I have been working on a Sorcerer setting based loosely on some of the earlier writings of H.P. Lovecraft, and my demons are looking awfully bizarre. Hence the considerations in this thread.

Sorcerer allows-- demands-- extensive customization before play can begin. It's anything but out-of-the-box playable.

But working from the definition of demons in my proposed setting (which One-Sheet will appear here once it's done)-- ectoplasmic horrors from Beyond, not "spirits" but aliens-- I find I am customizing huge amounts. Specifically, thinking about Lovecraft's extradimensional Things has me thinking of the mind-bending effects of their mere appearance. I find myself considering abilities like Daze, Confuse, and Taint as "field" effects, hitting everyone within Range... and manifesting themselves as sheer terror.

Of course this is radical customization, adding an aspect that isn't even covered in the rules.

This will shake out during play. Maybe it's a bad idea; only actual play will tell. But I was wondering how much customization-- *beyond* the one-sheet questions-- some of you others have done. Are demon abilities routinely altered, or do have you (and you and you and you) stuck pretty closely to the book?


Dave

One of my Secrets about &Space is exactly what I did with the demons. Lets just say it required radical additions to the basic Sorcerer rules. So, I'd say go for it. The Demon powers are delineated to give you an idea of the spirit of the rules. If your concept of demons requires alteratins go ahead.

That all said, I think that the simple "field" solution is to make that a power like ranged. Essentially, if it needs to be bought ranged, that has to be taken first. Ranged powers can then be bought as "Field" powers. These might have the limitation that they are Always On and nobody can decide to not use them. (people may note that I am just extending the Hero System methodology parallel system that Sorcerer does; it's probably a bit dangerous to add too much that way).

I like the concept. Sounds very cool. I assue then that Humanity is Sanity, your connection with the world we all cling to? Humanity zero means complete Chuthulonian madness, just like San 0 in CoC?

I can see it now, your Lore score determines just how many old tomes of Mythos info you've got in your library. Can't wait to see the whole thing.

Mike

David,

This isn't radical customization at all. It's normal and expected. You're right about Sorcerer and "out of the box." Sorcerer is written for people who are sick and tired of playing out of the box in the traditional sense (i.e., learning a detailed setting and cosmology, and picking from a set of well-defined character types to play).

I find that many people, in reading Sorcerer, perform a type of customization that they do not even perceive - that is, whatever they think the rules must be saying. It varies widely. I had a very confusing conversation with one person until I realized he was assuming, from the git-go, that Humanity was "soul" and demons must be from Hell. Another person took what you are calling radical customization as the default. Neither person was really able to separate what I had actually written from their own immediate interpretation, and to realize that they were already "customizing" in the very act of learning the rules. Now, having done so, they found some of the abilities to be better suited to their visions (which they considered their literal perceptions) than others, and thus they asked me, "What's this doing here?"

Sometimes, in discussing these things, a few people have complained (much more bitterly than you did in the other thread, by the way) that the text needed more examples to help them explain how various powers might or might not be used. I disagree. I think that the cognitive disconnect is arising in the readers, and it's highly variable, per person, regarding just what part of the rules is "vague." For instance, some folks internalized Mark or Taint instantly but balked at Hint; others have no problem with those but balk at Spawn. Or perhaps it's combat, or pehaps it's the Hell/dimension or whatever as the origin of demons.

In all cases, I have found the same explanation to suffice: "Strip out what you are assuming, and read the rules again, and only the rules, then exercise your creativity actively rather than as an assumption." My only alternative would have been to provide this principle, with examples of the vast diversity possible, for every ability, concept, and rule in the entire book.

Best,
Ron

Ron said:

Sometimes, in discussing these things, a few people have complained (much more bitterly than you did in the other thread, by the way) that the text needed more examples to help them explain how various powers might or might not be used. I disagree. I think that the cognitive disconnect is arising in the readers, and it's highly variable, per person, regarding just what part of the rules is "vague."

Bankuei wrote: I guess some people just need to be told everything :P

Adding to Xiombarg's comment,

Although I haven't grabbed any of the mini-supplements yet, Sorcerer & Soul is full of examples of "changes" in the rules...

But again, I don't think of them as rules changes. I seem them as using the rules already in the box, like a fresh kit of lego blocks, to make what I want.

In this regard I view Sorcerer a very much playable "out of the box" -- but it depends on what your definition of "play" is. When I looked at Traveller in the little black box lo' those many years ago, it cracked open all expectations of what play was. Play was making up whatever I wanted within the framework presented in the rules. Sorcerer taps into an older design theory: that creating the world and thematic elements is the group's job, not the job of some guy up in Montreal, over in Georgia, or wherever.

In contrast, games that have so much material that I need to go get a PhD in a fictional world before I feel comfortable handling whatever nuttiness my players might throw at me seems very much not playable out of the box.

And I'm not saying Dave was wrong in his point of view. It's a very common one these days. It's just not the one I was exposed to first. I also never bought a adventure module or source material for campaign worlds when I ran AD&D. Not because I was making some statement. It just never occurred to me to do that. We were making up our own stuff -- magic items, cultures, whatever.

The "new" way of doing things, through the 90's, with full back ground settings and rules desgined to handle one set of situations alone, runs counter to my idea of play: a flexible and coherent set of rules capable of being plugged into new patterns that serve my needs and imagination.

It's not always what we mean by play when we crack open an RPG -- but back in the old days, customizing worlds and rules, without having to ignore or break the rules was always part of the process of play.


Christopher

I would contend that the How I Did It chapter out of the main book does provide a setting for those who want to use it. It isn't exactly the setting I chose, but I found myself creating one that was very much inspired by it, as well as Raymond Chandler and Ross MacDonald.

I wonder if some of this confusion might not be helped by putting a mention on the Buy Sorcerer page that pre-built settings are available as mini-supplements. It's mentioned in the book, and here on the forum, but people don't always make that connection. Having yet another pointer to these settings might help some.