A few months ago I ran a one-shot game of Sorcerer with the gaming club at my old college. Actually, I attempted to run a one-shot game but fell quite short of my lofty ideals. Most of the players in the gaming club (and the only ones playing in this game) were what you guys call Simulationist-by-Habit, and our GM styles tend to focus on improvising off-the-cuff Sim adventures, usually striving towards Narrativism by way of the Orient Express.

Despite Sorcerer very obviously being a game that requires heavy prep before play, I thought I could get away with improvising a quick relationship map and some bangs inside the half hour break between character creation and play. That might have worked if I hadn't brought way too many Sim preconceptions to the table - I totally misinterpreted the initiative system and almost all the players had the "stupid dice" problem - the dice mechanic was so elegant, we didn't get it, and spent long minutes staring at the dice (my misinterpretation of initiative really compunded this problem).

On the upside, despite one player having reservations about the dice system (I think he felt a bit deprotagonized because of some bad rolls), the players enjoyed themselves, and I got a better feel for Narrativist style GM-ing.

In particular, the character creation system amazed people. Even though they're used to number crunching during creation, I have never seen them so stumped- they rarely had to think so hard about their actual characters, as opposed to skills, attributes and so on. Bravo for coming up with such a powerfully focused way to build a character, Ron.

Later,
Tim

Hi Tim,

That's a remarkably positive ending paragraph for what seems to be a frustrating role-playing experience.

In terms of prep time, I do think that it can be fast (faster than some think), but what it includes is nigh-mandatory. Those things are:

1. Group discussion of the forthcoming game, focused almost entirely on Color and on "demons look like" and "demons do."

2. Character and demon creation which culminates in that neat diagram on the backs of the character sheet. This short phrase hides the rather hard-core concepts of Binding and Kickers.

When people are used to the role of Color as utilized in Sorcerer, and enthused about Kickers, then prep is pretty quick, certainly less than some games. First-time play probably isn't going to be quick at all, though.

Why did you pick your campus club to play with, especially given your understanding of railroading issues? No one else?

Also, the discussion of the dice makes me wince, because it reminds me of what seems to happen to a lot of folks who've played a fair amount of D&D or White Wolf games - they are reeeeally committed to "take your turn" play and a particular mode of IIEE, and often convinced that all dice systems work that way.

Best,
Ron

Hello,

I agree that the initiative system is probably the hardest thing to get one's head around especially when you are applying it to non-combat situations.

GM: The king rises and accuses, "I saw you with another..."
Player physically gestures and starts shouting something back in attempt to cause a distration.

The common mistake here is for the player to believe that because he succeeded in cutting the GM off he has succeeded in cutting the king off.

So it seems a little weird and somtimes frustrating to a player who is used to this sytle of play when the GM calls for a Will roll and then if the GM rolls higher say that he can either continue causing his distraction and defend against the Kings proclemation with a single die or do something else to ward off the social damage the kings accusation is about to cause and use his full Will.

It's probably the most alien mechanic I've seen and in all the times I've played Sorcerer I've almost never gotten it correct in the heat of play.

Jesse

Yeah - the majority of the games we played were White Wolf and D&D - we were just totally blindsided by the resolution system. I feel much more confident about it now.
I was more concerned about getting them to understand Kickers and Humanity than I was about Color and the diagram (which I now understand is key).
I also gave them a quick rundown of Story Now, which was a new idea for them. I explained it as legal, encouraged metagaming bent towards making a good story - previously metagaming was a big no-no. It was a little difficult to get some of them to accept the new ideas - actually, that's not true. The real difficulty was getting the ideas put into practice - they didn't understand how proactive a stance they would need to take to have a enjoyable experience. Incidentally, the player who had the most trouble was the one who most fully embraced the character creation concept. But by the end of the session, they had all gotten the jist of things.
The concept of NPCs as vital components for the story, as opposed to tools for the GM sailed right over their heads. Kickers gave them a whole load of trouble, and I had to bite my tongue to keep from attempting to railroad them through their Kickers (old habits).

I GMed for the campus club because I thought it might provide them with a style of playing that they would really enjoy, and I have no other group to play with. Also, we're all friends.
Ideally, I'd like to find a group of newbies to play with, as kind of a poker night activity, but the idea of bringing up the subject to people who have never played makes me wary.

(EDIT: jburneko, we couldn't even use the resolution system correctly for combat, and the idea of using it to structure other things - which is a great idea - is still very new to me. I mean, I jumped from D&D and railroaded Vampire games straight into an off-the-cuff session of Sorcerer. It hurt my head a bit.)

Hi Tim,

Entrenched gamers usually have problems only because of the conditioning and expectations that most other games have induced. I find it easier to bust the conditioning before trying Sorcerer, usually with something like Inspectres or octaNe, which forces players to have to face stances other than Actor stance.

After a few games like that, folks realize that metagaming won't destroy the game, and that the hardcore railroading isn't necessary. It's rather like taking the training wheels off the bike and people are amazed to find that they are actually not falling over.

Once everyone is able to trust themselves and each other(as players, as GM, as a group), then the only matter is understanding resolution, which is actually rather simple.

Chris

Thanks Chris, that's some good advice. Next time I'll try breaking them in with The Pool or InSpectres.

Hey Tim,

I haven't actually played The Pool, but I have read the system and a number of reviews and threads, and I'd strongly suggest that it would not be a good game to "break them in on". It's far too radical and from what I can see, relies too heavily on players being able to take control and abandon preconceptions, not to mention be very confident in their use of all stances. But as I said, I haven't actually played it, so take this with a grain of salt.

-Ben

My suggestions for break-in games:

Soap
InSpectres
Universalis
My Life with Master
Primetime Adventures

All of these are much freakier than Sorcerer, in game-culture terms, yet much friendlier in terms of themes and settings, for various reasons.

Best,
Ron

In the end I (and my player's ive been told) are drawn into any game by good story telling. If you can keep their interest in the story youve won them over. Over the last eight years Ive been building/destroying/building better/tweeking our own system.

The first system was far to mechanical where you could have variables for anything and rules to apply them with. The second try was too abstact so after countless builds we've used the same basic foundation. In all that time (especially the begging system) we often ran into snags. basically when the rules get stupid complex you lose interest.

Anytime I ran into a situation like you did I would throw out the rule and run the whole game diceless. It worked great. we could just concentrate on what trully moves a game (the setting, story and characters in it).

After the game was over we would go back and discuss the rule or mechanic we didnt like and work out any bugs. You just dont want to do that in the middle of a game :) So far our technique has worked we've been using the same mechanic fondation for about three years now.

Hope you got something out of all that ;)

Hi Adorame,

Gotta tell you, man, that whole "chuck the system" approach is exactly where Sorcerer does not go. The system flies beautifully by being applied, not by being ignored. The entrenched gamer has trouble with this because he or she is used to interjecting bullying, distraction, and debate into the situation in order to avoid a broken system's negative influence.

Are you familiar with the game, or with accounts of actual first-time play? Your post implies to me that you're not, which is kind of a tricky foundation for hoppin' into a specialized discussion.

Best,
Ron

Ben, Ron - thanks for the advice. I'll look into those games. Adorame, thanks a bunch,but it wasn't the system or the story that was the problem. The problems came from me trying to get the group to play in an unfamiliar style, with a system different from what we are accustomed to. It's more of a learning curve issue than anything else.

Thanks,
-Tim

Hi folks,

Funny enough, its not really the "radical" ideas that make Sorcerer a hard cross-over- it's that all the prime Narrativist features lie within areas which other games leave to Social Contract, but mostly advise either Gamist or Sim play- the whole "Where does story come from?" bit.

The "break-in" games are usually successful because they slam player input down the throats of everyone present, and it's in the basic resolution, there is no option to ignor things. One could take the basic Sorcerer resolution mechanic, hack off all the Kicker/Bang/Humanity stuff, and drift it easily to Gamist or Sim play, which is usually what happens with folks totally unfamiliar to Nar play.

It's the hardcoreness of the breakin games, usually masked in fun, light, or easy genre matter that allows people to swallow the bitter pill of, "No, this won't destroy all gaming as we know it..."

Chris

Exactly what Chris said. I want to concur that the Pool is not a great break-in game. The reason is that the whole game fits on like two 8.5 x 11 pages. It doesn't give you a lot of textual help. I think it *is* a great game for an experienced GM to introduce players to narrativism. I speak from experience here.

On the flip side, the child of the Pool - The Questing Beast - is inexpensive, and gives you MUCH more help. It's also a little more energetic in forcing player involvement (you must MoV, or MoD, when you roll one, you can't opt out). It's also quite freindly in terms of setting. It's a game of Arthurian Romance, which most gamers are already pretty familiar with, and it's anthropomorphic, which adds a degree of initial lightness that can take some of the pressure off the players.

Thanks a bunch for all the responses, guys - they're a lot of help. I'll spend some time trying to ease these guys in a bit more slowly (provided they're interested - I can always run more Sim, too).
The Pool and Sorcerer can wait. Although one of the players in the Sorcerer session was a relative newbie to roleplaying, and had absolutely no trouble. I should have mentioned that, except I was more concerned about the other players. I hear that people who haven't roleplayed much tend to "get" Story Now and Author stance right away - do you think playing Sorcerer or the Pool with a group of newbies would be advisable? I don't anticipate many more problems on my part with regards to rules.

(Edit: Paganini - I assumed by "break-in", you meant introducing people with prior roleplaying experience to Narrativsm.)