The Premise of Sorcerer doesn't really grab me... nothing personal, I'm just not interested in playing a guy who rules demons. Still, I've been thinking about getting it, just for the system and design insight that it contains.

The question is, what is Sorcerer & Sword? Does it contain a different Premise? That is, if I got both books, would I then have a game that I'd actually want to run, instead of just study for educational value? (Assuming the Premise os S&S is one that appeals to me...)

Sword is a way to use the basic mechanics of Sorcerer and use them in a pulp fantasy setting (as opposed to modern fantasy, which is what D&D purports to emulate). It's also a damn fine read.

Paganini,

If you like the pulp fantasy fiction, you'll probably find something of value in S&S. You don't have to play a guy who controls Demons, although the rules for handling Demons are still in effect for a variety of reasons (Ron explains why Conan is a sorcerer by Sorcerer's logic).

I don't if you'd play it or not, but if the subject matter interests you, you'd be hard pressed to find a better discussion of it anywhere.

- Scott

My answer: No.
On the other hand, its probably interesting enough that if you can you should buy it anyway.

I have not been happy with the barbarian-warrior-as-sorcerer motif that Ron employs. I take the point, that characters like Conan routinely interact with the supernatural, but I cannot visualise it working for what amounts to an all-warrior group; there simply is not enough mechanical differentiation available for non-sorcerers.

This does not mean I think it could not be done, but I don't think I could employ the system as writ for an FRPG. Possibly mechanically expanding Covers/Pasts would do the trick, but I doubt it.

hardcoremoose wrote:
If you like the pulp fantasy fiction, you'll probably find something of value in S&S. You don't have to play a guy who controls Demons, although the rules for handling Demons are still in effect for a variety of reasons (Ron explains why Conan is a sorcerer by Sorcerer's logic).

Hello,

The Premise of Sorcerer and Sword shifts away from that of the primary game to some extent, or rather, to an adjustable extent for different groups.

If you want to get really technical, the Premise is, "How does the alienated person act as a hero?" Read Camus' The Plague, then read Howard's Beyond the Black River, and you're reading the same story, at this level of analysis.

More concretely or emotionally speaking, the Premise is, "What does, or can, a certified cool-ass, bad-ass do?" (This actually turns the intellectual version of the Premise on its head; it's not a paraphrase but a reversal.) To address it, one needs "stuff" to get involved in, and that stuff needs to be extreme, fantastical, and demanding, overwhelmingly so.

And then, to take it to the source material, the Premise is, "You say, your outlook/character rocks? Prove it."

I don't see what Gareth's point about one small option of play (a protagonist without overt sorcerous priorities) has to do with the issue. I also don't see why the traditional "group adventure fantasy" of role-playing should be brought into the picture as any kind of priority at all.

Best,
Ron

Two comments, directed towards Nathan and Gareth, in that order:

Sorcerer's Premise is not "guys ruling demons"...that's fluff, filler, special effects...Sorcerer's premise is "What would YOU do with ultimate power?" and "How far would you go to get the job done? What would you DO?"
That's the premise.
(and Ron can bitch-slap me if I'm wrong)

Demons are a story detail, and story details don't equate premise as far as I am aware.

In fact, the game doesn't have to include demons/ghosts/spirits or anything of the sort! And it will still be Sorcerer! WTF?!

Yep. Check out Jared's supplement, Schism for an excellent example of this. Or you can wait around until I get my butt in gear and finish my high-fantasy supplement for Sorcerer for another example of Sorcerer without demons.
Sorcerer & Sword also includes some ideas along these lines.

Now, on to Gareth's comment:
I have the feeling that Gareth didn't read S&S too deeply (if he read it at all, I'm assuming he did), because he missed the fixes to all the "problems" he brought up and dislikes he had.

But that's the problem, if you just glance at Sorcerer or Sorcerer & Sword, it might seem to be very obvious what each is all about. However, unlike most role-playing games, Sorcerer is much deeper than the surface of the thing, as is the supplement.
Sorcerer isn't about sorcerers controlling demons.
Sorcerer & Sword isn't about swinging swords and controlling demons.

The unfortunate thing is that the majority of gamers are conditioned to accept shallow games that are entirely what they appear to be at first glance.
Sorcerer, in contrast, requires actual in-depth reading of the material to really get at the heart of the game and what you can do with it/what it is about.

Back to the point: non-sorcerer fighter-types.
We're talking an age of superstition -- and humans are superstitious creatures, even today, even if most of us don't admit it to ourselves -- wherein science and technology are not words anyone knows or even cares to know.

They know that if you sneeze, you let demons into your head, and you need to bless someone who does so quick to prevent this from happening.
They know that the stars tell the future.
They know that black cats are simply bad luck.
Or perhaps they know none of that and have completely different superstitions...the point is that even non-Sorcerers know this stuff, and what's scary is that some of it is real.

So your illiterate barbarian warrior isn't a sorcerer? Fine. He still believes that if he doesn't call out to Crom during battle, his people's gods will become angry with him. And maybe it's true...

(the demon here provides "Boost", perhaps...with a Need for being called upon, and a Desire for battle)

So your shining knight isn't a sorcerer? Fine. He still knows that the Fey folk live in mounds in the forest, that the only way to survive a meeting with them is to trick them or give them gold, and that they fear cold iron.

(this is an example of Contact or Summoning, Binding/Pacting maybe Banishing and Banishing or Punishment).

And heck, we all know that knights are devoted to the Church, servants of God and so forth...how about running a knight out on the Crusades?
His demon is his faith, his devotion to God and Christ...he prays, God protects him, provides him with the power to vanquish the infidels, he slaughters infidels, prays and fasts, and takes back the Holy Land.

You see, the term "demon" doesn't (have to) mean "demon." Your character doesn't need to be a wicked, black-robes billowing, ego-maniacal, going to rule the world, pasty-skinned summoner-of-things-from-the-black-pits, knower-of-things-best-forgotten sorcerer cliche.

You can easily play a campaign dealing with "fighter-types" who are, for all intents and purposes mechanically, sorcerers.
Tie it into the theme!

You grow up in the Black Forest, where everyone knows about the things out in the woods. You aren't a sorcerer, you don't consort with the things, but you do know what keeps them happy, what keeps them at bay, what some of the friendly ones do around the house if kept happy.

So the game revolves around interactions and encounters with the denizens of the wood.
You can defeat the Fey prince in the barrow-mounds because you're the one there dealing with him(it); that's the story...how you deal with the Fey (demons) of the story.

This is how folks lived in the past in our real world: the world was filled with spirits and sprites and other such things; they were as real as the rocks and trees...dangerous, fathomless, cruel or kind...but real, and Lore can be interpreted as simply this knowledge passed on generation by generation...it might not all be correct, it might not all work (or work entirely correctly).

Ron Edwards wrote:
I don't see what Gareth's point about one small option of play (a protagonist without overt sorcerous priorities) has to do with the issue. I

It all depends on what you want to use it for.

also don't see why the traditional "group adventure fantasy" of role-playing should be brought into the picture as any kind of priority at all.

Because I like it.

There is, in effect, a lot of hype about S&S being almost a replacement for what has been described as "modern FRPG" (as opposed pulp). It is not. It is aimed at a totally different function, and thus I feel it fair to challenge said hype and point that out. If it WAS intended to do that, it failed IMO. In fact to some extent I feel the effort was misplaced; having picked up some of Howards work for comparison, I was struck by the huge gulf that does indeed exist between what he does and trad modern FRPG; its a lot pacier, for one thing. On the other hand, I think that trying to tackle Howards oevre from a sorcerous perspective, with the weight of the mechanics on magic, demons and the like, was a mistake. The swords are much more important than the sorcery, IMO, and that is where the emphasis should have been placed. It is fair to say that you COULD run a naif sorceror in this environment, but the game remains heavily, heavily magic-oriented. Not really surprising; but IMO a mature game needs a wider variety of positive roles. In base Sorcerer, this is OK because it is really the Lore stat that gives the PC their PC'ness - the Pc is Pc by definition of being a sorcerer, you get all your hidden world stuff, all well and good. Thats because its the sorcery that is novel, fantastic, in the modern day. But by definition, it is NOT novel and fantastic in the sword & sorcery environment. There is no cachet of the hidden world.

Thus, I don't think Sword even remotely challenges the existing dynamic of FRPG; it is aimed somewhere totally different, somewhere like Ars Magica. But this means that the Premise has not changed a jot - it is not a Howardesque approach to fantasy at all, but merely the back-projection of Sorcerer. Anyone who was not grabbed by the Premise of sorcerer is not going to be grabbed by the Premise of Sword. I'm afraid I was totally unconvinced by the naif sorcerer demon concept - smacks far too much of rationalising a character concept into the mechanical strictures. I am simply not interested in a travelling menagerie of supernatural pets for the PC's.

So, maybe my style of play is not suitable for Sword. But I have reason to suspect that Nathans is not either, and I fear that with some of the hype he will feel that he has been sold a pig in a poke.

contracycle wrote:
There is, in effect, a lot of hype about S&S being almost a replacement for what has been described as "modern FRPG" (as opposed pulp).

On the other hand, I think that trying to tackle Howards oevre from a sorcerous perspective, with the weight of the mechanics on magic, demons and the like, was a mistake. The swords are much more important than the sorcery, IMO, and that is where the emphasis should have been placed.

Not really surprising; but IMO a mature game needs a wider variety of positive roles.

greyorm wrote:
Demons are a story detail, and story details don't equate premise as far as I am aware.

In fact, the game doesn't have to include demons/ghosts/spirits or anything of the sort! And it will still be Sorcerer! WTF?!

I have the feeling that Gareth didn't read S&S too deeply (if he read it at all, I'm assuming he did),

unlike most role-playing games, Sorcerer is much deeper than the surface of the thing, as is the supplement.

Or perhaps they know none of that and have completely different superstitions...the point is that even non-Sorcerers know this stuff, and what's scary is that some of it is real.

So your illiterate barbarian warrior isn't a sorcerer? Fine. He still believes that if he doesn't call out to Crom during battle, his people's gods will become angry with him. And maybe it's true...

(the demon here provides "Boost", perhaps...with a Need for being called upon, and a Desire for battle)

You can easily play a campaign dealing with "fighter-types" who are, for all intents and purposes mechanically, sorcerers.
Tie it into the theme!

Clinton R Nixon wrote:
not literal demons. Conan proves himself time and time again to be a just-above-average swordsman, really. He makes mistakes and loses fights. But - he gets nigh well pissed off, and then takes control in just about every story.

I think it is mechanically supported. The currency system allows for multiple rolls to increase the success of an action. For example, my hero Yarl has been beat down over and over. He's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore. I announce, "Yarl yells at the top of his lungs, trying to intimidate the snake-skinned bastard, and leaps at him, sword forward."

This would be a Will vs. Will roll for the yelling and scaring and whatnot. All successes I got here would immediately roll into a Stamina vs. Stamina roll for the attack, increasing my chance of success for being angry.

The rules specifically state that the GM should award bonuses for good descriptions in actions, to include descriptions of emotional state and purpose when performing actions, adding on to this further.

Sorcerer and Sword brings in a new rule where a PC can add bonuses to his actions by making a declaration of his will. The text used in the book is from a source I haven't read (and can't currently remember) but Yarl, for example, could say, "I'll not be defeated by the soldier of a pagan god, not while I stand on the ground of the good people of Yassara!" Instant bonus to combat actions.

Lastly, in Sorcerer, a character whose Stamina has dropped to 0 can make a Will roll to use his entire Stamina pool (or a portion thereof), even though he's been quite damaged. Non-PC's can't do this - the explanation is that sorcerers (PCs) have a will of iron, able to launch them back into the fray. This is a direct example of emotion overcoming physical adversity. You can beat Yarl down to a bloody pulp. You should defeat him. Instead, I can state my goal in life, describe my action in visceral emotional detail, roll my Will roll successfully, and leap up from the ground, my anger fueling me to strike you down successfully.

It's all right there in the mechanics, actually.

Actually, if you're looking for gaming insight then I would say get all three of the books. Together they will blow your mind and they really do work in concert.

If you *HAD* to get only one for pure insight only, I'd say get Sorcerer & Sword and read Chapter 7. It's all about Chapter 7. Did I say I really like Chapter 7? Chapter 7 rules.

Chapter 4 in Sorcerer is cool too. But Chapter 7 in Sorcerer and Sword does Chapter 4 in Sorcerer better.

Jesse

Clinton R Nixon wrote:
It's all right there in the mechanics, actually.

Gareth,

I know you think you know what you're talking about by pushing this "demons are the Premise; without them, Sorcerer is out of its scope" but I know for a fact that you are wrong.
Yes, a fact. Not an opinion. Not a feeling. A fact.

Please feel free to examine Jared's mini-supplement -- one of the first written -- "Schism" for a concrete, well-written and very excellent example of non-demonic Sorcerer play.

This showcases that stating when one moves out of the arena of demon-based power, you end-up applying the current mechanics to an environment which does not support them, the game breaks, is just plain incorrect.

In my opinion, your notion that the mechanics are based around demons and cliche sorcerers, and do not work with anything but, is highly inaccurate based on my considerable experience with the game.

Simply, no, it does not require too much "rationalization."

At which point you have to completely re-rationalise - in effect, re-write - the rules to reflect that new siuation.

I have the feeling that Gareth didn't read S&S too deeply (if he read it at all, I'm assuming he did),

Thank you for patronising, your custom is appreciated.

I'm sorry, but at this point I have to put on my panto hat and go "whoooooooooo!"

Faire enough. The major axis of chaarcter power is still control over demons. The point is that a character without a pet demon is at a substantial mechanical disadvantage and will continually play seocnd fiddle. And the kludge around this is the travelling menagerie.

And so does your warrior Bind Crom? Of what value is the relationhsip between Crom and the warrior if defined in such a functional manner?

the mental gymnastics required appear to me to eactly produce the phonmenone where the game being played is not the game as written.

the primary axis of character power is still control over demons

Hurm.

I wonder if we need a new graphic to mark certain threads. A fire extinguisher, perhaps?

Gareth doesn't feel S&S lives up to it's advertising and the praise it gets around here. Fine. He doesn't have to play it.

Raven thinks Sorcerer (and S&S) is far more flexible than Gareth is allowing for. Fine. Raven will enjoy the game more than Gareth would.

So, did I miss anything of substance?

Lon

greyorm wrote:
I know you think you know what you're talking about by pushing this "demons are the Premise; without them, Sorcerer is out of its scope" but I know for a fact that you are wrong.
Yes, a fact. Not an opinion. Not a feeling. A fact.

Please feel free to examine Jared's mini-supplement -- one of the first written -- "Schism" for a concrete, well-written and very excellent example of non-demonic Sorcerer play.

Really?

No you don't.

I don't have demons in my supplement. Oh, there can BE demons, but the characters are more like Technomancers, and I didn't rewrite any rules; I just used the basic Sorcerer rules.

How I feel is how I feel. I will not apologize for it; and I don't get the feeling that you read it too deeply, because (as already stated) a great number of your concerns are already dealt with in the books, hence it tells me you didn't read it.

Let's try this again: one does not need to have a "pet demon" (ie: slavering netherworldly entity at their command...or even an entity of any sort) in order to be a character in Sorcerer, or risk playing second-fiddle.#

One route is, yes, the "menagerie" of half-demons...yet one requires no "extra rules" for these beings without bound demons. They exist solely within the context of the already extant rules, contrary to your above claims.

And let's take a look at necromancy as well...again, the same...non-demon-based magic that still works with the mechanics as written.

sorcerer, even make him or her the star and the sorcerer second-fiddle, without giving the companion a pet demon of any sort.

Even further, one can have a non-sorcerer character who still commands "demons" in some sense...perhaps drawing on something in their own soul, a dark nature, a mental or physical scar.

On a tangent, I swear it sounds like we're talking about game balance here...are we? Good lords...a game balance discussion in the Sorcerer forum? Blech.

Of what value is the relationship between a sorcerer and a demon in a regular game of Sorcerer, when the relationship is also defined in such a functional manner?

itself a poorly made game because it trivializes the relationship between master and servant which is so central to the sorcerer/demon theme (something we both know is untrue).

In fact, as Ron has stated repeatedly that Sorcerer (et. al.) are for those who've grown dissatisfied with traditional role-playing, or those wanting to try something different, your insistence that

You are supposed to bend it and twist it around, each group is supposed to develop their own meanings for Lore, Humanity, the nature of the rituals, of demons and sorcerers and so forth!

Finally, just look at the Sanzoku in the main rule-book...they don't have "demons." Tell me, please, if one runs a Sanzoku game if the game being played is not the one written?

Contracycle said "Anyone who was not grabbed by the Premise of sorcerer is not going to be grabbed by the Premise of Sword."

Without wishing to get into the rest of the matters in this thread, which others (particularly Raven and Clinton) have already addressed well, I have to say that while I like Sorceror its premise doesn't do that much for me.

Sword on the other hand I love. Sorceror for me is a good game, Sword is a great game. I doubt very much I'll ever run Sorceror, I sincerely hope that one day I will have a group I can run Sword with.

On a different point, Sword is not designed for creating a game with a typical rpg party. To criticise it for not doing so seems to me a bit like criticising Call of Cthulhu for its poor simulation of super hero gaming, that's not what it's about. The literature Sword emulates does not contain parties of that kind, if Sword did encourage that kind of party formation it would IMO have failed in its objectives.

Gareth,

Your responses are beginning to border on "troll", and I won't respond if the nonsense keeps up; I also won't respond a fourth time to arguments I have already overturned twice now (and am about to again).

Ah yes - whatever you do, Don't Stop Consuming! So, in order to comprehend the core book I should be buying supplements, huh? I thought that was widely considerd a Bad Thing here.

Oh, I'm quite sure you did - using the Summon, Bind rules etc.

This is why I say the major axis of character influence is demonic control

The questions I was addressing was not "does it work on its own merits", the question I was answering was "should I, as someone who is NOT into characters controlling demons, buy Sword."

Then why is it a game called Sorceror, and

containing more specific rules for interacting with demons than anything else? Ah, demons are just a metaphor - or are they?

I did not claim you needed any new rules

ported it to a different world-concept, you WOULD have to seriously readdress what Bind means, what Summon means.

These are rules actions predicated on the presence of DEMONS, or at the very least disembodied spirits

Like a Grog or a Companion in Ars MAgica?

Yes, you can - but how MANY of them can you have? 3, 4 dark vigilantes tortured by their past misdeeds? A half-dozen angst-ridden vampires from the depths of time suppressing their primal urges? We have been here before.

Balance is indeed tangential. The question is, why buy a rules set if only a subset of your players will use most of the rules.

As an aide, flunky, ally. Crom is a god - worshipped, not bound. I think it would be wholly innapropriate to treat a pukka god in such a manner, and if what you really want is a world thronging with spirits, where everyone and their pet dog has a patron spirit, get HeroWars.

I'm suggesting that the necessary rewrite would.

Fine. So in what way is this appropriate for a GM who says that he is NOT enamoured of "demon controlling guys".

Raven: "You are supposed to bend it and twist it around"
EXACTLY! And Nathan did not like that in Sorcerer, why would he like it in Sword?

I deeply suspect it would become so very quickly.

you can do Michael Knight and Kit; you can do Stringfellow Hawk and Airwolf, but can you do Michael Knight + Kit + Stringfellow Hawk + Airwolf all at the same time and still have anything approaching the not-kitsch? I sincerely doubt it.

Of all the available genres, the one beyond the Hidden World which sorceror is most optimised is Supers, where ever character has their funky martian death ray or some other mcguffin.

Wow...go away for awhile and look at the fun I miss.

I have my doubts about replying to this thread at all but I feel I must.

CC: If you think that Sorcerer is about evil guys summoning vile creatures and commanding them to do horrible things then you have completely totally and uterly missed the point. You are so far off you're not even in the same state with the ball park.

For all of the things I'd rather have seen done differently in the game, one thing the game does extraordinarily well (so well I have trouble believing you missed it for reasons other than intentional) is explain that demons can be anything you want them to be. Hell, defining the nature of demons and humanity is the first thing you do when starting a new campaign. IIRC there's an entire chapter devoted to it.

If you think that defining the nature of demons means deciding whether or not they have horns and wings or whether they appear in a puff of smoke or what not then you once again are entirely missing the point.

Demons are a metaphor. They're a metaphor for what ever you want them to be. Could they be horned winged demons like Pit Fiends from the monster manual...sure. Could they be icky elder gods with cthulhu-like motivations...sure. They could be any number of traditional depictions of demonic or other worldly beings.

But they are most certainly NOT limited to that, nor are the mechanics limited to depicting them that way.

Demons could be the personification of raw emotion...hate, love, fear...each with effects on the character. The mechanics as written might refer to the emotions as demons, feeling them as a pact, and their effects as powers but so what. Change the names to something more appropriate and you still have a viable mechanic.

Demons could be schizophrenic personalities manifesting, they could be haunting memories, they could be your own Id, Ego, and Super Ego, they could be mutant super powers.

In a high fantasy world, the magic items could all be defined as object demons. How much more interesting and powerful a tool than "+1 damage". They could be saints and powers of good.

By changing the definition of demon and of humanity (which are not rerationalizations...thats part of the core rules) you can come up with an unlimited number of possibilities.

What do they all have in common...the emotional struggle behind the question of "what would you do". The whole point to the game is to provide the player's characters with power far beyond most NPCs and see what they do with it. Its a test of the adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely"...does it?...I don't know, what would you do?

That struggle is at the root of most true pulp fantasy. If all you see are half naked chicks and guys with swords...well theres another boat you missed. Given the similiar nature of the struggle, and given that Sorcerer's mechanics are designed for that sort of struggle, it is no great stretch to apply Sorcerer rules to the genre.

Now if the genre isn't your cup of tea...thats completely fine and another matter entirely. But that is pretty much the only thing you've right about in this thread so far.

I don't know how much you care about your credibility as a critical thinker and rational debater with the folks on this list...but you're rapidly losing points with this thread.

greyorm wrote:
also won't respond a fourth time to arguments I have already overturned twice now (and am about to again).

I used it to invalidate your statement and provide you with an example, should you care to read it to affirm that it does, indeed, work.
Period.
...
You mean redefining the concepts behind the sorcerous acts?
...
Yes, I did; I made a game supplement for Sorcerer and I followed the advice of the rulebook to do it. Why would this surprise you?

The major axis of character influence is influence over and conflict with a SOMETHING, not necessarily a demon.

the "open concepts" of the game, you are insisting that the game's concepts are NOT open to interpretation.

Since that is the case, one can easily change the dressing of the mechanical items in Sorcerer without changing the context.

Yes. Because one doesn't have to control *demons,* despite your ill-informed arguments to the contrary.

I bought sword to see how a game based so heavily on control of NPC critters would translate into more mundane character types; this I thought was an interesting idea and I wanted to see it executed. I don't think it succeeded; given that I don't think it succeeded, its remarkeably unlikely I'm going to stump up more cash for another attempt at the same brass ring, now am I? I think you need to provide some evidence that it can in fact be done.

without cliche demons and sorcerers! (Note the Xar setting in S&S)

So instead of a demon, I have a falcon. And my buddy Jim has a preternaturally intelligent stoat; and Og the half-ogre over there is riding his mystic heart-beast woolly mammoth. Yes, I understand - that IS the travelling menagerie I was referring to.

Then why is it a game called Sorceror, and

Baseless semantic arguments will be ignored -- "We can't adventure outside a dungeon! It SAYS DUNGEONS and Dragons!" is on par with the logic displayed in the above argument.

I suggest this front-loading of the customer has a lot to do with how a game is played, D&D being a good example of just that.

You most certainly did! Your statement was that to make a game with non-demon Sorcerers, you would have to invent or change the current rules to deal with them. Yet the menagerie, which you just stated worked within the rules, allows non-demon non-sorcerers without alteration of the rules.

Indeed. Thus, if you were to totally rewrite sorceror to something that was NOT based on the travelling menagerie - i.e. the character was not primarily effective through a relationship with another entity - you would be left with just a resolution mechanic.

Or, if your "customization" of sorcerer proceeds to the point that you needed to alter the "demons" in a major way, then you may have to rewriet the summon and bind rules as well to be appropriate. IF you think a demon is a disembodied entity,. Summon makes sense. IF you think humanity has power over the creatures of the netherworld, Bind and Contain make sense. If you are starting from scratch, i.e. are employing a different set of assumptions as to how humanity and "demons" interact, Summon and Bind may have to be completely re-rationalised and mechanically re-written.

Have you bothered to READ the main book?!
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!!!!! It's in the bloody text, for chrissake!!

You quite clearly have not even bothered to read the criticism.

Frex, traditional RPG "cyberware" is simply a parasite demon; a non-sentient piece of technology, yet it can be very easily described in Sorcerer terms as a "demon."

Good example. Now I have several severe problems:
1) Do I really want my "cyberware" overuling player characters? Does someone get themselves a bionic leg that aoccassionally says "dude, no walking 'till you feed me juju beans"? Absurd - this takes us back to the mechnaically restrictive conventions of cyberpsychosis and the like.
2) If I remove or limit the extent to which these non-summoned, non-bound, non-contrained, non-punshibale "demons" can interact with their hosts, whats the point of playing a game based on that interaction? To make it work at all I must re-write what Bind means, etc etc.
3) Having disocvered that I can't even maintain the pure character+sidekick trope in a meaningful way, why am I useing a system predicated on such a concept? Sure, mechanically it can be used to do this setting, but what would the point be? The cool part of Sorcerer has been lost.

Here I begin to doubt that you have even read the book, and in hindsight do not understand how you could even make a number of the statements you have about the game considering the very text of the rules.

Of course. It is, after all, impossible that two adults might comrehend the same text and see different values in it. That never happens, so when it does, we know that someone is being dishonest, right?

An example of this is on Page 58: "Demon is one of the 'open concepts' of Sorcerer, meaning that its fundamental definition is left entirely up to the

You keep attacking straw men I have not criticised; I specifically attacked the idea that Sorcerer can work without the travellling menagerie, not that the travelling menagerie had to be classic demons. Could you answer the criticism rather than evading it, please?

Like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
Like any number of non-sorcerer main protagonists in the literature who confront and deal with the supernatural, mystical and infernal.

Who all "happen" to have, oh, a soul-sucking sword from the many spheres, or a mystic-yet-sarcastic pet mini-dragon, or the One Ring with a mind of its own...

If pulp fantasy is "The Beastmaster", it works fine.

Demon: Overconfidence

Fine. So you have converted the Demon mechanic to a psychological mechanic. Queue previous ciriticism: the posse of dark avengers tortured by their past misdeeds.

Background
Ka'ain Contacted this "demon" as a result of the warrior culture he was raised in, which taught him

Which would suggest that any other character from that background would or should have that "demon" too.

Because you don't have to play *demon*-controlling guys, and there's more material in the book than just rules for Sorcerer...he said, again, in the hopes that this time it would be recognized.

Indeed - you can have any colour you like so long as its black.

No, Nathan said he didn't like the concept of "demon-ruling guys", not that he didn't like that you had to define your own game concepts.

It is possible I misunderstood Nathans concenrs, but you have certaibnly failed to recognise, let alone address, mine.

Have you tried? Seriously? Not, "I'll try and it will fail because it won't work."

I have to be convinced that there is some POSSIBILITY of success first, yes. Otherwise I can't distinguish between jumping off chairs and juming off cliffs.

D&D characters all have "special powers" too, yet I see no complaints from anyone that playing a warrior is a waste of time, or that warriors play second-fiddle to magic-wielding classes, or that all these classes simply have mcguffins.

Becuase those are not the PRIMARY vectors of character action; or at least where they are they are appropriate to the character concept i.e. fighters kill shit. I don't have to rationalise my fighter as a sorcerer-but-not-really.

You have consistently assumed that I failed to laud the book because I fail to understand it. Fine; that is your claim. What you need to do, however, is demonstrate some manner in which I have misunderstood it; it appears to me you don't even grasp the criticism. I said, and I say again, it probably works on its own terms, but I am NOT interested in a traveling menagerie, or a game of loin-cloth-clad barbarians agonising over the state of their inner child. Using the sorecer-of-whatever-type + demons-of-whatever-type model wortks well enough where that is the primary explicit dynamic of the game; sho-horning it through a set ot torutrous rationalisations to a character concept like "savage barbarian warrior" is too much like an exercise in double-think, IMO.

Valamir wrote:
CC: If you think that Sorcerer is about evil guys summoning vile creatures and commanding them to do horrible things then you have completely totally and uterly missed the point. You are so far off you're not even in the same state with the ball park.

Now if the genre isn't your cup of tea...thats completely fine and another matter entirely. But that is pretty much the only thing you've right about in this thread so far.

Hello,

I'd like to suggest that everyone's had his say, with the possible exception of me.

My say is this: It is perfectly OK for Gareth not to like Sorcerer & Sword. Or to decide whether it is or isn't focused toward the kind of play he's interested in.

I do appreciate the fervor of the defense, and I confess that I have my own take on the matter (obviously), but you know? It's all right. This isn't an instance of game theory discussion that must eventually come down to one most-sensible conclusion.

So, as moderator for the forum, I'm sayin' - I think all the points are made and we could well be done here.

It's OK to continue the thread, if you disagree with me and still want to hammer at the topic. But there will come a point when the noise exceeds the light, and please use judgment about when that's happened, instead of merely getting in yet another post just because the other guy hasn't said what you want to hear yet.

Best,
Ron

Here's the only bit I see to add that hasn't (to my eye) been well-covered. Gareth said:

Fine. So you have converted the Demon mechanic to a psychological mechanic. Queue previous ciriticism: the posse of dark avengers tortured by their past misdeeds.

(Apologies for butting in on a thread that should probably be let die)

I think the argument here falls down to a simple disagreement. Let me pose a question.

Say I want to run a game/produce a story about a muscle bound barbarian and his wily, sneaky thief mate. The question is 'can I do this with S&S ?'

The answer seems to be (I've not got S&S, waiting for it to appear) yes you can. The argument seems to be getting mixed up somewhere along the line. No one is saying you can't do it.

What is being said is that to do this you define the barbarian in Sorcerer terms, which includes his relationship between him and something, be it his god, his inner honour, some demon or a six foot invisible rabbit named Harvey.

However, some people will want to define the barbarian as simply being big, strong, tough, stubborn and good with a sword. For such a person what does S&S offer that another system doesn't ? How much of the Sorcerer ruleset would you be using ? Is there any point ?

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
Based on reading, not yet playing, Sorceror and & Sword, I think you're selling the conversion to a psycholgical mechanic a bit short. I think there is