greyorm (Raven?) states.
greyorm wrote: Now, with Sorcerer, put those demons into the relationship map (or one of their own) and you'll have that impetus for each, a living, breathing individual that should require little work to "juggle." And with their Need/Desire, you've got a personality trait to work your repsonses off of (the One Thing).
Is this something that experienced Sorcerer players recommend, taht the demons themselves are added to the RM? It sounds like a good idea, but somehow I overlooked it. Although thinking about it now, the example RMs in Soul even feature demons.
I better sorcerize and demonize my RM a bit before play begins.
Thanks for pointing out the weakness of that Bang, your comments really do make sense.
TTFN,
Yokiboy