Hello,

While cruising Wikipedia for some Cold War details, I discovered this: Sorcerer.

Various things on the page are ... dated, at best. The influence of the single reviewer ever to dislike the game is clearly present. It struck me as a gross case of conflict-of-interest to edit the thing myself, but if anyone who wants to bring some more accurate representation to the task is interested, please feel free.

Best,
Ron

I just looked at it, and it doesn't look terrible. As if the negative stuff may have been moved into the "criticisms" section since your reading? Or does it still need editing, Ron?

Mike

Hello,

I think it's definitely conflict-of-interest for me to list my criticisms of the page. If anyone checks it out and thinks, "Oh, not bad," then that's good, and they shouldn't look to me for guidance. If on the other hand, someone looks at the page and says, "Oogie, needs editing," then I sure hope they do so.

I fall into the latter category but have excluded myself from the right to edit that page.

Best,
Ron

Ron (or anyone else),

I've searched through a few threads, but I am apparently missing what I am looking for: I know we discussed the so-called "pokemon problem" here, and came to some sort of conclusion as to how the situation should have been handled according to the written rules of Sorcerer.

Unfortunately I cannot find the thread wherein that information was posted. I vaguely recall the content -- something about Will dice, and that the sorcerers should be involved & rolling as well -- but my rephrase of it sounds like crap, whereas I recall the original response to such was well-written and inclusive.

If anyone can point me to the direct text of that response, I would appreciate it (no, "Maybe this thread?" sorts of responses please, I've probably read "that thread" -- if you know right where to find what I am looking for, tell me, if you do not, don't send me looking). Thanks!

Hello,

Here's the thread from the past: Pokemon: feature or bug? And more.

However, reading it over, I think that the thread was a waste of time and that there is no "Pokemon criticism," and never was. The situations cited as such are merely instances of stupid, crappy play, based on older habits of "gamer-think" and have nothing to do with Sorcerer.

As an interesting counter-example, discussions of actual Pokemon Sorcerer, which is to say, in the understanding of what the show Pokemon is really about, point instead to fun, active, and meaningful play. (See Madcat's RPG.net threads)

Best,
Ron

The linked thread above is the one I was looking at the other night and could not find the response I recall; I swear I recall (possibly) Mike writing up some detailed response of how play should have occurred, had the group actually been playing Sorcerer and not What-I-Think-Is-Sorcerer.

Of course, this is all beside the issue of reviewer bias (the whole "I hate indie games, but I'll pretend to be an objective reviewer anyways" revelation), which should definitely be noted.

Anyways, what you state was my reading of the "Pokemon problem" as well (and thus not surprisingly part of my forthcoming addition/edit of the "Criticism" section).

BTW, those Madcat threads might be what I am looking for, but RPGnet is turning up no results with the Search Engine and I am tired of trying variations in the hopes of finding it. Anyone have a direct link?

Hello,

Found Madcat's comments in the Actual Play threads on the Sorcerer site: Pokemon ... and Sorcerer. Don't know whether it's what you're looking for. Perhaps in the threads associated with Zebrowski's original review (to use the term loosely)?

Best,
Ron

Thanks, Ron. The thread was not it (and I'd read through the responses on the various reviews last night without luck), though the discussion did give me an interesting perspective into the "forces" that might be behind a demon's Needs. So, regarding the "how to play" bit I've been looking for, at this point, given all the searching and reading I've done, I honestly believe I may just be recalling a phantasm that never actually existed. Ah well.