Although I purchased Sorcerer last year and had my first play session now almost 1 year ago, I have been holding off describing my actual play of the game until the game really started to get going. However, after three sessions of play the game is flagging badly, and perhaps if I don't sort out the problems the game will never really get going and just be quietly shelved.

When I purchased Sorcerer (along with Sorcerer and Sword and The Sorcerer's Soul and Charnel Gods- with Hellbound ariving much much later) I was greatly enthused by the game (and still am to some extent). The main problem seemed to be whether to run a modern campaign or a Sword campaign, both of which greatly appealed to me. I settled in the end for a modern campaign. I decided to start it out set in the vicinity of Sydney, where my RPG group and I live, to help the players identify with the the characters. I thought that later in the game the characters could travel to less familiar foreign places when I wanted to up the general level of menance.

Although the issue never struck me as important as it was made out to be, I thought I better decide on what Humanity was. After much thought I decided to keep things simple and use a the most obvious (to me at least) definition of Humanity as being a combination of sanity and empathy, with Humanity 0 making a character an insane psycopath.

My next job was to sell the idea of playing the game to the players. This was quite difficult, as my players generally prefer to play games they already are well-familiar with. One by one, however, I persuaded most of the players to create characters. Getting them to create kickers for their characters was the hardest thing- there was great resistance to this. With the exception of one or two players, it seemed to be viewed as an unwelcome imposition of GM duties upon a player.

With most of the characters now designed in advance, I finally managed to engineer a play session of the game. Most of this session was, however, devoted to creating the remaining characters, placing all the characters in the game world, and trying to cobble together some sort of tenous link between their kickers to give them some sort of reason to meet one another. I should add that my RPG group tends to have from 4 to 9 people present on any given day, and this session was one of the larger ones, so at any given time most players were sitting idle as another character was in the limelight. The game sort of came together at the end with all characters meeting one another (each for their own diverse reasons) in a single room in which a major demon had appeared and attacked one of them. This seemed a triumph of organisation, but it was of little assistance in the long term because the characters had little reason to continue to associate and would inevitably all go their completely different ways.

At this stage none of the players really had any sort of feel for the game. Nobody seemed to care very much about their kicker, notwithstanding they themselves had wrote it. Nobody but me had read the rules, and nobody seemed to have any interest in doing so. The players seemed to be more tolerating the game than enjoying it.

Although that first session was a start, it was not too encouraging. I then withdrew to lick my wounds. I let many months go by, thinking about the game, re-reading character sheets, reading the Narrativism essay, thinking of more ways to tie together kickers etc. I then tried a second session, this time with only 3 other players. I could now concentrate more on the individual goals of the characters without too many other people getting bored. At least these 3 characters could get to know each other, I thought. And this happened to some degree- one character, a "naive" martial-artist sorecerer came to realise for the first time in his life that it was not just chi-power surging through his veins, but that he was a sorceror with a demon in his blood. He then apprenticed himself to a bookish PC sorcerer with higher Lore, which was a good device to tell the players about the sorcery rules under the guise of the master educating his pupil- remember nobody but me at this time had any idea about how the rules for doing sorcery worked. The game, however, was still flagging., with the characters still just shuffling around unsure of what to do with themselves. I threw in a criminal gang (that was related to several kickers and designed to be one of the unifying aspects of the games), but all that happened was the martial artist decided to fight, got a bad roll, and received a bloody nose, then the fight fizzled.

The third session had a couple more players involved. Things looked promising actionwise with some potentially intersting confrontations with hostile NPCs. The martial artist was now bent on tracking down the thus who had bloodied his nose in the last fight to get his revenge. After an interesting leadup, the encounter occurred, but even rolling about 13 or so dice using Cover, Stamina, Boost etc the character was again greatly unlucky, and rather than trashing 3 knife-wielding thugs with awesome demonic force, simply got slashed and had to use demon power to escape (although at least this was done with style). Meanwhile another character got bored of his self-imposed (via kicker) task of dealing with the grusome murder of a coven member) and went off to join the same criminal gang the martial artist was fighting. The player complained he didn't know what to do in the game. I reminded him of his kicker that he had wrote for himself as to what he wanted to do, but the player complained it was not interesting enough.

In quite separate action elsewhere, a PC surgeon was facing a moral dilemma being blackmailed into performing an illegal kidney removal from an unwilling donor. This bit of play worked OK, but it did little if anything to enrich the game as a whole- it was just one PC dealing with his kicker in a way only vaguely tangentially relevant to any other character.

So at the end of the third session, the game is really going nowhere. The players seem uninterested in their kickers, and are not much more interested in the action I attempt to inject. I think they are feeling the lack of a "genre" they can readily identify and which will tell them what is expected of their characters.

I think that the only way to save my game is to totally abandon all the kickers, come up with my own plotlines from scratch, herd the PCS into a party, and railroad the characters into some serious action. I have resisted doing this so far because that all seems so antithetical to the way the rules suggest Sorcerer is to be played. The play so far has, I suppose, served the purpose of defining the characters to some degree, as well as introducing them to some game mechanics, so at least it has not been entirely wasted. Defining characters through play is obviously important in a game where the charcater sheet of a character is little more than a 4 number affair, with the demons (through their powers) being far better fleshed out on paper than the PCs themselves.

Anyway, that is my experience with Sorcerer so far. Despite the game having rules I like and dealing with subject matter I like (and my players and I normally have reasonably similar likes and dislikes), it is not working out so far. A small element of this would be some natural early awkwardness with a new set of rules, and I admit I have not always run combat exactly right rules-wise. I think the greatest problem, however, is that my players simply don't want any responsibility for anything except for what their character does in some interesting situation the GM has contrived for them to be in. It appears they see the freedom offered by Sorcerer to players (if I am understanding the game correctly) to be a confusing burden rather than any sort of creative bonanza.


Marcus

Marcus,

Twice in the post you said that your players do not care about their Kickers. That is why the game is falling flat. They didn't care where the game started and thus don't care where it goes, it seems to me.

Kickers are the foundation of the story and if the players dont' care about it, the game is going to go nowhere.

What movie, or book or comic book or art is this game inspired by or invoking? Did the players know what kind of story this was going to be?

How big was the original starting group and what was their gaming background?

Good luck.

Hello,

Marcus, what sort of feedback are you looking for? I have a number of observations about your choices as game-organizer and as GM; I think you've summarized the important points about the players already.

I'm hesitant to list what I'm observing about your choices, because if you're not looking for that, then it will come off as accusatory.

Another approach to this conversation concerns some of my recent posts about Sorcerer's audience, gamer-culture, and fun in role-playing.

So let me know what you're interested in talking about. In a thread like this, focusing the goals of the conversation is crucial.

Best,
Ron

Well, Ron can be diplomatic -- he's the game-designer. Me, I'm gonna jump right in.

Keep in mind that none of this should come across as haughty or whatnot -- what I say here comes from my own mistakes and Ron-wristslaps :)

marcus wrote: ...had my first play session now almost 1 year ago, [...] after three sessions of play the game is flagging badly

marcus wrote: I thought that later in the game the characters could travel to less familiar foreign places when I wanted to up the general level of menance.

marcus wrote: Although the issue never struck me as important as it was made out to be, I thought I better decide on what Humanity was. After much thought I decided to keep things simple and use a the most obvious (to me at least) definition of Humanity as being a combination of sanity and empathy, with Humanity 0 making a character an insane psycopath.

marcus wrote: Getting them to create kickers for their characters was the hardest thing- there was great resistance to this. With the exception of one or two players, it seemed to be viewed as an unwelcome imposition of GM duties upon a player.

marcus wrote: With most of the characters now designed in advance, I finally managed to engineer a play session of the game. Most of this session was, however, devoted to creating the remaining characters, placing all the characters in the game world, and trying to cobble together some sort of tenous link between their kickers to give them some sort of reason to meet one another.

marcus wrote: I should add that my RPG group tends to have from 4 to 9 people present on any given day, and this session was one of the larger ones, so at any given time most players were sitting idle as another character was in the limelight.

marcus wrote: This seemed a triumph of organisation, but it was of little assistance in the long term because the characters had little reason to continue to associate and would inevitably all go their completely different ways.

marcus wrote: At this stage none of the players really had any sort of feel for the game. Nobody seemed to care very much about their kicker, notwithstanding they themselves had wrote it.

marcus wrote: one character, a "naive" martial-artist sorecerer came to realise for the first time in his life that it was not just chi-power surging through his veins, but that he was a sorceror with a demon in his blood.

marcus wrote: I threw in a criminal gang (that was related to several kickers and designed to be one of the unifying aspects of the games), but all that happened was the martial artist decided to fight, got a bad roll, and received a bloody nose, then the fight fizzled.

marcus wrote: The third session had a couple more players involved.

marcus wrote: I reminded him of his kicker that he had wrote for himself as to what he wanted to do, but the player complained it was not interesting enough.

marcus wrote: This bit of play worked OK, but it did little if anything to enrich the game as a whole- it was just one PC dealing with his kicker in a way only vaguely tangentially relevant to any other character.

marcus wrote: I think that the only way to save my game is to totally abandon all the kickers, come up with my own plotlines from scratch, herd the PCS into a party

Hi Marcus,

The thing that stuck out about your post for me is:

This seemed a triumph of organisation, but it was of little assistance in the long term because the characters had little reason to continue to associate and would inevitably all go their completely different ways.

Marcus:

At the risk of piling on before receiving your point(s) of focus for this thread . . .

It sounds like you've taken on a number of challenges all at once: switching to a modern setting, a new system, a new aesthetic and a per individual focus (as opposed to troupe-style play). Don't feel too bad if it's not smooth, yet. You've got a lot on your plate!

I echo Doyce's comments and recommend that you tighten up your session pace. The variability in attendance you cite is worth addressing with your group as a seperate issue. Were I you, I would make it clear that I expect consistency. I think the best motivator of group behavior is respect for its leader; by building the value of your preparation and outlining their part in the exchange, you support their equity.

Marcus wrote: I think that the only way to save my game is to totally abandon all the kickers, come up with my own plotlines from scratch, herd the PCS into a party, and railroad the characters into some serious action.

Doyce wrote: Sorcerer is damn near zero-point energy for the GM ..

Doyce wrote: Huge, blinking, neon warning sign here, because this sounds like the player made up a character who "didn't know" they had bound a demon... it happened by accident or something. Radioactive Spider or Intense Training that Didn't Seem Demonic... either way, this just never works.

The character always has to know they bound a demon, and they had to have WANTED it. WHY they wanted it is always different, but the bottom line is they wanted a certain kind of POWER and they were willing to do something Reality Altering to get it.

bcook1971 wrote:

Doyce wrote: Sorcerer is damn near zero-point energy for the GM ..

I can't remember the last time I worked so hard as when I ran my Sorcerer campaign. But it was a different set of muscles.

Thanks for the responses so far. They are the sort of think I was looking for, being diagnoses of what has been going wrong and suggestions for improvements. What I need the most, however, are some good suggestions as to how to kick-restart the game to save it from the a slow downward spiral I think will otherwise kill it. I trust this answers Ron's important question as to what I want to talk about.

Before I answer any other questions posed to me, I should say a little about my gaming group situation as this is useful background and may make some of my choices more understandable.

I have only one gaming group- together there are about 10 of us, if one includes seldom-appearing hangers on. Although there are some newcomers, most of us have gamed together for 20 years. We meet together on average for 1 day a fortnight, provided that at least 4 people are available to attend. The typical size of the group is about 5 or 6 people, although on some days almost everyone turns up. There can also be considerable fluctuation in attendance in the course of a day, as many people arrive late or leave early. I usually have some idea in advance as to who is coming or not, but I never know precisely. There are usually 2 or 3 sessions of play on any given day- usually, but not always, consisting of a different RPG being played each session. In recent times (for the last 10 years, after the other major GM moved to another state and now seldom plays) I have been the GM for the great majority of the games.

There are several time-honoured rules that make up the social contract of our games group, two of which are of relevance. The first is that games are never chosen for play in advance of the games day- one thus cannot announce, for example, that Sorcerer will be played on a given day, it can only be chosen on the day. The second is that before each play session is to begin, the players in attendance all play a short card game called "Bullshit Poker" ( agme with rules that have been augumented gradually over the last 20 years of play), the winner of which has a free choice of any RPG (or, rather, any RPG one of us owns or has written, which still provides quite a large choice) to play during that session, provided there is someone willing to act as a GM to run that game. Over the years we have played in, I guess, several dozen RPGS, with about half a dozen being popular at any point in time. Some games are played almost every games day, whilst others lie fallow for months or even years only to be revamped and revived.

It can be seen that the above rules create a considerable competition between different RPGS. Many players have their favourite RPG or couple of RPGS, and will strive to win to choose these games. Naturally players tend to choose games they are well familiar with, rather than games of which they have little or no knowledge. One can try to "sell" a new game to the other players in advance in the hope one of them will choose it if they win, but from experience this seldom works. Usually the best I can do is to persuade a few potential players to generate characters in advance, although many will not even do this unless the game has been first officially chosen by the approved methodology.

Thus in order for me to introduce a new game to the group, such as Sorcerer, what I usually need to do is to prepare it for play as best I can with only a few characters being created, win Bullshit Poker on the day, announce that Sorcerer will be played, and only then are the other players compelled by convention to create for themselves characters, listen to a brief explanation of how the game works, and start playing the game as run by me. I then must rely on generating sufficient interest in the game through enjoyable play so that other players may consider choosing the game next time they win Bullshit Poker. This I have not yet succeeded in doing with respect to Sorcerer- all 3 play sessions of Sorcerer have been my own election. This is one part of the explanation as to why there have been extensive gaps in play, although the principal reason is that after the first session in which all the characters were created I wanted to have a good long think about how to make the game work.

Now, to answer the other questions which have been posed in the responses.

Judd asked "What movie, or book or comic book or art is this game inspired by or invoking? Did the players know what kind of story this was going to be?"

The answer is that I wasn't particularly trying to invoke any comic book, movie or art, although I could think of several things, such as the movies The Ninth Gate and The Matrix, that I would be happy to see the game reflect. Rightly or wrongly, however, I thought that in Sorcerer I should not impose too much of my own views on the players, but let them set the tone, with my own input being nothing more than a subtle crafting of the play as it naturally evolved. So neither the players nor myself knew what sort of story it is going to be, and still don't. I am happy to formulate a vision and impose it on the players, however, if that is what is being recommended.

As for Judd's question about group size, I have answered that already. In terms of gaming background, as I have said it is vert diverse for the great majority of players. Space does not permit a complete listing of games played, but the most popular games played over the last 20 years would probably be Superhero 2044 (with rules now almost completely rewritten ion the course of play), Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, Dr Who RPG, and several games written by group members, including one based on the Pliocene Saga of Julian May and one called "The Powers Game" set in the contemporary world with a variety of characters with different abilities and "powers".

Doyce asked" did you define, at least for yourself, the kinds of things that would cause a Humanity Check? How about a Humanity Gain (doing 'good' with some personal risk involved)?"

The answer is that I did define it to myself to at least a fair extent. Humanity checks would be required if people did things that placed them too far beyond the pale of conventional reality- this could be dealing too closely with demons (the antithesis of conventional reality) or violating accepted moral norms in too dramatic a fashion (such as kidnapping peoplke and sacrificing them). Humanity gain would flow from restoring reality (like banishing demons) or showing that the character cared greatlky for the conventional world (like doing particularly good deeds for the benefit of others).

In terms of kickers, I thought they generally sounded pretty good, but then again I'm no expert (as I have proved amply in my postings on this topic). I have mentioned the one about the hideously dismembered coven member. A sample of the others are as follows:

- I lost my job and returned home, only to find my house has disappeared off the face of the earth as if it had never existed.

- I discover the special amulet I had been wearing all my life came from another planet.

- I find that some of my university students have been mysteriously exploding.

- My demon discovers that one of my school students is inhabited by a very powerful demon.

- I cannot work out why this rival reporter always seems to get the story before me.

-I am reunited with my brother, who demands I give him one of my kidneys.

As for Doyce's enquiry about my combat experiences, I should admit here that I got the combat rules a little wrong, at least in the last 2 play sessions. The 2 combats in these sessions were very brief, and consisted merely of the 2 combatants throwing their dice in an opposed fashion as seeing who had the higher number and how many successes. After the Martial Artist's failure in the second game session, I decided to give him a roll on Cover to get bonus dice to add to stamina (by preparing himself with his martial arts training), to which his Demon's Boost was added. The charactert then rolled, I think, 13 dice against 4 for the baddy, but lost. I was using d20s, primarily because I had spent a small fortune buying about 50 of them for an abortive foray into Donjon and wanted to get some value out of this investment.

Bill asked "Another thing: what is serious action? Do you mean combat?".

I would answer that "serious action" to my mind usually involves some combat, but not always. What I am talking about is the sort of thing that tends to stop side-conversations and cause the players to focuss very much at what is happening. For this, generally one needs a direct threat (or at least a perceived threat) to one or more character, to which threat the players will feel there needs to be a rapid reaction to ameliorate. So combat fits the bill nicely, but not exclusively- phycological expense, for example, can also work if credible and not overused.

I think that answers all the questions so far posed directly, and several that were only implied.


Marcus

Marcus,

It is not that I have a problem with the Kickers. It is not even worth reading them because you stated twice in your first post that your players are not invested in them. Kickers must be something the players dig. Kickers should be a neon sign, "I dig this!"

Also I don't think anywhere in the Sorcerer text does it say that the GM is not supposed to lead the game. I always notify my players as to what kind of game we are going to be playing. It can be more of a collaborative process with the group deciding together what Humanity means etc. but don't get that mixed up with an everything goes stew with anything any player wants as a PC thrown in because the GM can't tell them no.

The GM in Sorcerer is a leader and a strong one.

Hope this helps.

Hi Marcus,

I understand that your group has long established traditions for how a game day works and how rpgs get chosen. If I understand correctly, you end up with different players and different numbers of players almost every session, you can't predict which game you will be playing, and it might be months before you return to a given rpg. Such an environment does not lend itself to player investment in anything.

Sorcerer runs best in a short "story arc" of 5 or 6 weekly sessions, each of 3 or 4 hours. The game should be restricted to the GM and two or three players (always the same players for a given story arc).

To achieve player investment and consistency I would suggest the following:

1) Invite the 2 or 3 players who are most interested in Sorcerer to play on a _different_ night.

If others complain you're being exclusive, tell them you'd be happy to run a story arc for anyone else - as soon as this one is over. Tell them sorcerer works best in small groups that can meet regularly for 5 or 6 sessions in a row.

2) Ask your Sorceerer volunteers to commit to attenting for 5 or 6 weeks in a row, to commit to showing up at a specific time, and to play for 3 or 4 hours.

3) Follow the advice others have given you about game prep etc.

Don't be afraid to assert yourself. It sounds like you do a lot of work for this group. Your vision deserves some attention.

Alan wrote: 1) Invite the 2 or 3 players who are most interested in Sorcerer to play on a _different_ night.

I don't think this is going to work.

Because it sounds like Sorcerer isn't somthing that the players want to play. That is, Sorcerer shouldn't be played, unless every player says, "Hey, that sounds like fun, yeah." Now, sometimes you can get at least some committment by doing what they guys above have suggested. But, from what you've said about the whole poker thing, you're basically inflicting Sorcerer upon these people.

I don't think any RPG will hold up against that. No matter how potentially entertaining. You have to have buy in from the players to start. Period. No surprise to me that they keep coming back to the other games that they do have an investment in.

Which sounds pretty doom and gloom for old Sorcerer. There's another soluton - you note, "I have one gaming group." Start another. Again, I'm betting that you won't find anyone amongst this group that's interested. And, if so, then don't worry it too much, just go back to playing what they want to play, and not watering that down with Sorcerer sessions.

Instead, ask some other friends if they'd like to play an RPG with you. When they ask what it is, tell em about Sorcerer. Play. Have fun.

I could be wrong about your players. Give Alan's idea a try - can't hurt. But if I were a player in this group, I too would always be trying to get back to the games in which I already had a huge investment in time. One other thing to try, possibly, is ending those other games. If you don't want to be playing them, bring them to some nifty dramatic conclusions.

If you do want to be playing these games, then I think that you're just trying to do too much at once with one group. How did this social contract get established? Have you considered rocking the boat, shaking it up, and seeing if something better would work?

Mike

I realise I could announce a separate set of gaming sessions for Sorcerer, but I am unwilling to do that for two reasons. The first is that to do so risks the destruction of the entire gaming group, as everyone will start demanding special sessions devoted to their own favourite game. Instead of the simplicity of 1 gaming session per fortnight, there will be consant debates as to which of the current half-dozen games will be played in the next session. Players will then start boycotting the sessions of their less favourite games and the whole structure will fragment overnight. I'm not prepared to do this for just one game out of many RPGs I'm interested in. The second is that Sorcerer has not yet built up a fan base in the group, and there is good chance nobody would come to the Sorcerer sessions.

Perhaps it seems strange, or even disfunctional, for every game chosen for play to be nominated by one person rather than be chosen in advance or by a group vote. This system has, however, served very well over the years, and I thing having a large group stay together over a space of 20 years under this system means that the ststem has something going for it. In the past, many new games have risen to popularity through this system, nothwithstanding the fact they were initially foisted on the group by only a single enthusiast- indeed, these games would proably never have been played at all if a majority vote were required, as the majority will tend to vote for a tried and true game for which they do not need to create new characters. What often happens is that although the players are initially reluctant to play, when they actually start playing they like the game and will choose it again next time. This is indeed what happened when I introduced My Life With Master to the group- although I cannot say it is the most favoured game, others in the group have chosen it for replay.

The problem is that this is not happening for Sorcerer. This could be that there is something special about Sorcerer that means the player commitment must come before the game in enjoyable, and thus my standard technique of selling the game to the players through actual play will not work. I think there is something to this, but that I could have minimised this problem if I had started the game differently. In retrospect, perhaps what I should have done was:

(a) As Judd suggested, based the game closely on a movie or comic book and told my players in advance what it was based upon, so they would have this to draw upon from the start; and

(b) Used the in media res technique at the start of the game to throw them all together into some exciting situation. The fun of this might have sold them much better on the game. The players could then write their kickers, and then choose either have their characters separate to explore their individual issues, or recombine as they saw fit.

To get the game going again, I think I should restart it. The next session should be set a year or so after the last session, in some other part of the world. I'll give them a few sentences as to what they are doing there, and then I'll throw them all straight into the action they should have had in session 1. The brief description and action will more closely identify the game with some established fictional precedent. I will then ask the players to rewrite their kickers now that they have a better idea what the game is about and what a kicker is for. If that doesn't do the trick, then I'll simply drop the game, perhaps to try again in a year or so with a Sword-style campaign instead.

Any further comments?


Marcus

Hello,

I've read over the thread to date in detail now, a couple of times, and here's my call.

1. Alan, Judd, Mike, and A.Neill are 100% on the money. Everything they have said is pure gold.

2. I am hesitant to speak in any judgmental way of how this group of people has chosen to role-play. Not even after some tequila. It does look as though you're saying "We have to play this way because it keeps us together, and we stay together because we play this way." I'm not at all sure where the value is coming from, especially for you, who seem to be the workhorse in the picture.

3. I have no personal interest whatsoever in helping you get a Sorcerer game going with these folks, in the context that you've described. That might sound really mean, but I do have a considerable interest in helping you play Sorcerer. Is there any hope at all of separating the two?

Best,
Ron

I think the answer to that last question is in the negative. If Sorcerer just cannot work in the context of my group for some reason, then I will just have to give the game a miss.

This seems to me, however, rather defeatist thinking- my group's methodology never seems to have been an obstacle to RPG enjoyment with any other game, and we have played quite a fair number over quite a long time. I think I will thus implement the strategy I outlined in my last post, and see how that works out.

I think this thread has probably now come to its logical endpoint. Thank you everyone for your assistance.


Marcus

marcus wrote: This seems to me, however, rather defeatist thinking- my group's methodology never seems to have been an obstacle to RPG enjoyment with any other game, and we have played quite a fair number over quite a long time. I think I will thus implement the strategy I outlined in my last post, and see how that works out.

I think Sorcerer poses a special challenge to an experienced player of role-playing games to unlearn his habits; it's amazing how undetectable and entrenched they become. I've heard it said that players new to RPG's have less trouble with Sorcerer's approach.

Paka--whom, I don't know his familiarity with RPG'S--seems to swim in it like a fish, if his play posts are any indicatior. Speaking as an exclusive 1st ed. AD&D guy for many years, I had to really be still and let parts of my brain regain plasticity.

4. I hope this thread is NOT at an end, because I have found it to be one of the most practical and informative among recent threads. Sometimes the group gets very theoretical and I fail to see the practical application, but this one seemed to be very concrete and helpful. Sorry if Marcus didn't like what the group had to say, but I know I did.

marcus wrote: This seems to me, however, rather defeatist thinking- my group's methodology never seems to have been an obstacle to RPG enjoyment with any other game

I'm sorry if I offended any of the contributors to this thread with my last (or any previous) post. That certainly was not my intent.

There are two things I wanted commentary upon in this thread, The first was with respect to things I might have done badly in running my Sorcerer game to date. There have been a number of comments on this topic, and I acknowledge the general validity of those comments, although with the explanation of the circumstances in which I was running the game which was a limiting factor on some of my choices.

The second, and more important, question was this: given that my game has developed historically in the flawed manner outlined, what should I do to try and improve matters and make the game better. The advice on this score was, in effect, that I should start a new RPG group involving only keen Sorcerer players, and have them play Sorcerer regularly every week. I am not saying this was bad advice, but for reasons already explained I consider it unworkable in my circumstances- to run a separate session devoted to only one game out of the many we play would very likely fragment the group, and also that until I have sold the merits of Sorcerer to at least some of my players there would simply be nobody else to play the game with.

Given that the only suggested solution for my problem is impractical for me to implement, I was faced with the choice either of simply never playing Sorcerer again, or trying to discover a different solution. As I think it a shame to abandon a game that I find appealing, I decided to attempt to go for a different solution, being the concept outlined in my last post but one. I am sorry if that choice has insulted any of my fellow Sorcerer players. I myself would have thought that wishing to give the game another try would be less insulting than simply abandoning the game as hopeless.

Finarvyn noted the great degree of player commitment required to carry a game of Sorcerer. I can well believe that statement to be correct. There seems, however, to be an assumption being made that either my players don't invest any energy in their games, or perhaps in some obscure way the group methodology of selecting games for play somehow prevents anything more than a shallow investment in games, and hence the only solution is to find a new group of players with a bit more fire in their bellies. If such assumption is being made, however, it is wrong. My players can invest a huge amount of effort into their characters and into play. Over 20 years of continuous gaming, playing several dozen games, my players have spontaneously drawn up campaign diaries, created folders of character-based artwork, been reduced almost to tears with the death of much-loved charaters, and exhibitted many other signes of engagement wioth their characters and the various game worlds. I remember one player almost killing another at one time over a political issue that arose in the game world (fortunately, however, we dragged the two apart in time). And we are not talking D&D here- for the most part we gave up "dungeon hack" games in high school.

The problem is not that my players don't have the spiritual or mental depth to identify with their characters or have no sense of drama beyond the ability to express exaltation or depression at the results of the roll of a d20, but that the players don't invest a game with this degree of commitment until they are already sold on it through play! This is a real chicken and egg problem- in any game a degree of player commitment is necesary for a successful game, but strong commitment is not likely to be present until the game is already proving successful. In many previous games I have been able to leap this hurdle in some fashion with new games going on to be highly successful within the group, despite the fact that the players started out with no knowledge of the game or even, perhaps, any initial desire to play. With Sorcerer, however, I have still not cleared the initial barrier after 3 play sessions.

To make myself perfectly clear, my players are unlikely to make any special effort at Sorcerer until they are already starting to enjoy the game. Although they may become highly interested in matters such as kickers, theme, and general rules mechanics after they identify the game as enjoyable, before that point they are only going to go through the motions to indulge me. The key is engaging the players in the game without demanding to much prior commitment from them. If there is something inherent in Sorcerer that makes this impossible, then Sorcerer is almost uniquely unsuitable for my group, and I guess I have just wasted my cash. I am not over-anxious, however, to jump to that conclusion.

If people want to continue this thread, that's fine by me. In that case would particularly appreciate suggestions as to how to relaunch my Sorcerer game without abandoning either my players or our "social contract" (as I gather it is referred to) that has kept the group together for 20 years.


Marcus

marcus wrote: my players are unlikely to make any special effort at Sorcerer until they are already starting to enjoy the game.

Marcus, really interesting thread, thanks for starting it, and sticking to what you wanted out of it.

I think it's pretty clear that the way your usual gamer group organises and plays rpgs doesn't suit Sorcerer at all. You either have to skip the game - not a good choice, because you want to play, don't you? - pick out a couple of interested players and play with them on another night, and perhaps evenh better: don't associate playing Sorcerer with your current group at all, play it besides your group, with someone else and enjoy both.

I have moved forth and back between cities and countries a couple of times, and it's always one heck of a hassle to get some gaming going from scratch. It's so much easier to play with your normal group, but meeting new people with different rpg expectations can be a real hoot also.

Tomorrow I am playing my first FTF session for 2 1/2 years, with people I don't know yet and only have met once to discuss the game (we're playing Dogs in the Vineyard at my suggestion, but are moving on to Sorcerer later).

I played Sorcerer once, play-by-post, and I did a couple på basic mistakes and the game stalled too soon. Had the R-Map, Kickers and even Humanity, but failed to discuss Humanity and Demons enough with the other players, but else it worked fine.

I have a lot of people among those I have regularly played rpgs with in the past 15 years that I would never ever suggest to play Sorcerer - that's not saying I don't like them, they just wouldn't like it or understand it basically.

This might be beside the point, but you mentioned MLWM. Maybe you should try another NAR game alternative, maybe a game that works better with an episodic approach. Another suggestion could be Universalis, though I don't know that game enough the sure.

Per

I really think that if you want to re-launch this thing, you should, just bearing in mind that you may not be able to get it to work. One thing that has been said, but probably hasn't been stressed enough, is that not every good game works for every good player. Sorcerer is a good game, but it may not work for your group, and all that means is that it doesn't work for them. It doesn't mean they're shallow players or anything, just that this doesn't jazz them. But let's suppose you're going to re-launch.

First of all, let me ask, how many if any of the other players have read the game, cover to cover? Do they know about things like relationship-maps and such? Or have you worked primarily from an explanation generated yourself?

My suggestion is that you tell them how all this works. If they're not going to read the book, which after all with that many players could take a hell of a long time, then lay it out in game time.

Now run a character creation session, and I mean run it. You have characters already, but the Kickers don't work because the players don't care about them. So maybe these are crappy Kickers for them, or maybe they're just not getting what a Kicker is. Okay, so let's do this as play.

Explain that the point of the next few hours is going to be to inject a lot of nitrous into those Kickers and to build an r-map. If anyone has a suggestion as you go along, especially if it's not the currently-focal PC, he should make that suggestion. Revisions are allowed, even encouraged, if they make for powerful Kickers and relationships.

So here's this guy who got home one day and found that his house wasn't there any more. Fine, that's a little edgy, but let's pick that scab. What does he do for a living? Let's tell the story: start with Dave at work, make him describe what's going on, how does he get home (does he drive? take a train? walk?), what's his house like, what's the neighborhood like, describe describe describe. Have him do all the narration. Whenever he flags a little, try to get other players to help.

"Um, I don't know, it's just a suburban neighborhood." "Anyone want to help out?" "Hey Dave, like, all your neighbors have pink flamingos on their lawns and do tupperware parties, like that." "Yeah, cool, and Dave, you're not married, right? So, like, you don't get along with them well because you don't have a wife to run tupperware parties." GM: "Were you ever married?" Dave: "Um, yeah. My wife left me a couple years ago." Aha!

As you continue this, find out what "my house isn't there any more" means. Is there a crater? Is there simply no house? Do his neighbors recognize him? Is there a house but someone else lives there and has for many years?

And, most importantly, try to make connections on that r-map. Could the lady with the special extraterrestrial amulet be the ex-wife? Could the professor with the exploding students be her brother? Could the reporter with the amazingly effective rival be Dave's lover?

See, this means that when Dave just totally freaks about his house, he's going to go straight to his lover, who's another PC, who's having her own problems right now, and so on.

And all the time, constantly, be asking about those demons. If Dave's demon's Need is something that was in the house, what's Dave going to do about it? Remember that demons are what sets sorcerers apart from the rest of humanity -- and apart from Humanity. They do this on purpose, not by accident; they have made pacts with demons. This gets us to a really important thing about Kickers:

When Dave really freaks, because his life is changed drastically and he doesn't know what to do about it, one of his very first thoughts should be, "I bet my demon can help."

If you get everyone pitching in to complicate and intertwine everyone's stories together, you will end the character design session with:

• A very complicated relationship map that means characters cannot split up and go their own way
• A lot of characters who are now, willy-nilly, in the middle of big events that are about them, personally
• A lot of characters who are pretty complicated and pretty screwed up
• A lot of characters who, when the shit hits the fan, tend immediately to look for demonic help -- and this last means
• A lot of characters who are ready and willing to sacrifice Humanity because their lives are going awry


I hope some of this helps. I think the big trick to a game like this is to get the players into a situation they really can't just back out of. Yes, the players. They invent these characters, and these Kickers, and they think it's all just sort of back-story. Suddenly they find that the entire game is about nothing but them; everything else is sort of incidental frills, in a sense. That's what was meant about GM-ing Sorcerer being zero-energy.

See, you might have in mind that all these Kickers are really about the alien sorcerers out to destroy Sydney or something. Forget that. If it works, it works, but it's irrelevant. What matters is the characters, and putting them in situations where they have to make choices between Humanity and more apparently desirable options. They're really tightly woven together through relationships, so that they can't even agree that things suck; instead you get, "This sucks." "Yeah, that was always your problem, you're a whiner, and that's why you couldn't ever get it up." "Oh, Lisa darling, maybe that wasn't Dave's problem, because you know, we have lots of fun in bed; maybe it's your frigidity, and have you talked to a doctor about that? I just worry about you, you know." "Listen, bitch, just because you're a slut who'll screw a table leg...." Meanwhile Sydney is in flames and the demons are ready to fight it out.

And when things really get bad, and everyone's really on edge, and you really have to get moving right now or else, and you see some hoodlum trying to drive your car away in this bad neighborhood, what happens? "Kroork, kill him!" Raarrrgh! Muncha muncha muncha. Because demons are not powerful like machine guns; they're insanely not part of this universe kind of powerful, and you didn't do this by accident, you did this on purpose. What sort of person does that make you? And when the cops try to put you in jail and your demon amulet has been taken away and you just really, really have to get loose because otherwise Sydney is going up in smoke, have you considered just summoning another demon? Rrarrgh, muncha muncha muncha. No really, that was justified, right?

This is Sorcerer.

Hope this helps!

Marcus wrote: .. I would particularly appreciate suggestions as to how to relaunch my Sorcerer game without abandoning either my players or our "social contract" ..

Marcus wrote: The main problem seemed to be whether to run a modern campaign or a Sword campaign .. I settled in the end for a modern campaign .. to help the players identify with the the characters.

Marcus wrote: .. the characters [were] still just shuffling around unsure of what to do with themselves.

Marcus wrote: I threw in a criminal gang (that was related to several kickers and designed to be one of the unifying aspects of the games), but all that happened was the martial artist decided to fight, got a bad roll, and received a bloody nose, then the fight fizzled.

Marcus wrote: Meanwhile another character got bored of his self-imposed (via kicker) task of dealing with the gruesome murder of a coven member) and went off to join the same criminal gang the martial artist was fighting. The player complained he didn't know what to do in the game. I reminded him of his kicker .. but [he] complained it was not interesting enough.

Marcus wrote: This bit of play worked OK, but it did little if anything to enrich the game as a whole- it was just one PC dealing with his kicker in a way only vaguely tangentially relevant to any other character.

Marcus wrote: A small element of this would be some natural early awkwardness with a new set of rules, and I admit I have not always run combat exactly right rules-wise.

Marcus wrote: I think the greatest problem, however, is that my players simply don't want any responsibility for anything except for what their character does in some interesting situation the GM has contrived for them to be in.

Alan said:

"You've said that starting a separate game, just for four or five weeks to play Sorcerer, would fragment your group. It sounds like you're afraid that the only thing that has kept all these people attending your fortnightly gamenight over the past 20 years, is your current format. Don't the decades of attendance indicate commitment to more than just the format? Aren't these people your friends?"

The main problem with declaring a separate game session for Sorcerer is that then suddenly everyone will demand a separate session for any game they particularly want to promote. These separate sessions will then compete with one another for players and timeslots. Numbers will halve overnight as people only find the time to attend the sessions of their favourite games, and abandon all others- and most games I prefer to run with more players, not fewer. I suspect that after a couple of months of confusion, half the games we currently play will then die due to insufficient attendances, with only one or two games then developing a complete monopoly. One of the games most likely to be abandoned in this process would, ironically, be Sorcerer.

Although it might seem odd to outside observers, the Bullshit Poker process adopted by my group is, in my view, highly functional for a group with a wide choice of potential games before it. It is a very neat way to stop lengthy arguments about choice of game, and to prevent any one game dominating too much within the group to the exclusion of other games, especially new games to be introduced. The proceedure is not adopted because the group is so lacking in cohesion that it must invoke the shared experience of an ancient ritual to survive, but because the whole mechanism is simply so well adapted to a multi-RPG situation. Unless a group of players is interested in playing only, say, two or three RPGS, I cannot see a superior solution to the one we have adopted. It fosters group cohesion not so much by nostalgia, but by diffusing disputes that would otherwise probably have broken the group up many years ago.


Moving on to the suggestions related to relaunching the game, thanks for the time and effort employed in the various responses. In order to assimilate these reponses and make sure I understand, at the risk of oversimplification I will summarise what has been recently proposed:

Alan seems to be suggesting that things may not be so worring as I think, as Sorcerer games normally start with a little floundering and take a few gaming sessions to reach "ignition point". If I am correctly reading his comment, this is encouraging news. Alan also cautions me against directing the players down any particular path plotwise.

Per suggests that my entire Sorcerer enterprise is inevitably doomed, at least with my current group as it is, and suggests I try another game instead.

Chris seems to be suggesting that my Sorcerer game should be more like a post-modern soap-opera, with a lot of attention paid to the minutiae of the characters lives, and their personal relationships with one another, but with the twist that there are bizarre and dark happenings in the background. Thus instead of a jilted lover reaching for a pair of scissors to stab her old beau, she reaches for a demon to blast the bejeezus out of him. Make the backstory drive the game, Alan appears to suggest.

I am not suggesting that Chris' advice would not and has not worked a treat in other Sorcerer groups, but I'm worried that a game run like this is not going to appeal to my group. In my opinion, they are going to find it difficult to care about whether their wives have tupperware parties, or whether their girl friends find them to be sexually inadequate. To them, this might some interesting background colour, but the real issue is likely to be whether Dr Demonovich can join the Three Tomes of Azrael before Jonothan Kane can penetrate the heavily-guarded Zaibatsu Corporation building and download the Tibetan Ritual of Rogation (or whatever). Does that mean Per is right and I'm doomed?

Bill seems to suggest that I should confront the players with choices more directly, and then let them do some serious ass-kicking. I can certainly identify with this agenda (which I am perhaps only wishfully projecting upon Bill), although I am not sure how well it reconciles with the "focus on the relationships, let the players drive the action" school of thought which to my mind was supposed to apply to Sorcerer.

Perhaps that is been my main problem running the game- I am divided between two principles, being "don't exercise any control, the players will drive the game and interesting situations will arise out of the adressing of the character's life issues", and the conflicting "take control, drive the players to the interesting bits, but then let them choose their own destiny by how they decide to act". To my mind, the latter will only work if I work out a plotline of some sort (or, rather, a series of branching plotlines with player choices to determine which path is in fact followed), but I fear that I am then violating the principles of Sorcerer by doing this. I am concerned, however, that the former strategy is not going to work at all.


Marcus

Environment matters. There is potential to sharpen your game by making changes at this level.

I express your Bullshit Poker as a fun, slightly random way to enforce "I sit for you, you sit for me." Sounds functional to me.

Marcus wrote: Alan seems to be suggesting that things may not be so worring as I think, as Sorcerer games normally start with a little floundering and take a few gaming sessions to reach "ignition point".

Marcus wrote: Chris seems to be suggesting that my Sorcerer game should be more like a post-modern soap-opera .. but [my players' interest] is likely to be whether Dr Demonovich can join the Three Tomes of Azrael before Jonothan Kane can penetrate the heavily-guarded Zaibatsu Corporation building and download the Tibetan Ritual of Rogation (or whatever).

Marcus wrote: Perhaps that is been my main problem running the game- I am divided between two principles, being "don't exercise any control, the players will drive the game and interesting situations will arise out of the adressing of the character's life issues" ..

Marcus wrote: .. and the conflicting "take control, drive the players to the interesting bits, but then let them choose their own destiny by how they decide to act".

Marcus wrote: To my mind, the latter will only work if I work out a plotline of some sort (or, rather, a series of branching plotlines with player choices to determine which path is in fact followed), but I fear that I am then violating the principles of Sorcerer by doing this.

Marcus wrote: .. I am concerned, however, that the former strategy is not going to work at all.

Hello,

Marcus, if you're interested, check out practically any threads begun by Jesse Burneko (jburneko) in this forum. I also suggest contacting him by email or PM.

Everyone, let's give this thread a rest for a while and come back to its topics in new threads. The actual topic (Marcus' Sorcerer game) seems addressed, as there really isn't any said game, and now we seem to be moving into issues of general principles.

Best,
Ron

Although I don't agree with Ron's comment that I don't really have a Sorcerer game, I do agree that discussion on the problems I raised has pretty well run its course.

Your collected responses have given me food for thought. As Ron suggests, I may take up some of the general issues raised in new threads.

Thank you all.


Marcus